project description - dairyland power · web viewapproximately 17.4 miles of new 69 kv transmission...

Rock Elm-Nelson Area (N-5) 69 kV Transmission Line Project

(RUS Code 1092)

Environmental Assessment

December 2018

Prepared for:

Rural Utilities ServiceUnited States Department of Agriculture

Submitted by:


Contents

Page

1. Project Description.......................................................................................................................

1.1 Project..................................................................................................................................1.2 Schedule...............................................................................................................................1.3 Project Location....................................................................................................................1.4 Project Design and Construction..........................................................................................

1.4.1 Preconstruction Activities.........................................................................................1.4.2 Access Routes and Material Laydown.....................................................................1.4.3 Transmission Structures..........................................................................................

2. Purpose and Need for the Project...............................................................................................

3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project..........................................................................................

3.1 Alternative Plans to Address Transmission Issues in Rock Elm -Nelson Area.....................3.2 Route Alternatives................................................................................................................

3.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated...................................................................3.3 Alternative Designs and Construction Methods....................................................................3.4 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................

4. Overview of Applicable Environmental Laws and Executive Orders......................................

5. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation and Monitoring..............................................

5.1 Land Use..............................................................................................................................5.1.1 General Land Use...................................................................................................5.1.2 Prime and Important Farmland................................................................................5.1.3 Formally Classified Land.........................................................................................5.1.4 General Land Use Impacts......................................................................................5.1.5 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts..................................................................5.1.6 Formally Classified Land Impacts..........................................................................5.1.7 Land Use Mitigation and Monitoring......................................................................

5.2 Vegetation...........................................................................................................................5.2.1 Vegetation.............................................................................................................5.2.2 Vegetation Impacts................................................................................................5.2.3 Vegetation Mitigation and Monitoring....................................................................

5.3 Floodplains.........................................................................................................................5.3.1 Floodplains............................................................................................................5.3.2 Floodplains Impacts...............................................................................................5.3.3 Floodplain Mitigation and Monitoring.....................................................................

5.4 Water Quality......................................................................................................................5.4.1 Water Quality.........................................................................................................5.4.2 Water Quality Impacts.............................................................................................5.4.3 Water Quality Mitigation and Monitoring..................................................................

5.5 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................5.5.1 Wetlands..................................................................................................................5.5.2 Wetland Impacts......................................................................................................

i


5.5.3 Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring..........................................................................5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................

5.6.1 Threatened and Endangered Species.....................................................................5.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts.....................................................5.6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Mitigation and Monitoring..........................

5.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources...............................................................................................5.7.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources..................................................................................5.7.2 Fish and Wildlife Resource Impacts......................................................................5.7.3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Mitigation and Monitoring...........................................

5.8 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................5.8.1 Cultural Resources................................................................................................5.8.2 Cultural Resource Impacts....................................................................................5.8.3 Cultural Resource Mitigation and Monitoring.........................................................

5.9 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................5.9.1 Air Quality..............................................................................................................5.9.2 Air Quality Impacts................................................................................................5.9.3 Air Quality Mitigation and Monitoring.....................................................................

5.10 Visual Resources................................................................................................................5.10.1 Visual Resources...................................................................................................5.10.2 Visual Resource Impacts.......................................................................................5.10.3 Visual Resource Mitigation and Monitoring...........................................................

5.11 Transportation.....................................................................................................................5.11.1 Transportation.......................................................................................................5.11.2 Transportation Impacts..........................................................................................5.11.3 Transportation Mitigation and Monitoring..............................................................

5.12 Health and Safety...............................................................................................................5.12.1 Health and Safety..................................................................................................5.12.2 Health and Safety Impacts.....................................................................................5.12.3 Health and Safety Mitigation and Monitoring.........................................................

5.13 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio and Television Interference................................................5.13.1 Corona...................................................................................................................5.13.2 Audible Noise........................................................................................................5.13.3 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio, and Television Interference Impacts.....................5.13.4 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio, and Television Interference Mitigation and

Monitoring.............................................................................................................5.14 Socioeconomic and Community Resources.......................................................................

5.14.1 Socioeconomic and Community Resources..........................................................5.14.2 Socioeconomic and Community Resource Impacts..............................................5.14.3 Socioeconomic and Community Resource Mitigation and Monitoring...................

5.15 Environmental Justice.........................................................................................................5.15.1 Environmental Justice............................................................................................5.15.2 Environmental Justice Impacts..............................................................................5.15.3 Environmental Justice Mitigation and Monitoring...................................................

ii


6. Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................

7. Agencies Consulted and Permitting Requirements..................................................................

8. Public Notice and Comment........................................................................................................

9. References....................................................................................................................................

10. List of Preparers.........................................................................................................................

Appendices

Appendix A: Sheet Maps

Appendix B: Transmission Planning Study

Appendix C: Agency Coordination

Appendix D: Cultural Resources Literature Review and Addendum

Appendix E: Notice of Availability Newspaper Advertisement and Legal Notice

Tables

Table 1: Length of Project Segments—Rebuild, New Build, Retire, and Alternatives.................................1-2

Table 2: Project Location............................................................................................................................. 1-3

Table 3: Overview of Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, Standards, and Permits....................................4-1

Table 4: Project Segments in Proximity to Residences...............................................................................5-4

Table 5: Project Segment Crossings of Prime Farmland.............................................................................5-4

Table 6: Approximate Length and Impacts of Rebuild by County................................................................5-6

Table 7: Approximate Length and Impacts of New Build by County............................................................5-7

Table 8: Approximate Length and Impacts of Retire by County..................................................................5-7

Table 9: Approximate Length of Alternative by County1..............................................................................5-8

Table 10: Project Segment Crossings of Prime Farmland...........................................................................5-9

Table 11: Land Cover Types Crossed by the Project ROW......................................................................5-11

Table 12: Land Cover Types Crossed by the Alternative Segments ROW................................................5-12

Table 13: Floodplains Crossed by the Project ROW.................................................................................5-14

Table 14: Named Waterbodies Crossed by the Project...............................................................................5-0

Table 15: Federally or State Listed Species Known or Believed to Occur Near the Project ROW..............5-8

Table 16: Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes for Select Roads Crossed by the Project......................5-22

Table 17: Airports within Five Miles of the Project.....................................................................................5-23

iii


Table 18: Common Noise Sources and Levels..........................................................................................5-27

Table 19: Construction Equipment Noise Levels.......................................................................................5-29

Table 20: Census Data by County and Census Tracts crossed by the Project.........................................5-32

Photographs

Photograph 1: Helicopter Transporting Steel Caisson to Construction Site.................................................1-9

Photograph 2: Vibratory Hammer................................................................................................................1-9

Photograph 3: Vibratory Hammer Installing Caisson...................................................................................1-9

Photograph 4: Helicopter Stringing Wire..................................................................................................... 1-9

Photograph 5: Argo Amphibious ATV..........................................................................................................1-9

Photograph 6: Flat Track Tracked Dump.....................................................................................................1-9

Figures

Figure 1: Project Overview

Figure 2: TCSB Typical Drawing

Figure 3: Transmission Structure Typical Drawing

Figure 4: Route Alternatives Considered

Figure 5: Water Resources

Figure 6: Prime Farmland

Figure 7: Formally Classified Lands, Recreation Areas, and Historic Places

iv


Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACSR Aluminum Core Steel ReinforcedACSS Aluminum Conductor Steel SupportedAN Audible NoiseASNRI Area of Special Natural Resource InterestATV All-Terrain VehicleBGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ActBMP Best Management PracticeCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCH- County HighwayCWA Clean Water ActDairyland Dairyland Power CooperativedBA Decibels (A-Weighted Scale)EA Environmental AssessmentECP Erosion Control PlanEMF Electric and Magnetic FieldsEO Executive OrderERR Endangered Resources ReviewERW Exceptional Resource WatersESA Endangered Species ActFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFPPA Farmland Protection Policy ActIPaC Information for Planning and ConservationITP Incidental Take PermitkV KilovoltMBTA Migratory Bird Treaty ActMISO Midcontinent Independent Service OperatorMLRA Major Land Resource AreaMTEP Midwest Transmission Expansion PlanningMVAC Mississippi Valley Archaeological CenterNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNESC National Electric Safety Code NHPA National Historic Preservation ActNLCD Nation Land Cover DataNPS National Park ServiceNRCS Natural Resource Conservation ServiceNRHP National Register of Historic PlacesNWI National Wetlands InventoryOHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

v


ORW Outstanding Resource WatersPNW Priority Navigable WatersPCN Pre-Construction NotificationPRF Public Rights FeatureRGP Utility Regional General PermitROW Right-of-WayRUS Rural Utilities ServiceSH- State HighwaySHPO State Historic Preservation ActTWA Tiffany Wildlife AreaTCSB Temporary Clear Span BridgeUSACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSC U.S. CodeUSDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyUSH U.S. HighwayWDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesWDNR 24k HD WDNR 24k Hydrography DatasetWisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation WHPD Wisconsin Historic Preservation DatabaseWoUS Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

vi


1. Project Description

1.1 ProjectDairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland), a not-for-profit generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in La Crosse, Wisconsin, intends to seek financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for the construction of the Rock Elm-Nelson Area (N-5) 69 kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line Project (Project), located in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, Wisconsin. The Project consists of rebuilding approximately 18.6 miles of 69 kV transmission lines, building approximately 17.4 miles of new 69 kV transmission lines, and retiring 23.7 miles of existing 69 kV transmission line.

The segments of the Project are described below and shown in Figure 1 and on sheet maps provided in Appendix A:

Rebuild approximately 18.6 miles of 69 kV transmission line at various segments between County Highway (CH) Z in Dunn County and southeast to CH-D in Buffalo County. These rebuild segments are located along the existing 69 kV transmission line route in forested land, agricultural and open land, as well as along the existing corridor across the Chippewa River and the Tiffany Wildlife Area (TWA).

Approximately 17.4 miles of new 69 kV transmission line between the existing Rock Elm Substation to the southeast to near the intersection of CH-D and CH-I in Buffalo County. The majority of the new build would be located along road ROWs, including in Pierce County, along 170th Street, 490th Avenue, 130th Street, 450th Avenue, CH-X, 30th Street, CH-ZZ, U.S Highway (USH) 10, and CH-ZZ, and in Pepin County along USH 10 and Sylvester Road. New build segments would also occur along existing utility ROWs west of the Chippewa River, and along CH-I in Buffalo County.

Retire approximately 23.7 miles of existing 69 kV transmission line along three different existing segments. One segment is located across agricultural and forested land near the north end of the Project in Pierce and Dunn counties, one short segment is located across forested land west of the Chippewa River, and one longer segment is located across forested and agricultural land between Misha Mokwa and the existing Alma Substation at the southern end of the Project. Many of these segments would be replaced with the new build segments listed in the bullet point above because the new segments have improved access compared to the existing transmission line because they are located along existing road ROWs rather than agricultural and forested lands.

Alternatives up to approximately 10.9 miles of 69 kV transmission line between the intersection of 490th Avenue and 130th Street in Pierce County southeast to near the intersection of CH-D and CH-I in Buffalo County. The majority of the alternatives would be located along road ROWs, including in Pierce County, along 490th Avenue, 130th Street, CH-S, 450th Avenue, CH-Z, and CH-XX, in Dunn County along CH-Z and 50th Street, in Pepin County along USH-10, and in Buffalo County along CH-D and McDonough Road. An alternative also occurs within an agricultural field east of the intersection of CH-KK and State Highway (SH) 25 in Buffalo County.

Table 1 below summarizes the mileage of each Project segment by county crossed.

1


Table 1: Length of Project Segments—Rebuild, New Build, Retire, and AlternativesCounty Rebuild New Build Retire Alternatives Total Mileage

Buffalo 7.5 miles 3.8 miles 15.1 miles 1.5 miles 27.9 milesDunn 1.0 miles 0.0 mile 3.2 miles 2.0 miles 6.2 milesPepin 9.8 miles 4.3 miles 1.5 miles 2.0 miles 17.6 milesPierce 0.3 mile 9.3 miles 3.9 miles 5.5 miles 19.0 miles

The Project is a federal action subject to review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, and all applicable federal environmental laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the natural and human environments associated with the Project in accordance with 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1970, RUS’ Environmental Policies and Procedures, and 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508, the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA. This EA also addresses other laws, regulations, executive orders (EOs), and guidelines promulgated to protect and enhance environmental quality including, but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and EOs governing floodplain management, protection of wetlands, and environmental justice.

The term “Project area” as referenced throughout this EA generally refers to the extent shown on Figure 1; however, impacts associated with the Project would be limited to the Project right-of-way (ROW), which refers to the existing and new 80-foot transmission line ROW as described in Section 5. Detailed sheet maps are provided in Appendix A that show the rebuild, new build, and retire segments of the Project. Dairyland is committed to following its standard best management practices (BMPs) described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities1 for Project construction and operation and maintenance as described in Section 5.

1.2 ScheduleConstruction of the Project is scheduled to begin in August 2019 and would conclude in January 2021. Dairyland anticipates that the transmission line would be in service in the 1st quarter of 2021; the retirement of the existing transmission lines would be completed following construction of the rebuild/new build segments of the Project.

1.3 Project LocationFigure 1 shows the location of the Project and Table 2 lists the townships, ranges, and sections crossed by the Project.

Table 2: Project LocationProject Section County Township Range Sections

Rebuild Buffalo 23N 13W 6, 21, 27, 28

24N 13W 30, 31

24N 14W 13, 14, 24, 25, 36

1 Dairyland’s manual is available online at http://www.dairylandpower.com/power_delivery/best_practices.php.

2

http://www.dairylandpower.com/power_delivery/best_practices.php


Table 2: Project LocationProject Section County Township Range Sections

Dunn 26N 14W 32, 33

Pepin

24N 14W 3, 4, 11, 14

25N 14W 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21, 27, 28, 33

26N 14W 33

Pierce 26N 15W 20, 21

New Build

Buffalo23N 13W 6, 7, 8, 17, 20, 21

24N 14W 25

Pepin

24N 14W 3,10, 11

25N 14W 18, 19, 20, 21

25N 15W 13

Pierce25N 15W 1, 12, 13

26N 15W 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 34, 36

Retire

Buffalo

21N 12W 6, 7

21N 13W 12

22N 12W 7, 18, 19, 30 ,31

22N 13W 1, 2, 12, 13, 25

23N 13W 7, 8, 17, 20, 21, 27, 34 ,35

24N 14W 25

Dunn26N 14W 19, 20, 29, 32

26N 15W 24

Pepin24N 14W 3, 4, 10, 11

24N 14W 21

Pierce 26N 15W 21, 22, 23, 24

Alternatives

Buffalo 23N 13W 6, 26, 27

Dunn26N 14W 30, 31, 32

26N 15W 36

Pepin 25N 14W 16, 17, 18

Pierce 26N 15W 25, 26, 27, 36

1.4 Project Design and Construction Design and construction of the Project would include the major activities described below.

1.4.1 Preconstruction ActivitiesDairyland conducted preconstruction reconnaissance and subsurface exploration activities required for design and planning of the Project. These preconstruction investigations took place in January 2018. Approximately 10 soil borings were advanced to a depth of up to 100 feet below ground surface at each proposed structure location. Temporary impacts resulted from equipment, personnel, and vehicles accessing the boring locations.

3


Vehicles used for reconnaissance and soil borings consisted of Argo amphibious vehicles and a rubber-tracked boring rig. These vehicles have low ground pressure rubber tracks or tires to minimize soil disturbance and compaction.

Dairyland obtained an Incidental Take Permit (ITP 301) for Eastern massasauga from WDNR and approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to completing the reconnaissance and soil borings (Appendix C).

1.4.2 Access Routes and Material LaydownAccess to transmission structures for the rebuild and retire segments of the Project would be via existing access routes within the Project ROW and via temporary overland access. Access to the new build and alternative segments of the Project would be via the road ROWs adjacent to these segments or would follow existing utility ROWs. Some overland access may require grading and vegetation clearing. Dairyland has identified approximately 42.4 miles of access routes, which are shown on the sheet maps in Appendix A. All overland access, which would require a width of approximately 15 feet, would be temporary, and would cross existing easements using entrances from local roads, field roads, and private driveways or new temporary easements that would be acquired prior to beginning construction.

Damage to vegetation and crops and soil compaction could occur as a result of construction activities, and Dairyland would compensate landowners for such related damage and/or remedy the damage. For example, areas that may become rutted by heavy equipment used during construction could be scarified to loosen compacted soil, graded to pre-construction contours, and seeded and/or mulched per landowner requests. No new permanent access routes would be constructed for the Project.

Limited work within road ROWs would take place during construction in areas where the transmission line parallels or crosses roads or where construction crews drive across highway ROW to access structure locations. Permanent effects associated with construction would be limited to the footprint of the transmission structures (up to 12 square feet of permanent impact per structure). Appropriate storm water management and erosion control practices, as described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, would be implemented. Additionally, Dairyland would seek a General Permit for storm water discharge from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), which requires an Erosion Control Plan (ECP) that includes erosion and sediment control measures. The ECP would be prepared as part of an application to request coverage under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Construction Site Storm Water Runoff General Permit No. WI-S067831.

Temporary Clear Span Bridges: In some cases, temporary clear span bridges (TCSBs) may be required to access pole locations on opposite sides of a stream or river. TCSBs are required when heavily forested areas occurring on either side of a surface water body make it difficult to access a pole location without crossing the surface water body or when the slope between the road ROW and the transmission line is too steep to access a transmission line structure from the road. Prior to construction, Dairyland would obtain the necessary permits from the WDNR. Installation and maintenance of the TCSBs would be in accordance with permit conditions. A diagram showing the typical characteristics associated with Dairyland’s TCSB design is included as Figure 2.

4


Laydown Areas: Up to four temporary laydown areas (up to 2 acres in size) would be used during construction. The laydown area locations would be determined prior to construction. The laydown areas would not require clearing or grading, but damage to vegetation or ruts in the ground may occur as a result of vehicular traffic entering and exiting these areas. Dairyland’s BMPs would be implemented at the laydown areas during construction. Following construction, the laydown areas would be restored to preconstruction conditions.

1.4.3 Transmission Structures1.4.3.1 Conventional Construction MethodsRebuilding the transmission line would consist of replacing the transmission structures and wires within the existing ROW and the new build segments of the Project would consist of placing new transmission structures within new ROW. The Project has been designed to avoid resources such as wetlands, surface waters, sensitive habitats, protected species, and historic or cultural areas to the extent practicable. Potential impacts to soil and surface water resources would be minimized or avoided by using erosion and sedimentation control BMPs and other monitoring and mitigation methods during construction.

Dairyland is proposing to replace the existing wooden transmission structures along rebuild and new build segments with an estimated:

Four hundred eighty-seven single-pole wood transmission structures that would be approximately 60 to 80 feet tall with an approximate 300 - 400-foot span between structures that would result in approximately 5,844 square feet (approximately 0.1 acre) of permanent land disturbance (up to 12 square feet per structure).

Within the TWA ten steel transmission structures would be used, including 1 3-pole steel dead-end, 1 direct embed steel dead-end, and 8 Y-frame steel structures that would be approximately 65 to 80 feet tall with an approximate 550 to 780 foot span between structures that would result in approximately 144 square feet (<0.1 acre) of permanent impacts (up to 12 square feet per pole).

Typical design characteristics associated with the transmission structures are shown in Figure 3. The structures would use the existing 80-foot ROW (40 feet on each side of the transmission line). Angle structures and some tangent structures (non-angle structures) would have down guys and anchors.

Exact structure locations within the corridor described within this EA would be selected based on engineering needs, landowner input, and environmental factors including soil conditions, slope, maximum span length between transmission structures, and terrain. Transmission structures are generally designed for installation at existing grades. Typically, transmission structure sites with a slope of 5 percent or less would not be graded or leveled. At sites with a slope of more than 5 percent, working areas would be graded level or fill would be brought in to create level work pads. In some cases, construction mats would be used to create a level work pad where grading is impractical. Dairyland prefers to leave the leveled areas and working pads in place for use during future maintenance activities if the landowner permits. If the landowner does not want to leave the leveled area in place, the area would be graded to its original condition to the extent feasible and all imported fill would be removed from the site.

5


The retire segment of the Project would result in the removal of up to 302 existing structures; 186 single-pole, 111 H-frame, and five 3-pole structures. When removal of the existing transmission line and transmission line structures has been completed, the easements associated with Project ROW would be quitclaimed and the land would be returned to the previous landowners. The landowners would be able to manage the land according to their preferences, and most abandoned ROW would likely be used in a similar manner to surrounding land area, which is predominantly agricultural and forested land. Approximately 230 acres of ROW easements would be quitclaimed by Dairyland.

Conventional construction methods would be utilized for the entirety of the project, with the exception of 10 structures within the TWA east of the Chippewa River. Typical equipment that would be used for conventional construction consists of cranes, backhoes, digger-derrick line trucks, drill rigs, dump trucks, front-end loaders, bucket trucks, bulldozers, flatbed tractor-trailers, flatbed trucks, pickup trucks, and various trailers.

Special construction methods would be utilized within the TWA. A description of the special construction methods is provided in Section 1.4.3.2 below.

ROW and Ground Preparation: Construction activities for the rebuild and retire segments of the Project would occur within the existing 42.3 miles of existing ROW 69 kV transmission line ROW. Construction activities for the 17.4 miles of new build and 9.4 miles of alternatives of the Project would occur in newly acquired ROW. Dairyland would prepare the Project ROW by removing shrubs and brush from areas where the replacement transmission structures would be installed. Tree trimming may be required to maintain a safe distance between tree branches and the transmission line structures. In addition, danger trees (i.e., trees that could fall into the wires) on the edge of the ROW may also be removed during construction. (See Section 5.2 for potential impacts associated with tree clearing.) The majority of the work would take place within the Project ROW, with construction crews utilizing local road ROW, field roads, and private driveways when work within the Project ROW is not feasible. Once ROW preparation has been completed, the survey crew would conduct a final structure siting survey for each pole along the transmission line route. Given the location of the transmission line route along existing utility or road ROWs, minimal grading is expected to be required.

Structure Installation: Construction would start with the crews transporting structures, insulators, and insulator hardware from the staging or laydown areas to the individual structure sites. The crew would begin construction by auguring holes for the structures using a drill rig.

Structures would be assembled on the ground and then placed in the augured holes with a mobile crane. Depending on soil conditions, culvert pipes may be used as a permanent casing to hold the hole open. All structures located in wetlands would require culvert pipes to give the structure more stability in the surrounding soils. The excess excavated material and/or crushed stone and clean fill would be used to fill excess space in the hole or culvert pipe. Excess spoil materials not used as backfill around new structures may be removed from the site and disposed at an existing landfill upon completion of construction. If excess spoil removal from the site is not practicable, other measures would be used to stabilize the material on site using seeding and mulch combined with silt fence or fiber roll perimeter control.

6


Wire (Conductor) Stringing: Following structure installation, several reels of wire would be placed in the wire-stringing cradles and the wire run through a series of sheaves that support and apply tension to the wire while it is being pulled into place by a winch. The wires would then be properly “sagged” to maintain pre-determined wire tension that meets National Electric Safety Code (NESC) standards.

Conductor and Structure Stabilization: The final construction operation is to “clip-in” the conductor. This step involves removing the stringing sheaves and replacing them with clamps, which attach and secure the conductors to the insulator strings. Once the wire has been clipped in, the construction operation would essentially be complete.

Reclamation: Disturbed areas around the newly installed structures would be seeded and mulched per landowner requests. Stabilization of the structure locations would be achieved when a uniform perennial vegetation cover has been established with a density of at least 70 percent cover.

Decommissioning: To prevent service disruption for the segment of the Project to be rebuilt, the existing 69 kV transmission line would not be decommissioned and removed from its current location until construction of the Project is complete and the new transmission line is in service. Upon completion of construction, Dairyland would completely remove the existing transmission structures (except structures located within wetlands) and conductors and would re-contour and revegetate the disturbed areas to pre-existing conditions. Existing transmission structures located within wetlands would be cut off at the base so that the surrounding soil or vegetation would not be impacted.

Structure Removal along the Retirement Segment: The old wire and structures would be removed and would be properly disposed of or recycled.

1.4.3.2 Helicopter Construction Methods within the Tiffany Wildlife AreaFor structures that are located within the TWA, Dairyland would use specialized construction methods to minimize environmental impacts. The following methods eliminate the need for concrete foundations, avoid the need for dewatering, do not generate waste soil material, and would not require placing gravel or other fill for construction access.

Within the TWA, 16 existing wooden single pole transmission structures would be cut off at ground level and removed by helicopter. A heavy-lift helicopter would then be used to install the one 3-pole steel dead-end, 8 steel Y-frame structures, and one direct-embed steel dead-end, shown as in Appendix A Sheet Map 12. A heavy-lift helicopter would transport the steel caisson and associated construction equipment to the construction site (Photograph 1). The helicopter would then use a vibratory hammer (Photographs 2 and 3) to vibrate the caisson to the required foundation depth at each structure location.

Once the caisson has been installed correctly, the heavy lift helicopter would transport the tubular Y-frame steel structure in sections (based upon the lift capacity of the helicopter), and attach the structure section to the foundation or previously-set lower section. Prior to erection, these structure sections would be stored in a nearby staging area then flown to the site. Each structure would likely require two to four trips to complete installation. The heavy lift helicopter would then remove all equipment when installation

7


is complete. Temporary construction matting would be required for an approximately 25-foot by 25-foot area at the base of the 10 structure locations within the TWA (Appendix A, Sheet Map 12).

Following structure installation, several reels of wire would be placed in the cradles, and the wire run through a series of sheaves that support and apply tension to the wire while it is being pulled into place by a winch. Once the wires are strung, they would be properly “sagged” to maintain pre-determined wire tension that meets NESC standards. Wire stringing within the TWA would use a helicopter to pull the wire (Photograph 4). The final construction operation would be to “clip-in” and fasten the conductors to the insulators. Once the wire has been clipped in, the construction operation would be essentially complete, and post-construction activities would follow.

Construction within the TWA would make use of tracked or rubber-tired low ground pressure equipment or helicopter. If low ground pressure equipment is used, Dairyland would use the existing access route that is used by the WDNR within the TWA. Access routes within the TWA would be between 6 and 12 feet wide and would not require grading or vegetation clearing. Personnel would access the structure locations via an Argo amphibious all-terrain vehicle (ATV) vehicle (Photograph 5), or via a soft track tracked dump vehicle (Photograph 6). The Argo amphibious ATV vehicle has a ground pressure rating of 1.5 pounds per square inch to minimize soils disturbance and compaction.

The helicopter contractor would be required to meet all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required flight rules including:

Prior notification to emergency response agencies including state and local police, sheriff, fire department and 911 Central Office

Flight route(s) with and without external loads Refueling procedures and notification of refueling area, including fuel storage, with the local fire

department

Additionally, traffic control personnel would be deployed at public road crossings to ensure safe passage of the public. Local town officials would be notified as to time and duration of the flight operations. All flights would occur during daylight hours. Helicopter contractor personnel would supervise all helicopter operations on the transmission line ROW.

8


Photograph 1: Helicopter Transporting Steel Caisson to Construction Site

Photograph 2: Vibratory Hammer

Photograph 3: Vibratory Hammer Installing Caisson Photograph 4: Helicopter Stringing Wire

Photograph 5: Argo Amphibious ATV Photograph 6: Flat Track Tracked Dump

9

http://www.argoatv.com/_uploads/utility/gallery/289_7490_593v1.jpg


This page intentionally left blank.

10


2. Purpose and Need for the Project

In January 2016, Dairyland completed a transmission study of the Rock Elm-Nelson Area, which serves the Riverland Energy Cooperative and Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services, and includes portions of Buffalo, Dunn, Pierce, and Pepin counties (Appendix B). The Transmission Study (Alma-Rock Elm Study) acknowledged that the N-5 69 kV transmission line is reaching the end of its useful life due to age and potential future reliability issues and maintenance costs. The N-5 69 kV transmission line was built in 1948 and is in poor condition. The estimated typical lifespan of a wood pole transmission line is 55 to 65 years, and the N-5 is approximately 70 years old.

Load growth assumed in the Project area is very small; however, the Project is needed to reduce current and future maintenance costs and to increase the reliability of the existing electrical grid. The Alma-Rock Elm Study evaluated eight potential alternatives to alleviate the maintenance and reliability issues associated with the aging N-5 based upon the economics, transmission exposure, and contingency performance. As a result of the Alma-Rock Elm Study, the Project was recommended as the most effective way to address the transmission issues with the lowest capitol cost, least environmental impact, and strong reliability against system outages.

1



2


3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

3.1 Alternative Plans to Address Transmission Issues in Rock Elm -Nelson Area

The Alma-Rock Elm Study was conducted to examine alternatives that could fulfill the purpose and need of the Project (Appendix B). This study was conducted independent of the routing analysis and focused on system planning alternatives as opposed to route alternatives. The Alma-Rock Elm Study analyzed eight system alternatives for the N-5, based on the following criteria:

Relative exposure of Dairyland’s customers to permanent or temporary faults on the transmission system;

Economic analysis of each alternative; Age, condition, and contingency performance of each alternative.

A detailed description of each of the alternatives studied is included in the Alma-Rock Elm Study provided in Appendix B and summarized below.

Alternative 1 Rebuild 33.9 miles of the N-5 from Rock Elm to Nelson Area with 477 Aluminum Conductor Steel

Reinforced (ACSR) Rebuild 2.8 miles of the Alma-Elk Mound 161 kV transmission line (Q-5) with 795 Aluminum

Conductor Steel Supported (ACSS)/477 ACSR double circuit 161/69 kV transmission line Build on new ROW 4.6 miles of 477 ACSR conductor

Alternative 2 Build on new ROW 22.6 miles of 477 ACSR conductor Rebuild 18.1 miles on the existing N-5 ROW to the Alma 161/69 kV substation with 477 ACSR

conductor Rebuild 2.8 miles of the Q-5 with 795 ACSS/477 ACSR double circuit 161/69 kV transmission line Rebuild 3.3 miles from the Ella Tap to the Xcel Energy’s Arkansaw Tap with 4/0 ACSR Retire 16.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Rock Elm and Xcel Energy’s Arkansaw Tap

Alternative 3 Rebuild 13.8 miles from Ella Tap to Nelson Distribution Substation with 4/0 ACSR Rebuild 15.9 miles from the Rock Elm 161/69 kV Substation to the Ella Distribution Substation Build 10.0 miles on new ROW with 477 ACSR connecting the Lund Substation to Xcel Energy’s Pepin

69 kV transmission line Retire 13.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Nelson Distribution Tap Add local balancing area (LBA) tie metering at the Xcel Energy 69 kV switching station

Alternative 4 Rebuild 28.1 miles of the N-5 from Rock Elm to Nelson with 477 ACSR

1


Build 2.0 miles of new 477 ACSR 69 kV transmission line Build 2.2 miles of new 69 kV 477 ACSR double circuit transmission line Add new breaker with LBA tie metering at the Xcel Energy 69 kV Nelson Switching Station Retire 13.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Nelson Distribution Tap

Alternative 5 Rebuild 12.3 miles of the N-5 from Ella to Nelson with 477 ACSR Build 20.0 miles of new 477 ACSR 69 kV transmission line Build 2.2 miles of new 69 kV 477 ACSR double circuit transmission line Rebuild 3.3 miles to the Xcel Energy’s Arkansaw Tap with 4/0 ACSR Add new breaker with LBA tie metering at the Xcel Energy’s 69 kV Nelson Switching Station Retire 30.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Rock Elm Substations

Alternative 6 Rebuild 28.1 miles of the N-5 from Rock Elm to Nelson with 477 ACSR Build 4.2 miles of new 477 ACSR 69 kV line from Dairyland’ s Nelson Distribution Substation to Xcel

Energy’s Pepin tap line along County Road D Add LBA tie metering at the Xcel Energy’s 69 kV Nelson Switching Station Retire 13.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Nelson Distribution Tap

Alternative 7 Rebuild 14.0 miles from Ella Tap to Nelson Distribution Substation with 4/0 ACSR Rebuild 7.0 miles from the Rock Elm 161/69 kV Substation to Dairyland’ s Comfort Distribution

Substation Rebuild 3.0 miles from Ella Tap to Arkansaw Tap with 477 ACSR Build 10.0 miles on new ROW with 477 ACSR connecting the Lund Substation to Xcel Energy’s Pepin

69 kV transmission line Retire 19.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Nelson Distribution Tap Add LBA tie metering at the Xcel Energy 69 kV switching station

Alternative 8 Rebuild 29.8 miles of the N-5 from Rock Elm to Xcel Energy’s Nelson to Lufkin 69 kV transmission

line with 4/0 ACSR Xcel Energy installs a 3-way switch at the new interconnection on the Nelson to Pepin 69 kV

transmission line Retire 13.0 miles of the N-5 transmission line between Alma and Nelson Distribution Tap

Of the eight alternatives analyzed in the Alma-Rock Elm Study, Alternative 8 was identified as the preferred alternative. While all the alternatives address the age, condition, performance issues, and performance criteria into the future, Alternative 8 has the lowest capitol cost, least environmental impact, and performs well for system outages. Alternative 8 is listed as the Proposed Action Alternative throughout this EA.

2


3.2 Route AlternativesRoute alternatives were identified in spring and summer 2017 to provide options for re-routing the rebuild and new build segments of the transmission line, the majority of which are located in Dunn, Pepin, and Buffalo counties. Route alternatives are shown on Figure 4 and are discussed by general area below.

3.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Alternative routes were identified along existing roads and section lines. Ultimately, Dairyland chose to construct routes that were shorter and had fewer angles, or had better access. Alternative route segments that were considered but eliminated include:

An approximately 5.3 mile-long alternative segment was identified that runs along CH-X in Dunn and Pepin counties from the existing rebuild segment of transmission line to the south all the way to Highway 10, near the town of Arkansaw. This alternative segment was identified because it would follow an existing road ROW for the entirety of its length, whereas the existing transmission line does not exclusively follow existing road ROWs. However, this alternative segment was eliminated because it would increase the overall length of the transmission line, and it would require at least 13 transmission line angles, compared to approximately four angles along the existing ROW. The increased transmission line length and increased number of angles add significantly to the overall project cost. Therefore, this alternative segment was removed from consideration.

An approximately 4.6 mile-long alternative segment was identified that runs from USH 10 west of the town of Arkansaw to the south where it would intersect the existing transmission line near Dead Lake and CH-N in Buffalo County. The northern portion of this alternative segment would require new ROW across agricultural lands, and the southern portion would follow new ROW adjacent to Plummer Road. This alternative segment would require the acquisition of approximately 3.9 miles of new ROW and would add significantly to the Project cost when compared to utilizing the existing ROW. Therefore, it was removed from consideration.

An approximately 1.9 mile-long alternative segment was identified that runs along USH 10 from the intersection of CH-X and USH 10, northwest of the town of Arkansaw. This alternative segment of new transmission line would be needed to connect the possible route along CH-X to the existing transmission line. However, because the alternative segment along CH-X was eliminated from consideration due to increased project costs, the connecting route along USH 10 is not needed. Therefore, this alternative segment was eliminated from consideration.

3.3 Alternative Designs and Construction MethodsDairyland considered alternative transmission structure types, such as wood monopoles, Y-frame steel structures, H-frame wood structures, and H-frame steel structures for the Project. Dairyland determined that replacing the majority of existing structures with new wood monopole structures similar in appearance to the existing structures would result in fewer aesthetic impacts than the alternative structure types. In addition, new build segments of the transmission line located along existing road ROWs would likely be constructed using single-pole wood structures, as they are the most cost effective, are similar in appearance to transmission lines in the surrounding areas, and are sufficient to support a 69 kV

3


transmission line. Dairyland may use three-pole or H-frame wood structures for angles where there is a change in direction of the transmission line.

Dairyland would use specialized helicopter construction methods to minimize environmental impacts for the segment of the Project that crosses the TWA. These methods eliminate the need for concrete foundations, avoid the need for dewatering, do not generate waste soil material and would not require placing gravel or other fill for construction access.

3.4 No Action AlternativeFailure to rebuild the approximately 70-year-old transmission line would result in increasing maintenance costs as well as reducing reliability to the various substations served from these lines. These transmission lines are old and deteriorating, and would result in high future maintenance costs and likely reliability issues.

In addition, Dairyland would not be able to continue to provide reliable service to the Riverland Energy Cooperative and Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services in the Project area. Dairyland is obligated to ensure reliable and low-cost electricity to its customers.

4


4. Overview of Applicable Environmental Laws and Executive Orders

Table 3 includes a summary of the laws, EOs, standards, and permits relevant to the Project.

Table 3: Overview of Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, Standards, and PermitsJurisdiction Regulation, Permit, or Approval SummaryFederalU.S. Department of Agriculture—Rural Utilities Service

NEPA Compliance—Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (42 [United States Code; USC] 4321, 40 CFR 1500-1508, 43 CFR 46) and RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR § 1794)—Lead Agency

Federal law requires evaluation of the potential impacts of major federal actions on historic and cultural resources as a component of the human environment.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1251 et seq.)

Under Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE is responsible for regulating the discharge of dredge or fill material to waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands. Dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S., including wetlands, must be authorized through either a nationwide permit, a regional permit (covering various classes of routine activities), or through an individual permit.

CWA Section 401 stipulates that a federal agency (such as the USACE) issuing a permit or license for a discharge to waters of the U.S. must first have the applicable state or tribe grant or waive a Section 401 water quality certification indicating the discharge will comply with the state’s water quality standardsSection 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC § 403) prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the U.S.

Federal Aviation Administration

Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace(14 CFR 77.9)

Locations where potential air space obstruction hazards would be constructed may require submittal of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA based on criteria contained in 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species Act (ESA),(16 United States Code [USC] § 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR Part 402)

Establishes lists of threatened or endangered species and their designated critical habitats; requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in adverse modification to designated critical habitat. Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies involved in reviewing or approving a project must consult with the USFWS to evaluate whether any action they authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 USC §§ 703–712)

Prohibits take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird unless expressly permitted by federal regulations or authorized under a MBTA permit.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), (16 USC §§ 668–668d; 50 CFR Part 22)

Prohibits the “take” of bald and golden eagles without a BGEPA Permit. Take is defined as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.

Executive Order (EO) 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”

Directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to protect and conserve migratory birds. It provides broad guidelines on conservation responsibilities and requires the development of more detailed guidance in Memoranda of Understanding.

1


Table 3: Overview of Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, Standards, and PermitsJurisdiction Regulation, Permit, or Approval SummaryNational Park Service, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA)16 USC § 470 et seq.(implementing regulations: 36 CFR Part 60 and 36 CFR Part 800)

Federal law requires federal agencies to consider the effects of a federal undertaking on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed and NRHP-eligible properties.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629): Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Requires each federal agency to make the achievement of environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The EO further directs agencies to conduct their programs and activities in a manner that does not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in them, denying persons the benefits of them, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farmland Protection Policy Acts (FPPA) (7 CFR Part 657)

The FPPA authorizes the USDA to develop criteria for identifying the effects of federal programs on the direct or indirect conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For the purposes of the law, federal programs include construction projects sponsored or financed in whole or part by the federal government and the management of federal lands. Farmland protected by the FPPA is either (1) prime or unique farmland, which is not already committed to urban development or water storage, or (2) other farmland, which is of statewide or local importance as determined by the appropriate state or local governmental agency with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture. Farmland subject to FPPA is not required to be currently used for cropland. Farmland can be forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land.

For utility programs, due in part to applicant eligibility requirements and design policies, it is RUS policy that the requirement to complete the NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for CorridorType Projects form does not apply to electric transmission lines or proposals for utility distribution, collection, or telecommunication networks where the objective is to connect existing populations.

Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC § 7701 et seq.)

Under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, the federal government lists 137 regulated noxious weeds.

StateWisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Utility General Permit WDNR-GP3-2013 General permit for utilities that require the placement of structures on the bed or bridge across navigable waters, and the placement of fill in wetlands.

Ongoing Endangered/Threatened Species Consultation under Wisconsin State Statute 29.604 and Administrative Rule Chapter NR 27

WDNR prohibits “take” of any listed threatened or endangered animals, and prohibits “take” of listed threatened or endangered plants on public lands, unless exempt.

Construction Storm Water Runoff General Permit WI-S067831

Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit required for any land disturbing construction activities greater than one acre.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification (if Section 404 Permit is required by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE])

A Section 401 WQC is required to demonstrate that a project will comply with state water quality standards before USACE can issue a Section 404 permit.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Permit to Construct and Operate Utility Facilities on Highway ROW (Form DT1553)Permit to Work on Highway Right-of-Way (Form DT1812)

Wisconsin DOT requires a permit to construct and operate any facilities within existing state highway rights-of-way.

2


Table 3: Overview of Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, Standards, and PermitsJurisdiction Regulation, Permit, or Approval SummaryWisconsin Historical Society/Office of Preservation Planning

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act compliance

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies must take into account the effects of their undertakings (including the issuance of licenses and permits) upon historically-significant districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects.

LocalBuffalo County Buffalo County Code of Ordinances

County Utility ROW PermitOrdinance adopted to regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures, and land within the County.

Dunn County Dunn County Code of Ordinances, County Utility ROW Permit

Ordinance adopted to regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures, and land within the County.

Pepin County Pepin County Code of Ordinances, County Utility ROW Permit


Pierce County Pierce County Code of Ordinances, County Utility ROW Permit


3


5. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation and Monitoring

The following sections describe the existing human and natural environment in the area surrounding the Project and the potential environmental effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, and associated mitigation measures.

Where applicable, each resource addresses the rebuild, retire, and new build segments of the Project separately. The Project segment details (i.e., mileage, location description and counties crossed) are shown in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1.

5.1 Land Use5.1.1 General Land UseThe Project crosses Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties and is surrounded by agricultural land with rural farmsteads, areas with deciduous forests, open space, wetland areas, and perennial streams. Each segment’s location in each county, township, section, and range are included in Table 2 and shown on Figure 1.

Buffalo CountyApproximately 7.5 miles of rebuild segments are located in Buffalo County. The rebuild segments would have a similar permanent disturbance as the existing transmission line upon completion of the rebuild and removal of the existing transmission line. Approximately 3.8 miles of new build segments would be located in Buffalo County (Sheet Maps in Appendix A), which would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each new pole location. Approximately 15.1 miles of retire segments are located in Buffalo County, and these segments would be quitclaimed to the previous landowners. Finally, approximately 1.5 miles of alternative segments are located within Buffalo County, the construction of which would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each pole location.

Buffalo County has adopted the Buffalo County Zoning Ordinance (Buffalo County 2016). Zoning districts within Buffalo County include residential, agricultural, recreational, commercial, and industrial districts, and there are overlay districts for steep soil and suitable soils. In addition to the Zoning Ordinance, Buffalo County also has a separate Floodplain Ordinance and Shoreland Ordinance. A floodplain permit is required for the placement of any structure within the designated floodplain. A shoreland permit is required for any structure placed within 1,000 feet of a lake or pond, or within 300 feet of a navigable waterway. Maps of the locations of specific zoning, floodplain, and shoreland districts are not publicly available online.

The Buffalo County Zoning, Floodplain, and Shoreland ordinances indicate that within each district there are Permitted Uses. Public utilities are Permitted Uses and would be required to obtain a permit by showing that the proposed use conforms to all applicable provisions of the ordinances. Dairyland contacted the Buffalo County Zoning Department on March 13, 2018, in an email and determined that a

1


conditional use permit would be required for any ground disturbance over 10,000 square feet. A phone call to the Buffalo County Zoning Administrator on March 15, 2018, determined that a floodplain and shoreland permit would be required for any structures placed in a designated floodplain or shoreland. The required permits would be obtained prior to construction. Dairyland also anticipates that a permit would be required to conduct work within the county highway ROW (Appendix C).

Dunn CountyApproximately 1.0 mile of rebuild segment is located in Dunn County. The rebuild segment would have a similar permanent disturbance as the existing transmission line upon completion of the rebuild and removal of the existing transmission line. No new build segments would be located in Dunn County (Sheet Maps in Appendix A). Approximately 3.2 miles of retire segments are located in Dunn County, and these segments would be quitclaimed to the previous landowners. Finally, approximately 2.0 miles of alternative segments are located in Dunn County, and would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each pole location.

Zoning districts within Dunn County include residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, shoreland and recreational, and conservancy districts (Dunn County 2017). In addition, there is an overlay district for non-metallic mining. The Dunn County Zoning Ordinance applies to all townships within Dunn County. However, maps of the locations of specific zoning districts are not publicly available online.

The Dunn County zoning ordinance requires that development activities that are not directly compliant with the zoning ordinance obtain a permit, and categorizes these activities as either Permitted Uses, or Special Exceptions. Permitted Uses obtain a permit by showing that the proposed use conforms to all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and Special Exceptions are permitted by the County Board of Adjustments after a public hearing. Dairyland contacted the Dunn County Zoning Department on March 12, 2018, to determine if any permits would be required, and determined that a Special Exception Permit would be required if the Project impacts designated floodplains or shorelands, or if new ROW is located within the Dunn County (Appendix C). Any required permits would be obtained prior to construction. Dairyland also anticipates that a Utility Permit would be required to conduct work within or across the county highway ROW.

Pepin CountyApproximately 9.8 miles of rebuild segments are located in Pepin County. The rebuild segments would have a similar permanent disturbance as the existing transmission line upon completion of the rebuild and removal of the existing transmission line. Approximately 4.3 miles of new build segments would be located in Pepin County (Sheet Maps in Appendix A), which would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each new pole location. Approximately 1.5 miles of retire segments are located in Pepin County, and these segments would be quitclaimed to the previous landowners. Finally, approximately 2.0 miles of alternative segments are located within Pepin County, which would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each new pole location.

Pepin County has adopted the Pepin County Code of Ordinances (Pepin County 2016). Zoning districts within Pepin County include shoreland protection, Mississippi River bluffland, floodplain, and Great River

2


Road Preservation zoning ordinances. The Project is not located near the Great River Road (SH-35), and the Mississippi River Bluffland is only located in Stockholm and Pepin townships, which are not crossed by the Project. A floodplain and shoreland-wetland permit may be required for the placement of any structure within the designated floodplain or for wetlands within shoreland areas within Pepin County. Maps of the locations of specific zoning, floodplain, and shoreland districts are not publicly available online.

The Pepin County Floodplain and Shoreland-Wetland ordinances indicate that within each district there are Permitted Uses. Public utilities are Permitted Uses and would be required to obtain a permit by showing that the proposed use conforms to all applicable provisions of the ordinances. Dairyland contacted the Pepin County Zoning Department on March 8, 2018, and March 13, 2018, to determine whether floodplain and/or shoreland permits would be required for the Project. The Pepin County Zoning Administrator returned a call on March 14, 2018, and stated that she would need to confirm if any permitting is required and would contact Dairyland with an answer (Appendix C). No additional information has been received as of June 25, 2018; however, Dairyland would continue to coordinate with Pepin County and would obtain any required permits prior to construction. Dairyland also anticipates that a Utility Permit would be required to conduct work within the county highway ROW (Appendix C).

Pierce CountyApproximately 0.3 mile of rebuild segments are located in Pierce County. The rebuild segments would have a similar permanent disturbance as the existing transmission line upon completion of the rebuild and removal of the existing transmission line (Sheet Maps in Appendix A). Approximately 9.3 miles of new build segments would be located in Pierce County, which would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each new pole location. Approximately 3.9 miles of retire segments are located in Pierce County, and these areas would be quitclaimed to their previous landowners. Finally, approximately 5.5 miles of alternative segments are located within Pierce County and would entail a new 80-foot-wide ROW and a permanent disturbance of 12 square feet at each pole location.

Pierce County has adopted the Pierce County Zoning Ordinance (Pierce County 2017). Zoning districts within Pierce County include exclusive and primary agriculture, residential, general rural, rural residential, planned residential, commercial, industrial, and city/village districts. In addition, there is a floodplain overlay district. The Pierce County Zoning Ordinance applies to all towns within Pierce County. Review of the Pierce County Zoning District Map shows that the Project is located in the Agriculture-Residential zoning district.

Within each Pierce County zoning district there are Permitted Uses and Uses Permitted as Conditional Uses. Dairyland contacted the Pierce County Land Management and County Zoning Department on March 8, 2018, and Pierce County confirmed that no land use or zoning permits are required for the Project within Pierce County (Appendix C). The Pierce County Highway Department was contacted on March 1, 2018, and confirmed that a Utility ROW permit is required for construction within or across a county highway ROW (Appendix C).

3


Proximity to Residences and SchoolsOne residence is estimated to be located within the Project ROW, along an alternative segment. An estimated 77 residences are located within 500 feet of the Project ROW. The number of residences in proximity to the Project are listed in Table 4 and shown on the Sheet Maps in Appendix A. No schools are located within 2 miles of the Project.

Table 4: Project Segments in Proximity to Residences

Proximity to ResidencesProject Segment Entire Project

Rebuild New Build Retire Alternative TotalResidences located within the Project ROW (40 feet on either side of route centerline)

0 0 0 1 1

Residences located within 500 feet of the Project ROW (between 41 and 250 feet on either side of route centerline)

15 32 7 22 76

5.1.2 Prime and Important FarmlandPrime farmland is shown on Figure 6. The length of each Project segment that crosses prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance is listed in Table 5 below. Table 5 also provides the number of structures located within prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance.

Table 5: Project Segment Crossings of Prime Farmland

Type of FarmlandProject Segment

Rebuild New Build Retire1 Alternative2

Length crossing prime farmland 2.3 miles 6.8 miles 3.6 miles 3.6 miles

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland 30 structures 123 structures 42 structures Not available

Length crossing prime farmland if drained 0.3 mile 1.2 miles 0.5 mile 0.5 mile

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland if drained

2 structures 21 structures 5 structures Not available

Length crossing prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

0.4 mile 0 miles 2.1 miles 0.3 mile

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season


Length crossing farmland of statewide importance 1.7 miles 4.7 miles 1.6 miles 4.2 miles

4




Rebuild New Build Retire1 Alternative2

Number of structures to be placed in farmland of statewide importance


1 Miles of Project ROW and structures denoted in retire section would be removed.2 Alternatives segments of the Project ROW do not have structure locations identified.

5.1.3 Formally Classified LandFormally classified lands are areas that have a formal classification or designation, such as federal, state or local parks, federal, state, or locally managed lands, designated trails, wildlife and game refuges, and other lands with federal, state, or local classifications or designations. Only one formally classified land, TWA, was identified within the Project area (WDNR 2018a). No other formally classified lands are crossed by the Project.

The WDNR managed TWA is crossed by the Project (Figure 7). The TWA is a 13,000-acre property in Buffalo and Pepin counties along the Chippewa River. This area serves as habitat for diverse wildlife and is one of the state’s largest, continuous bottomland hardwood forests. TWA is also utilized for recreational purposes.

The rebuild segment of the Project crosses approximately 1.4 miles of TWA in Buffalo County and approximately 0.1 mile in Pepin County.

No other formally classified lands are crossed by the Project.

5.1.4 General Land Use ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeImpacts to land use resulting from construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the Project are expected to be minor.

Temporary impacts within the existing transmission line ROW and within newly acquired ROW would be limited to impacts occurring during construction and are not anticipated to be significant. Landowners may be restricted from accessing the Project ROW while construction activities are taking place (vegetation clearing, transmission structure installation, conductor stringing, and conductor tensioning) at each transmission structure location. Access to the structures would be via existing access routes and along the edge of adjacent roads and agricultural fields. No new permanent access routes would be required for the Project. Minor vegetation clearing would be required to widen the existing ROWs and along the new segments of line. Overland access would cross existing or use temporary entrances from local roads, field roads, and private driveways on the new build segments. Other temporary impacts include disturbance at each transmission structure location, approximately 12 square feet of temporary disturbance at each transmission structure and up to 2 acres of temporary disturbance at up to four laydown areas. Areas of temporary disturbance would be revegetated and returned to pre-existing conditions after construction.

5


Based upon a review of the county land use ordinances that are publicly available and contacting county land agencies, Dairyland may need to obtain zoning permits (e.g., conditional use or special use permits) prior to constructing the Project. Dairyland would obtain any county land use permits that would be required for construction. In areas where the Project would cross floodplain, shoreland, and bluffland overlay districts, Dairyland would continue to work with Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties to confirm if any land use permits are required, and obtain the appropriate permits, as necessary.

Impacts resulting from the Project would be further reduced by implementing the mitigation measures described below (Section 5.1.7) and in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities. Impacts by Project segment and county are included in the Tables 7–9.

Within the rebuild segments of the Project, temporary impacts would be limited to those occurring during construction and are not anticipated to be significant. For the segments of the Project that would be rebuilt, approximately 18.6 miles of transmission structures would be constructed and would result in approximately the same square footage of permanent land disturbance within the existing ROW as the existing transmission line. This would result in approximately 233 single-pole transmission structures would be constructed and would result in approximately 2,760 square feet of permanent land disturbance within the existing ROW. Table 6 shows the length and impacts of the rebuild segments by county.

No residences are located within the Project ROW for the rebuild segments.

Construction and operation of the rebuild segment of the Project would not alter the current use of the Project ROW and is not anticipated to cause any new significant effects on land use.

Table 6: Approximate Length and Impacts of Rebuild by CountyProject Segment County Length in Miles Number of Structures Impacts in Square Feet

Rebuild Buffalo 7.5 112 1,344Dunn 1.0 8 180Pepin 9.8 105 1,260Pierce 0.3 8 96

Total 18.6 233 2,796

Within the new build segments of the Project, temporary impacts during construction of the transmission line within newly acquired ROW would be limited to those occurring during construction and are not anticipated to be significant. For the new build segments of the Project, approximately 17.4 miles of transmission line would be constructed and would result in approximately 12 square feet of permanent land disturbance at each new pole. The new build segments would result in approximately 313 single-pole transmission structures being constructed and would result in approximately 3,756 square feet of permanent land disturbance within the new ROW. Acquisition and use of a new 80-foot-wide ROW would result in permanent impacts where minor vegetation and minor tree clearing would be required to allow for safe operation of the Project; however, the new build segments parallel existing roadways for the majority

6


of its length and crosses lands previously cleared for road construction or agricultural purposes. Table 7 shows the length and impacts of the new build segment by county.

No residences are located within the ROW for the new build segments. Dairyland is currently in the process of acquiring new easements to construct the Project within a new 80-foot ROW.

Construction and operation of the new build segments of the Project would result in permanent land disturbance and changed land use. Construction and operation of the new build segments of the Project are not anticipated to have significant effects on land use since the alignment of the transmission line centerline is on the edges of agricultural fields and located adjacent to road ROW for the majority of its length. Dairyland has chosen a route that does not require the displacement of any residential or agricultural properties. Any impacts to land use resulting from the Project would be further reduced by implementing the mitigation measures described below (Section 5.1.7).

Table 7: Approximate Length and Impacts of New Build by CountyProject Segment County Length in Miles Number of Structures Impacts in Square Feet

New Build Buffalo 3.8 87 1,044Dunn 0.0 0 0Pepin 4.3 65 780Pierce 9.3 161 1,932

Total 17.4 313 3,756

The retire segments of the Project would remove approximately 23.7 miles of transmission line, which would be returned to natural conditions or adjacent land uses (e.g., crop and pasture lands, forest, and wetlands) depending on landowner preference. Approximately 267 structures would be retired, include some H-frame and 3-pole structures, for a total of approximately 4,260 square feet.

Temporary impacts within the existing transmission line ROW would be limited to those occurring during removal of transmission structures and are not anticipated to be significant. Landowners may be restricted from accessing the Project ROW during construction activities associated with retirement and removal of the existing transmission line. Temporary impacts would include disturbance at each transmission structure location, approximately 12 square feet per structure being removed, and up to 2 acres of temporary disturbance at each of the four laydown areas. Areas of temporary disturbance would be returned to natural conditions or adjacent land uses after construction. Where access routes are not located on maintained roads or driveways, overland travel would be utilized to access the transmission line. Table 8 shows the length of the retire segment by county.

Table 8: Approximate Length and Impacts of Retire by CountyProject Segment County Length in Miles Number of Structures Impacts in Square Feet

Retire Buffalo 15.1 169 2,760Dunn 3.2 36 480Pepin 1.5 19 396Pierce 3.9 43 624

Total 23.7 267 4,260

7


Within the alternative segments of the Project, temporary impacts during construction of the transmission line within newly acquired ROW would be limited to those occurring during construction and are not anticipated to be significant. For the alternative segment of the Project, approximately 10.9 miles of transmission line would be constructed and would result in approximately 12 square feet of permanent land disturbance at each new pole. The total number of structures required for the construction of the alternatives cannot be determined until final design has been completed. Acquisition and use of a new 80-foot-wide ROW would result in permanent impacts where minor vegetation and minor tree clearing would be required to allow for safe operation of the Project; however, the alternative segment parallels existing roadways for the majority of its length and crosses lands previously cleared for road construction or agricultural purposes. Table 9 shows the length and impacts of the alternative segment by county.

One residence is located within the ROW for the alternative segment. Dairyland is currently in the process of acquiring new easements to construct the Project within a new 80-foot ROW.

Construction and operation of the alternative segments of the Project would result in permanent land disturbance and changed land use. Construction and operation of the alternative segments of the Project are not anticipated to have significant effects on land use since the alignment of the transmission line centerline is on the edges of agricultural fields and located adjacent to road ROW for the majority of its length. Dairyland has chosen a route that does not require the displacement of any residential or agricultural properties. Any impacts to land use resulting from the Project would be further reduced by implementing the mitigation measures described below (Section 5.1.7).

Table 9: Approximate Length of Alternative by County1

Project Segment County Length in MilesAlternative Buffalo 1.4

Dunn 2.0Pepin 2.0Pierce 5.5

Total 10.9

1 The number of structures for the alternative segments is not known; therefore, no impact estimates have been made.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to general land use would occur.

5.1.5 Prime and Important Farmland ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeImpacts to prime and important farmland resulting from construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the Project are expected to be minor.

Temporary impacts to agricultural activities and prime farmland would be limited to the disturbance around the foundation of each structure and along temporary access routes. All disturbed areas surrounding new structures and along access routes would be revegetated following construction of the

8


Project. Operation of the transmission line would not interfere with continued use of the surrounding areas for agricultural uses.

Permanent impacts to prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are also expected to be minor and would be limited to the footprint of the transmission structures. The Project centerline crosses prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, prime farmland if drained, and prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Table 10 summarizes the anticipated permanent impacts to prime and important farmland.



Total Net Total1Rebuild New Build Retire1 Alternatives2

Length crossing prime farmland 2.3 miles 6.8 miles 3.6 miles 3.6 miles

9.1 miles installed, and 3.6 miles removed

5.5 miles

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland 30 structures 123

structures 42 structures Not available

153 structures installed, and 42 structures removed

111 structures

Length crossing prime farmland if drained 0.3 mile 1.2 miles 0.5 mile 0.5 mile

1.5 miles installed, and 0.5 mile removed

1.0 mile

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland if drained



18 structures

Length crossing prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

0.4 mile 0 miles 2.1 miles 0.3 mile

0.4 mile installed, and 2.1 miles removed

1.7 miles removed

Number of structures to be placed in prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season



18 structures removed

Length crossing farmland of statewide importance 1.7 miles 4.7 miles 1.6 miles 4.2 miles

6.4 miles installed, and 1.6 miles removed

4.8 miles

Number of structures to be placed in farmland of statewide importance



79 structures

Total 4.7 miles/63 structures

12.6 miles/221 structures

7.8 miles/94 structures 8.6 miles

17.3 miles/284 structures installed, and 7.8 miles/94 structures removed

9.5 miles/190 structures installed

9


1 Rebuild plus new build segments minus retire segments; excludes alternatives. 2 Alternatives segments of the Project ROW do not have structure locations identified.

Within the rebuild and new build segments, Dairyland estimates that approximately 1,836 square feet of permanent disturbance in prime farmland, approximately 276 square feet of permanent disturbance in prime farmland if drained, approximately 1,284 square feet of permanent disturbance in farmland of statewide importance, and approximately 48 square feet of permanent disturbance in prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. No permanent access routes would be constructed on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance.

Dairyland sent a letter to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) District Conservationist for each county crossed by the Project in January 2018 concerning potential impacts to prime farmland as a result of the Project (Appendix C). As of the time of submittal of this EA, Dairyland had not received a response from the NRCS.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to prime and important farmland land would occur.

5.1.6 Formally Classified Land ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeImpacts to formally classified land resulting from construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the Project are expected to be minor. The only formally classified land within the Project area is the TWA (Figure 7).

The rebuild segments of the Project would cross approximately 1.4 miles and 0.1 mile of the TWA in Buffalo and Pepin counties, respectively. Of the 1.4 miles of rebuild segments within the TWA, approximately 1.0 mile is located within wetland areas that would be constructed using special helicopter construction methods, and approximately 0.4 mile are located in upland areas that would be constructed using standard upland construction techniques. The crossing of the wetland areas would require 10 structures (one 3-pole dead-end, one direct-embed dead-end, and 8 Y-frame steel structures). These structures would result in approximately 144 square feet of disturbance in the TWA. Since the rebuild segment is replacing the current land use, significant impacts are not expected. The approximately 0.4 mile of TWA in upland areas are located on top of the bluff line, and standard upland construction measures would be used.

No formally classified lands were identified along the new build, retire, or alternative segments of the Project; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to formally classified land would occur.

10


5.1.7 Land Use Mitigation and Monitoring In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to land use:

The removal of landscaping would be avoided whenever possible. Access to all residences would be maintained during construction. Residents would be notified of construction activities prior to the start of construction. Disturbed areas would be reseeded according to landowner requests.

5.2 Vegetation5.2.1 VegetationAccording to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS, the Project is located in two different Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA); the Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies (104) and the Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills (105). The majority of the Project areas is within the Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills, which covers much of western Wisconsin, from the southern to north-central portions of the state, and includes the unglaciated Driftless Area of Wisconsin (NRCS 2018). According to the USDA, soils in this area “generally are moderately deep to very deep, well drained or moderately well drained, and loamy.” Hardwoods are native in this area and dominant species include sugar maple, oak, and hickory. In lowland areas, mixed hardwoods such as elm, river birch, ash, willow, silver maple, and cottonwood are dominant with sedges beneath (USDA 2006).

A summary of the distribution of land cover types crossed by the Project ROW, as identified by data obtained from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), is provided as Table 11 and Table 12. The NLCD is a 16-class categorization of land cover based on satellite imagery and provides a broad description of land cover types. Land cover data are generally indicative of certain types of land use.

Table 11: Land Cover Types Crossed by the Project ROWNLCD Land Cover Type1 Rebuild Acres New Build Acres Retire Acres Total Acres

Cultivated Crops 42.1 65.8 65.3 173.2Deciduous Forest 82.8 11.2 97.3 191.3Developed, High Intensity 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3Developed, Low Intensity 1.0 13.5 0.8 15.3Developed, Medium Intensity 0.0 0.0 0. 1 0.1Developed, Open Space 19.9 55.8 25.8 101.5Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 1.6 0.0 5.8 7.4Evergreen Forest 3.7 0.0 1.3 5.0Hay/Pasture 10.2 19.0 21.6 50.8Herbaceous 3.1 2.0 2.2 7.3Mixed Forest 1.4 0.8 0.0 2.2Open Water 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5Shrub/Scrub 1.4 0.7 7.6 9.7Woody Wetlands 12.5 0.1 3.0 15.6

11


1 Note that the majority of developed land consists of areas identified by the NLCD as the ROW along the roads that parallel the Project.

Table 12: Land Cover Types Crossed by the Alternative Segments ROWNLCD Land Cover Type1 Alternatives Acres

Cultivated Crops 39.6Deciduous Forest 3.3Developed, High Intensity 0.0Developed, Low Intensity 17.9Developed, Medium Intensity 0.0Developed, Open Space 41.8Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0Evergreen Forest 0.0Hay/Pasture 3.8

1 Note that the majority of developed land consists of areas identified by the NLCD as the ROW along the roads that parallel the Project.

The acreages identified in Tables 11 and 12 are consistent with a review of aerial photography of the Project area. The vegetation likely includes species associated with disturbed areas along roadways, residential yards, and field edges such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), sweet clover (Melilotus albus), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota), and a variety of wheat grasses. In addition, areas of the Project likely include white pine (Pinus strobus), white spruce (Picea glauca), perennial rye grass (lolium perenne), giant ragweed (Plantago major), other rye grasses, and cultivated crops.

Up to four construction laydown areas would be used during construction, each approximately 2 acres in size. The laydown areas have not been identified at this time, although Dairyland would likely use agricultural fields or previously disturbed open lands and would revegetate the areas to pre-construction conditions following construction. No vegetation clearing would be required.

5.2.2 Vegetation ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeProposed construction activities would involve excavation and grading in limited areas around each transmission structure and structures to be permanently removed that would temporarily disturb herbaceous vegetative cover. Equipment access also has the potential to disturb vegetation. The long-term effects of these actions are not expected to result in measurable losses; rather, temporary effects (during construction) would result in areas of bare ground. Permanent impacts to vegetation would occur within the footprint of each structure (new and rebuild), within the new ROW (along the new build and alternative segments), and where anchors for downguys are placed in the ground.

For the segments of the Project that are to be rebuilt, the transmission line ROW would continue to be maintained in the manner in which it has been maintained for the past 70 years: overhanging vegetation would be trimmed and the ROW would be periodically mowed. Along access routes that traverse forested

12


areas with overhanging or overgrown woody vegetation, some trimming would be necessary to permit passage within a cross-sectional area measuring approximately 20 feet in height and width.

The use of the laydown areas would not result in any permanent impacts to vegetation. Upon completion of construction, Dairyland would revegetate the disturbed areas to pre-construction conditions.

Overall, impacts to vegetation are anticipated to be minor because the rebuild segment of the Project would be located within an existing utility ROW, the majority of the new build and alternatives segments would be located within new ROW that is located adjacent to existing road ROW or within cultivated croplands. The retire segment of the Project would be allowed to revert back to its previous vegetation type. Permanent impacts would be primarily limited to the footprint of transmission structures. No permanent access routes would be constructed for the Project. No permanent impacts resulting from the use of the temporary laydown areas during construction are anticipated. If vegetation is disturbed due to the use of overland access and the temporary laydown areas, Dairyland would revegetate disturbed areas to pre-construction conditions.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no new impacts to vegetation would occur except for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing ROW.

5.2.3 Vegetation Mitigation and Monitoring In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to vegetation:

Dairyland would use methods such as installing silt fence or using timber matting to protect existing vegetative cover where necessary and practicable to avoid erosion or sedimentation.

Disturbed areas would be restored by re-grading, seeding, and/or mulching per landowners’ preferences.

Vegetation monitoring would take place until 70 percent of the original cover is attained or applicable permit conditions are otherwise satisfied.

5.3 Floodplains5.3.1 FloodplainsFloodplain data were obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Project crosses a total width of approximately 3.8 miles (20,143 feet) of 100-year floodplains, and less than 0.1 mile (77 feet) of 500-year floodplains, for a total of 3.8 miles within designated floodplains over the entire Project. Of the 3.8 miles of floodplain crossing, 3.7 miles (19,454 feet) are either rebuild or retire segments of the existing transmission line. Therefore, a total of approximately 0.1 mile (765 feet) of new floodplain crossing would occur as a result of the Project. Floodplains would be crossed in Buffalo, Pepin, and Pierce counties, with no floodplains crossed in Dunn County. Alternative segments do not cross floodplains. Table 13 shows the waterbodies associated with the floodplains as well as the approximate floodplain width that is crossed by each segment of the Project.

13


Table 13: Floodplains Crossed by the Project ROW

Project Segment CountyTownship, Range Section Waterbody

Structures within Floodplain

Approximate Width (feet)

RebuildBuffalo 24N, 14W 13 Chippewa River/Buffalo

Slough 10 7,355

Pepin 24N, 14W 14 Chippewa River 0 448Total floodplain crossing width for Rebuild 7,803

New Build Pierce 26N, 15W 21 Rock Elm Creek 2 765Total floodplain crossing width for New Build 765

Retire

Buffalo

21N, 12W 6 Riesch Creek 1 41821N, 13W 12 Mississippi River 0 7722N, 12W 7 Trout Creek 0 375

22N, 12W 19 Buffalo River/Buffalo River – North Channel 3 2,808

22N, 12W 30 Mill Creek 0 78122N, 12W 31 Mill Creek/Riesch Creek 1 95022N, 13W 1 Trout Creek 0 14822N, 13W 12 Trout Creek 3 2,13022N, 13W 25 Mill Creek 1 910

Pierce26N, 15W 21 Rock Elm Creek 0 37726N, 15W 23 Missouri Creek 0 21026N, 15W 24 Missouri Creek 5 2,469

Total floodplain crossing width for Retire 11,653Alternative Not Applicable

5.3.2 Floodplains ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThe Project would result in two new transmission structures being placed in 100-year floodplains along the new build segments of the Project within Pierce County, and 10 structures along the rebuild segments of the Project within Buffalo County. Permanent disturbance in floodplains would be limited to the area needed for the new structures and would result in a new permanent disturbance of 24 square feet along the new build segments. In addition, along the rebuild segments, approximately 120 square feet of permanent impacts would occur, although Dairyland would remove 120 square feet of existing structures within the floodplain. Dairyland would coordinate with Pierce and Buffalo counties to obtain a floodplain permit, if required, for the placement of the new and replacement structures within the floodplain.

During construction, ground cover and soils would be temporarily disturbed. Effects resulting from the removal of groundcover and soils in floodplains would be temporary in nature and the area not occupied by the transmission structures would be reclaimed and revegetated to pre-construction conditions. Potential floodwater displacement could occur where structures are placed in floodplains. Based on the low volume of potential floodwater displacement, impacts on flooding are not anticipated.

Upon completion of construction, existing transmission structures would be removed from their current location within 100-year floodplains. The disturbed area associated with the removal of the existing

14


structures would be revegetated and graded to pre-construction conditions so that water flow is not impeded during flooding events.

Construction of transmission structures in floodplains would follow the same procedures as identified in Section 1.4, and when possible Dairyland would span floodplains in order to reduce impacts to floodplains. However, given the size of floodplains crossed, the Project would require the placement of 10 structures within floodplains along the rebuild segment of the Project and two structures within floodplains along the new build segment of the Project. Along the rebuild segment of the Project Dairyland would place the new structures in approximately the same location as the existing structures, and there would be no net impact on the floodplain at these locations. If necessary, county floodplain permits would be obtained for construction within in the floodplains at these locations. The locations of structures within floodplains are shown on sheet maps in Appendix A. Dairyland would span all waterways and would minimize the placement of structures in low areas near waterways to the extent practicable.

Based on preliminary design, construction of the Project would require approximately 5.6 miles of temporary overland access in 100- and 500-year floodplains. Overland access may require minor grading and/or minor vegetation clearing and would consist of driving equipment across low-lying vegetation along field edges or adjacent to the edge of a road ROW. As a result, no impacts to floodplains from the use of overland access are anticipated.

The use of TCSBs may be required for temporary construction access. Dairyland would obtain a General Permit for Utilities to Place Structures on the Bed or to Place Temporary Bridges across Waterways, or to Place Fill in Wetlands from the WDNR prior to conducting construction activities. Where TSCBs are required, they would be approximately 16 feet wide and would be supported by temporary construction matting on either side of the waterbody.

With implementation of the mitigation measures described below, it is not anticipated that construction or operation would have significant effects on floodplains.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to floodplains would occur.

5.3.3 Floodplain Mitigation and MonitoringIn addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to floodplains:

Dairyland would coordinate with the USACE, WDNR, and local authorities for approval of structure locations.

Dairyland would follow all floodway development requirements as outlined in the county ordinances of Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties. Dairyland would consult with each of these counties prior to construction to determine whether a floodplain permit is required.

Dairyland would obtain all required permits listed in Table 3 of this EA. Dairyland would preserve existing natural vegetation to the extent practicable.

15


Dairyland would restore temporary ground disturbance within 100- and 500-year floodplains caused by construction activities by revegetating the area impacted to pre-construction conditions.

5.4 Water Quality5.4.1 Water QualityWaterways crossed by the Project were identified using the WDNR 24 Hydrography Dataset (WDNR 24k HD). Review of these resources identified 4 perennial and 32 intermittent waterbody crossings located along the rebuild and new build segments of the Project. The retire segment of the Project has 41 perennial and 34 intermittent waterbody crossings. Alternative segments of the Project have six intermittent waterbody crossings. Of these 117 total waterbody crossings, 72 are of unnamed waterbodies; one of which has state or local designations or impairments (e.g., designated trout streams, outstanding or exceptional waters, impaired waters, etc.). The named waterbodies crossed by the Project are shown on (Figure 5) and listed in Table 14.

The Project crosses four trout streams (three named and one unnamed), five state endangered or special concern habitat streams (four named and one unnamed), and four impaired waters. The Project does not cross outstanding/exceptional resource waters.

Groundwater in the Project area consists of Cambrian-Ordovician sandstone aquifers. Average depth to the groundwater varies, with the water table near the waterbodies crossed being potentially less than 10 feet below the ground surface. Although depth to bedrock varies within the Project area, bedrock is often within 5 feet of the land surface with areas near significant waterways having bedrock ranging to depths greater than 100 feet below land surface (WDNR 2011). Groundwater in the Project area is characterized as having low to high susceptibility of contamination (USGS 2007). This characterization is based on an index method that combines five factors: depth to bedrock, bedrock type, soil permeability, depth to water table, and surficial deposits.

16


Table 14: Named Waterbodies Crossed by the Project

Project Segment1 County Waterbody

Township, Range, Section

Flow Regime Trout Stream

State Endangered or Special Concern Habitat

Streams

Outstanding/ Exceptional Resource

Waters2Impaired

Waters 303(d)3

Rebuild

BuffaloLittle Bear Creek T23N R13W S6 Perennial No No No YesBuffalo Slough T24N R14W S24 Intermittent No No No NoTrout Creek T23N R13W S27 Intermittent Yes Yes No No

Dunn Little Arkansaw Creek T26N R14W S33 Intermittent No No No No

PepinArkansaw Creek T25N R14W S9 Intermittent Yes Yes No NoChippewa River T24N R14W S14 Perennial No Yes No Yes

New Build PierceRock Elm Creek T26N R15W S21 Perennial No No No NoArkansaw Creek T25N R15W S12 Intermittent No No No NoPorcupine Creek T25N R15W S13 Intermittent No No No No

RetireBuffalo

Trout Creek T22N R13W S1 Perennial Yes Yes No NoMill Creek T22N R12W S31 Perennial No No No NoRiesch Creek T21N R12W S6 Perennial No No No NoBuffalo River T22N R12W S19 Perennial No No No YesBuffalo River – North Channel T22N R12W S19 Perennial No No No No

Dunn Missouri Creek T26N R14W S19 Perennial Yes Yes No YesPierce Rock Elm Creek T26N R15W S21 Perennial No No No No

1 The Alternative Segment does not cross any named waterways.2 WDNR (2018b)3 WDNR (2016)

0


5.4.2 Water Quality ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThe WDNR Surface Water Data Viewer was reviewed to identify any Areas of Special Natural Resource Interest (ASNRI), Public Rights Features (PRF), or Priority Navigable Waters (PNW) that may be present within the Project Area (WDNR 2018b). ASNRI waters include several classes of designated waters including trout streams, outstanding resource waters (ORW) or exceptional resource waters (ERW) and waters or portions thereof that may be inhabited by endangered, threatened, or special concern species or unique ecological communities identified in the NHI. ASNRI waters and PRF waters are also considered PNW waters. There are five waterways crossed by the Project identified as ASNRI, PNW, PRF, Trout Streams, or ORW waters.

The Project crosses one sturgeon area, the Chippewa River. This waterway contains important lake sturgeon spawning habitat. WDNR includes sturgeon areas under the PNW designated waters to protect habitat for sturgeon.

WDNR classifies trout streams into three classes. Class 1 trout streams are high quality and trout populations are sustained by natural reproduction without the need for stocking with hatchery trout. Class 2 trout streams are able to support some natural reproduction, but stocking with hatchery trout is required to meet the sport fishing demands. Class 3 waters are marginal habitat for trout and do not support natural reproduction and require annual fish stocking. The Project crosses one Class 1, two Class 2, and one Class 3 trout streams (Table 14). These waters are protected for recreational use as well as for aquatic life.

Little Bear Creek would be crossed by the rebuild segment of the Project in Buffalo County, and it is identified as an impaired water on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Little Bear Creek is listed as impaired for degraded habitat, impairment unknown, with pollutants of total phosphorus and sediment/total suspended solids.

Chippewa River would be crossed by the rebuild segment of the Project in Pepin County, and it is identified as an impaired water on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Chippewa River is listed as impaired for contaminated fish tissue due to PCBs.

Buffalo River would be crossed by the retire segment of the Project in Buffalo County, and it is identified as an impaired water on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Buffalo River is listed as impaired for degraded biological community, and water quality use restrictions due to total phosphorus.

Missouri Creek would be crossed by the retire segment of the Project in Dunn County, and it is identified as an impaired water on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Missouri Creek is listed as impaired for degraded habitat due to sediment/ total suspended solids. No other impaired waters are crossed by the Project.

Of the 117 waterway crossings within the Project area, multiple waterways would need to be crossed with construction vehicles due to access constraints. Waterways that cannot be avoided would use TCSBs to minimize impacts to the features. The TCSBs would enable heavy equipment to cross the waterways in

1


areas where one side of the waterway is not accessible via overland travel. Placement of the TCSBs would be outside the jurisdictional boundary of the waterway. Dairyland would obtain a General Permit for Utilities to Place Structures on the Bed or to Place Temporary Bridges across Waterways, or to Place Fill in Wetlands from the WDNR prior to conducting construction activities. Should a TCSB be required below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a water body, Dairyland would work with WDNR and USACE to obtain the required permits.

Ground-disturbing construction activities including the operation of construction vehicles adjacent to waterways involves some risk to water quality; ground disturbance resulting from excavation, grading, and construction traffic may lead to sediments reaching surface waters. Impacts are unlikely provided that erosion control measures and mitigation measures listed below in Section 5.4.3 are properly implemented. Impacts resulting from structure placement would not occur because all surface waters crossed by the transmission line would be spanned and no proposed structures occur below the OHWM of waterbodies crossed by the Project. Impacts to groundwater are not anticipated. Construction-related liquids (e.g., equipment lubricants) would be managed to avoid spills on the ground surface. Vehicle fueling would occur off site.

After construction, there would be no anticipated impact on surface water quality resulting from operations and maintenance of the transmission line.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to waterways would occur.

5.4.3 Water Quality Mitigation and Monitoring During construction, the most effective way to avoid impacts is to avoid wet areas, streams, and rivers. Equipment fueling and lubricating would not occur on site. The following construction practices would help prevent and/or contain accidental spills, soil erosion, and sedimentation:

Dairyland would thoroughly plan, install, and maintain erosion control measures and revegetate and stabilize disturbed soil adjacent to waterways.

Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures would be implemented as detailed in the Erosion Control Plan developed for submittal to the WDNR as part of an application to request coverage under the Construction Site Storm Water Runoff General Permit No. WI-S067831 would be implemented.

Appropriate storm water management and erosion control practices, as described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities would be implemented.

Waterways would be spanned. No fuel storage or refueling would take place on site. Once construction has been completed, construction areas, laydown areas, and overland access

would be cleared of debris and disturbed ground cover and soils would be returned to pre-construction conditions so that sedimentation would not occur.

2


Construction activity would not be permitted below the OHWM of any waterbody. With the exception of the streams requiring TCSBs, construction contractors would not drive across streams crossed by the Project.

TCSBs, when necessary, would be placed outside of the OHWM (jurisdictional boundary) of the waterway.

Dairyland would obtain all required permits listed in Table 3 of this EA.

5.5 Wetlands5.5.1 WetlandsThe USACE and WDNR regulate a permitting process for work that may impact wetlands and waterways. Examples of circumstances that may require a permit include excavation in or placement of any material into wetlands or waterways.

Waters of the United States (WoUS) are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and USACE under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. Regulated resources include wetland areas, natural ponds, impoundments, and waterways such as rivers and streams. The St. Paul District of the USACE has jurisdiction over wetlands and other WoUS in the Project area. The USACE regulates utility line projects in Wisconsin under the Utility Regional General Permit (Utility RGP). The Utility RGP, as defined by USACE, covers activities within WoUS including utility line construction, maintenance, and repair, utility line survey activities, substation facilities, access routes, and remediation of inadvertent returns of drilling fluid. A Utility RGP is applicable to projects with permanent impacts to WoUS below 0.5 acre.

In Wisconsin, a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) is required under the Utility RGP for a variety of factors, as listed in their entirety in the Utility RGP. Some of the PCN requirements that could apply to the Project include; activities which might affect federally listed threatened and endangered species, activities that would result in a loss of greater than 0.1 acre of WoUS at a single location, activities where temporary impacts to WoUS are greater than 0.5 acre at a single location, activities that are proposed to result in a loss of 0.5 acre or greater of WoUS for the overall project, activities with mechanized clearing of forested wetlands that would result in a conversion to herbaceous wetlands, and activities running parallel to WoUS. Temporary impacts to wetlands occurring during construction are generally not counted towards regulatory thresholds as a loss of WoUS, so long as the temporarily impacted areas are returned to their original condition upon completion.

The WDNR is responsible for administering the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification process for any project requiring a federal permit that would result in impacts to other WoUS, a process by which WDNR would verify that the Project does not result in violations of state water quality standards.

The presence of wetlands and other WoUS are summarized below by Project segment and were evaluated in the Project area using publicly available information including:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online Wetlands Mapper tool (USFWS 2018b) depicts wetlands that had been mapped as part of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program.

3


The WDNR Surface Water Data Viewer depicts Wisconsin Wetland Inventory data. The WDNR 24k HD, which maps perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, and lakes was queried

for the rebuild, new build, and retire segments of the Project. These streams indicate areas that may contain streams that could have a wetland fringe or feed wetlands nearby.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps were used to identify landforms that could hold water and form a wetland (i.e., depressional landscapes).

The NLCD was queried to enhance the ability to identify probable wetlands located within for all three ROWs.

The rebuild segments of the Project cross 11 mapped NWI wetlands and 23 WDNR 24k HD streams/waterways (refer to Sheet Maps in Appendix A). The rebuild segments cross one emergent wetland (total length of less than 0.1 mile); eight forested/shrub wetlands (total length of approximately 1.4 miles), one pond (total length of less than 0.1 mile), and one riverine wetland (total length of approximately 0.1 mile). One single-pole structure is located within a freshwater emergent wetland and eleven single-pole structures are located within forested/shrub wetlands. The streams/waterways crossed by the rebuild segments are listed in Table 13 above. NLCD generally characterizes the land cover in the rebuild segment of the Project as deciduous forest with cultivated crops and developed open space areas, and to a lesser extent hay/pasture and woody wetlands.

The new build segments of the Project cross two mapped NWI wetlands and 13 WDNR 24k HD streams/waterways (refer to Sheet Maps in Appendix A). The new build segments cross two forested/shrub wetlands (total length of less than 0.1 mile). The new build segments do not cross other NWI-mapped wetlands. One single-pole structure is located within a forested/shrub wetland; no other structures are located in NWI wetlands. The streams/waterways crossed by the new build segments are listed in Table 13 above. NLCD generally characterizes the land cover in the new build segment of the Project as cultivated crops with developed open space and hay/pasture, and to a lesser extent deciduous forest and low-intensity developed areas (existing road ROWs).

The retire segments of the Project cross 32 mapped NWI wetlands and 75 WDNR 24k HD streams/waterways (refer to Sheet Maps in Appendix A). The retire segments cross 16 emergent wetlands (total length of approximately 2.8 miles); 12 forested/shrub wetlands (total length of approximately 0.5 mile), one pond (a total length of less than 0.1 mile), and two riverine wetlands (total length of less than 0.1 mile). The streams/waterways crossed by the retire segments are listed in Table 13 above. NLCD generally characterizes the land cover in the retire segment of the Project as deciduous forest and cultivated crops, with developed open space, and to a lesser extent hay/pasture.

The alternative segments of the Project do not cross any mapped NWI wetlands. There are six WDNR 24k HD streams/waterways that intersect the alternatives segments of the Project (refer to Sheet Maps in Appendix A). No named streams/waterways are crossed by the alternative segments. NLCD generally characterizes the land cover in the alternatives segment of the Project as developed open space, cultivated crops, and low-intensity developed areas (existing road ROWs).

4


5.5.2 Wetland ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeWetlands and other WoUS are protected under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. The USACE and the WDNR are the agencies that are responsible for ensuring compliance with the CWA. NWI, WDNR 24k HD, and NLCD data were analyzed to identify locations where wetlands and other WoUS may be present in the rebuild, new build, retire, or alternatives segments of the Project. The data were compiled and provided to the USACE St. Paul District on January 31, 2018, to determine whether there would be effects to jurisdictional wetlands or other WoUS within the Project ROW. At the time this EA was submitted, a response from the USACE had not been received.

The rebuild segments intersect NWI wetlands in 11 locations. One single-pole structure is located within a freshwater emergent wetland and 11 single-pole structures are located within forested/shrub wetlands. The rebuild segment of the Project would be completed within an existing transmission line ROW. Although 11 structures would be placed in wetlands described as forested, only a limited number of trees would need to be removed because the existing transmission line ROW has been regularly maintained by Dairyland.

The new build segments intersect NWI wetlands in two locations. One single-pole structure is located within a forested/shrub wetland; no other structures are located in NWI wetlands. If trees are present, new impacts to forested wetlands in this location are expected due to the installation of the transmission line. The new build segment follows existing roads and existing utilities to the extent possible. The Project would utilize the existing roads to minimize impacts to potential wetlands or other WoUS during construction.

The rebuild and new build segments of the Project would span WDNR 24k HD streams/waterways to avoid permanent impacts to these features. If existing structures are found to be located in wetlands, the structures would be cut off at ground level with a chainsaw, cut into smaller segments, and moved by hand to the nearest upland area or access route.

Dairyland anticipates approximately 13 single-pole structures would be located in wetlands, for total permanent impacts of approximately 156 square feet. This is less than the 0.1-acre threshold required for a PCN for a single and complete project under the Utility RGP. However, the USACE would be notified of the Project prior to construction, as the WDNR and USACE have a joint permitting process and the USACE would receive a copy of the Project application that would be submitted to the WDNR. The Project would follow guidance provided by the USACE and abide by the general conditions of the RGP program. Based upon a review of available desktop resources, avoidance of temporary impacts to wetlands from rebuild and new build segments of the Project would be accomplished through layout design and BMPs according to the methods outlined in Section 5.5.3.

The retire segments of the Project would be removed from within the existing transmission line ROW, and the use of BMPs would minimize temporary impacts to wetlands and waterbodies. Once the transmission line has been removed, the ROW would be returned to natural conditions. Access routes would be temporary, no trees would be removed, and no grading would be required. There are 7 H-frame structures (2 poles per structure) and 24 single pole structures, for a total of 456 square feet, located

5


within wetlands. These structures would be cut off at ground level with a chainsaw, cut into smaller portions, and moved by hand to the nearest upland area or access route. No fill or dredging would be required to remove the existing transmission line structures.

The alternative segments do not intersect NWI wetlands, and therefore, temporary impacts to wetlands along the new build segment of the Project are not anticipated. The alternative segments intersect WDNR 24k HD flowlines in six locations. The Project would span WDNR 24k HD flowlines where practicable to avoid permanent impacts to these features. The alternatives follow existing roads to the extent possible. The Project would utilize the existing roads to minimize impacts to potential wetlands or other WoUS during construction.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to wetlands would occur.

5.5.3 Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Based upon available desktop wetland location data, wetland impacts would be avoided to the extent practicable through Project design and the identification of access routes that minimize the need for wetland crossings with heavy construction equipment. In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to wetlands:

Dairyland would thoroughly plan, install, and maintain erosion control measures and revegetate and stabilize disturbed soil adjacent to wetlands.

Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures would be implemented as detailed in the Erosion Control Plan developed for submittal to the WDNR as part of an application to request coverage under the Construction Site Storm Water Runoff General Permit No. WI-S067831 would be implemented.

Appropriate storm water management and erosion control practices, as described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities would be implemented.

Waterways would be spanned and construction staff would not drive across streams crossed by the Project.

No fuel storage or refueling would take place on site. Construction would occur during periods of dry or frozen ground conditions if possible. Temporary construction matting would be used to minimize impacts in wetlands if construction cannot

occur during periods when the ground is dry or frozen or if construction must occur in wetland locations with low stability conditions.

Dairyland would monitor construction activities and require the use of impact avoidance measures and appropriate impact minimization practices (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control, low ground pressure equipment, matting).

For the rebuild and retire segments of the Project, the existing structures in wetlands would be cut off at ground level with a chainsaw, cut into smaller segments, and moved by hand to the nearest upland area or access route.

6


Once construction has been completed, construction areas, laydown areas, and overland access would be cleared of debris and disturbed ground cover and soils would be returned to pre-construction conditions so that sedimentation would not occur.

Dairyland would obtain all required permits listed in Table 3 of this EA.

Dairyland would coordinate with the USACE and the WDNR to determine other protocols that should be followed to minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands in the overall Project ROW.

5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species5.6.1 Threatened and Endangered SpeciesDairyland coordinated with the USFWS and the WDNR to investigate the potential for federally and/or state-listed special-status species to occur along the Project ROW. Eight federally listed species were identified on the Official Species List, by USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), which was provided by the Green Bay Ecological Services Field Office on January 4, 2018 (Table 15; USFWS 2018a). No areas of USFWS-mapped critical habitat occur along the Project ROW. Dairyland submitted a species consultation letter to the USFWS regarding possible impacts to the listed species on January 31, 2018. In this letter Dairyland requested specific location information regarding northern long-eared bat roost trees and hibernacula and locations of any known bald eagle nests. On December 19, 2017 the USFWS responded by email to Dairyland that they concurred that the soil boring activities conducted in January 2018 within the TWA may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Eastern massasauga (Appendix C). The USFWS also responded in an email dated February 22, 2018, that they agree with the impact analysis of the January 31, 2018, consultation letter, that the Project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species if appropriate minimization and avoidance measures are taken (Appendix C). The USFWS requested a shapefile of the Project route on February 22, 2018, to be able to verify the project location near known bald eagle nests. On February 27, 2018, the USFWS was provided the shapefile; however, as of the submittal of this EA, no eagle nest location information had been received from the USFWS.

A consultation letter and Endangered Resources Review (ERR) request was sent to the WDNR on July 25, 2017, to identify any state-listed species, significant natural resources, or site-specific records that would be impacted by the southern segment of the Project, and requesting that the WDNR review and comment on the potential impacts on protected species from the Project. The project was split into two segments due to the time to acquire new ROW on the northern segment of the Project.

In its response for the southern segment of the Project dated August 10, 2017, the WDNR provided required avoidance measures and recommended minimization measures for specific species or natural communities (Appendix C). Required avoidance measures were provided for the specific locations for Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis Formosa), red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests located within 660 feet of the Project. Voluntary minimization recommendations were provided for oak woodland and floodplain forest communities, as well as for migratory bird concentration site, Hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii), brittle prickly-pear (Opuntia fragilis), purple meadow parsnip (Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum), prairie fame-flower (Ohemeranthus rugospermus), Short’s rock-cress (Boechera dentata),

7


snowy campion (Silene nivea), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii).

A second consultation letter and ERR request was sent to the WDNR on January 31, 2018, to identify any state-listed species, significant natural resources, or site-specific records that would be impacted by the northern segment of the Project. The WDNR responded in a letter to Dairyland on February 19, 2018. No required actions were provided. Voluntary recommendations for the use of additional BMPs and construction during frozen conditions were provided for the southern mesic forest community and snow trillium plant, which are present along portions of the northern segment of the Project. However, the letter states that utilities are exempt from these protected plant communities, and the recommendations are therefore voluntary. The ERR requests submitted for the Project were updated on October 17, 2018 and no new stated listed species were identified (Appendix C).

Habitat along the existing ROW was identified/characterized through aerial photography interpretation, direct contact with agencies, and review of available internet resources (e.g., USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System, NatureServe Explorer). Table 15 describes each federally listed species and the state-listed species potentially occurring within the Project ROW.

Table 15: Federally or State Listed Species Known or Believed to Occur Near the Project ROWSpecies Status Habitat Project Evaluation

FederalMammals

Gray wolf(Canis lupus)

Federally Endangered

Habitat generalist that includes biomes such as boreal forest, temperate deciduous forest, and temperate grasslands.

Potential habitat is present within the Project area, although conversion of habitat is not anticipated as a result of the Project. No impact to species or habitat is likely due to high mobility of the species and abundance of habitat surrounding the Project area.

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Federally Threatened under the Section 4(d) rule of the ESA

Summer habitat (April 1–September 30) includes forested areas and non-forested areas, such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Roosts underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. May also roost in cooler places like caves and mines. Hibernates during winter in caves and mines.

Potential summer habitat is present along the Project ROW. No winter habitat (i.e., hibernacula; October 1–May 15) is known to occur in the area. Impacts unlikely with implementation of conservation measures described in the Interim 4(d) rule.

Birds

Whooping crane(Grus americana)

Federal Experimental population, non-essential

Open wetlands and lakeshores. Not likely to occur due to lack of habitat within the Project ROW. No impacts are anticipated.

ReptilesEastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus)

Federally Threatened

Typically use open-canopy wetland and upland vegetation. Often associated with emergent wetlands.

Known habitat is located within the TWA near the Chippewa River. Project would minimize temporary impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable, and permanent habitat impacts would be limited to possible new tree clearing along new ROWs within wetlands. WDNR indicates that an incidental take permit would

8



be required prior to commencing construction.

ClamsHiggins Eye (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis higginsii)


Areas with deep water and moderate current. Occurs in the St. Croix River, upper Mississippi River, Wisconsin River, and lower Rock River.

None of the rivers in which it is known to occur cross the Project area.

Sheepnose Mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus)


Large rivers and streams usually found in shallow areas with moderate to swift currents.

Potential habitat within the Project Area; however, the Project would avoid impacts to streams and rivers.

InsectsKarner Blue Butterfly(Lycaeides melissa samuelis)


Open prairies, barrens, and recently cleared areas with wild lupine, especially areas with direct sunlight such as road rights-of-way and recently logged areas.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan, the Project is not located within the high potential range of the Karner blue butterfly. Therefore, impacts are not expected.

Flowering PlantsPrairie Bush-clover(Lespedeza leptostachya)

Federally Threatened

Found only in the tallgrass prairie region of the upper Mississippi River Valley.

Potential habitat is present within the Project area, although conversion of habitat is not anticipated as a result of the Project. Due to the limited ROW of the Project, impacts anticipated to be low.

StateBirdsKentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa)

State Threatened Known to occur in large tracts of hardwood forest with thick undergrowth near the Chippewa River.

Dairyland would avoid disturbance to suitable habitat areas from May 16 through August 15, or would have a qualified biologist conduct surveys to determine if they are present at the time of construction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be low.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

State Endangered

Known to occur at the Alma station and adjacent bluffs.

Dairyland would avoid disturbance to suitable habitat from March 1 through July 31, or would have a qualified biologist conduct surveys to determine if they are present at the time of construction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be low.

Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

State Threatened Known to occur in woodland habitat near the Chippewa River.

Dairyland would avoid disturbance to suitable habitat from March 15 through July 31, or would have a qualified biologist conduct surveys to determine if they are present at the time of construction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be low.

PlantsBrittle Prickly-pear (Opuntia fragilis)

State Threatened Known to occur within the existing ROW near the Chippewa River.

Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, however, Project would minimize impacts to this species as practicable.

Hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii) State Threatened May occur in dry prairies and oak barrens in Buffalo County.

Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, however, Project has been designed to minimize impacts to forested areas; therefore, impacts anticipated to be low.

Prairie fame-Flower (Phemeranthus rugospermus)

State Special Concern

May occur in open, sandy prairies, barrens, and in moss along bedrock outcroppings near the Chippewa River.


9



Purple meadow parsnip (Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum)


May occur in moist prairies and along roadsides and embankments in Buffalo County.


Short’s rock-cress (Boechera dentata)


May occur in woodlands and cliffs in Buffalo County.


Snow trillium (Trillium nivale)

State Threatened Found in hardwood forests, sometimes second-growth, often adjacent to rivers or streams.

Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, however, Project has been designed to minimize impacts to forested areas; therefore, impacts anticipated to be low.

Snowy campion (Silene nivea)


May occur along streambanks and riparian meadows, and deciduous forest areas near the Chippewa River.

Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, however, Project would minimize impacts to this species as practicable

ReptilesBlanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)


May occur in wetlands and shallow waterbodies near the Chippewa River.

Voluntary avoidance recommendation measures may be implemented, and any Blanding’s turtles found on-site would be carefully moved to suitable habitat outside the Project ROW.

Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)


May occur in rocky areas and bluffs near the Chippewa River.

Voluntary avoidance recommendation measures may be implemented, and no timber rattlesnakes would be intentionally killed.

Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus)

State Endangered

Typically use open-canopy wetland and upland vegetation. Often associated with emergent wetlands.

Known habitat is located within the TWA near the Chippewa River. Project would minimize temporary impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable, and permanent habitat impacts would be limited to possible new tree clearing along new ROWs within wetlands. WDNR indicates that an incidental take permit would be required prior to commencing construction.

Source: USFWS (2018a)NatureServe Explorer (2017)

5.6.1.1 FederalGray WolfGray wolves (Canis lupus) are habitat generalists that live in many biomes in Wisconsin, including boreal forests, temperate deciduous forests, and temperate grasslands. Gray wolves live in packs, with a territory that may cover between 20 and 120 square miles. The likelihood, therefore, of a gray wolf crossing the Project area is moderate.

Northern Long-Eared Bat Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) habitat for the summer may include day roosts in buildings or under tree bark or shutters. Hibernation sites often occur in mines or caves, and this species may co-hibernate with other species. Foraging habitat includes forested hillsides and ridges and small ponds or streams. Mating occurs in the fall, with delayed fertilization in the spring, and young produced between May and July.

10


Aerial photography was reviewed to assess the potential for the northern long-eared bat to occur within the Project ROW. Based on this review, no winter habitat and only minimal summer habitat was identified. Potential summer roosting habitat within the Project ROW could occur where areas with trees are adjacent to the Project ROW. The USFWS IPaC endangered species list has documented possible occurrences of northern long-eared bat in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties. The WDNR responded to an ERR request on December 29, 2017, and February 19, 2018, and did not identify any hibernacula or summer roost trees in the Project area (Appendix C).

Dairyland contacted the USFWS on January 31, 2018, and asked the USFWS to review the location of the Project location to satisfy the requirements of the 4(d) rule, which would allow Dairyland to construct the Project without obtaining a permit from the USFWS. The USFWS responded on February 22, 2018, and did not provide any comment regarding the northern long-eared bat (Appendix C). Dairyland submitted a Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to the USFWS on December 4, 2018 (Appendix C). The USFWS did not provide a response during the 30-day comment period. Therefore, no further coordination regarding the Northern Long-Eared Bat is required.

Whooping Crane (experimental population)An experimental population of whooping cranes (Grus americana) that was reintroduced in the Eastern U.S. through the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership, including parts of Wisconsin. Whooping cranes depend on large, open wetland complexes to eat, roost, and make their nests, and this experimental population has a range that extends from Wisconsin to Florida. The WDNR Whooping Crane Management Plan lists the primary location of the whooping cranes in Wisconsin as the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Juneau County, and wetlands in the surrounding counties of Monroe, Jackson, Wood, Marathon, Adams, and Marquette counties (WDNR 2006). Therefore, they are not likely to occur due to lack of habitat within the Project area.

Eastern Massasauga Eastern massasaua (Sistrurus catenatus) known habitat is located within the TWA near the Chippewa River, which is crossed by the Project ROW. Project, would minimize temporary impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable. An Incidental Take Permit (ITP) was approved by WDNR on January 3, 2018, for preconstruction soil borings within the TWA (Appendix C). The USFWS responded via email on December 19, 2017 concurring that the preconstruction soil boring activities may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Eastern massasauga (Appendix C). Dairyland would continue to coordinate with the USFWS and will obtain an ITP for construction activities, as required by the WDNR. Dairyland would continue to coordinate with the USFWS regarding potential affects to the Eastern massasauga for construction of the Project.

Higgins Eye Pearly musselThe Higgins eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is a federally endangered freshwater mussel known to occur in the St. Croix, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and lower Rock rivers in Wisconsin. The Project does not cross any of these rivers, but does cross the Chippewa River, which is a tributary that flows directly into the Mississippi River. The Project would avoid impacts to streams and rivers; therefore, impacts by the Project are not anticipated.

11


Sheepnose MusselThe sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) is a federally endangered freshwater mussel known to occur in large rivers and streams of Wisconsin. The Project crosses the Chippewa River. The project would avoid impacts to streams and rivers; therefore, impacts by the Project are not anticipated.

Karner Blue Butterfly The Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) is a small butterfly that lives in areas with wild lupine and other native wild flowers. The Karner blue butterfly occurs in central and northwestern Wisconsin. However, of the counties crossed by the Project, none are in the Karner blue butterfly High Potential Range (WDNR 2009). Therefore, they are not likely to occur within the Project area.

Prairie Bush-Clover The prairie bush-clover (Lespedeza leptostachya) is listed as threatened and is known to occur in southern and west central Wisconsin. This clover occurs primarily in the tallgrass prairie region of the upper Mississippi River Valley. Flowering occurs from mid-July through early August, but this species takes several years to develop from the seedling to flowering stage. Plants are in fruit from mid-August through mid-September. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Potential habitat is present within the Project area, although conversion of habitat is not anticipated as a result of the Project. Due to the limited ROW of the Project, impacts anticipated to be low.

Bald and Golden Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles are known to occur in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties (USFWS 2017). The preferred habitat for bald eagles includes large trees in isolated areas near large areas of surface water, large complexes of deciduous forest, coniferous forest, wetland, and shrub communities. Large lakes and rivers with nearby tall pine trees are preferred for nesting. Although no field studies have been conducted, portions of the Project ROW would occur in predominantly disturbed habitats (e.g., road ROW), which would limit the potential nesting habitat. Other portions of the Project ROW cross forested areas, as well as the TWA that could include potential nesting habitat for bald eagles. Eagle nests were identified by WDNR in two areas of the southern portion of the project in Buffalo and Pepin counties, near TWA and near the Buffalo River area, and no nests were identified along the northern portion of the Project. At the time of submitting this EA, no response had been received from the USFWS to identify any known eagle nests in the Project area.

Although the golden eagle is not known to breed in Wisconsin, they do occur in bluff country habitat of the driftless area during winter. A retire segment at the south end of the Project crosses this habitat, and likelihood of occurrence is low.

5.6.1.2 StateKentucky WarblerThe Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa)is a listed state threatened species, and is known to occur in large tracts of hardwood forest with thick undergrowth near the Chippewa River. Clearing of forested

12


areas has been minimized near the Chippewa River through Project design. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Peregrine FalconThe peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a listed state endangered species, and is known to occur in along the Mississippi River and adjacent bluffland areas. Dairyland would avoid disturbance to suitable habitat from March 1 through July 31, or would have a qualified biologist conduct surveys to determine if they are present at the time of construction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be low. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Red-Shouldered HawkThe red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is a listed state threatened species, and is known to occur in along the Chippewa River. Dairyland would avoid disturbance to suitable habitat from March 15 through July 31, or would have a qualified biologist conduct surveys to determine if they are present at the time of construction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be low. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Brittle Prickly-PearThe brittle prickly-pear (Opuntia fragilis) is a listed state threatened species, and is known to occur within the existing Project ROW near the Chippewa River. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Hill’s ThistleThe hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii) is a listed state threatened species, and is known to occur in dry prairies and oak barrens in Buffalo County. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Prairie Fame-FlowerThe prairie fame-flower (Phemeranthus rugospermus) is a listed state special concern species, and is known to occur within open areas, sandy prairies, barrens, and moss along bedrock outcroppings near the Chippewa River. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Purple Meadow ParsnipThe purple meadow parsnip (Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum) is a listed state special concern species, and is known to occur within moist prairies and along roadsides and embankments in Buffalo County. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

13


Short’s Rock-CressThe Short’s rock-cress (Boechera dentata) is a listed state special concern species, and is known to occur within woodlands and cliffs within Buffalo County. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Snow TrilliumThe snow trillium (Trillium nivale) is a listed state threatened species and is known to occur along streambanks and riparian meadows, and deciduous forest areas near the Chippewa River. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Snowy CampionThe snow trillium (Silene nivea) is a listed state special concern species, and is known to occur within hardwood forests, sometimes second growth, often adjacent to rivers or streams in Pierce County. Utilities are exempt from protecting plants, but Project impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Blanding’s TurtleThe Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) is a listed state special concern species, and it may occur in wetlands and shallow waterbodies near the Chippewa River. Voluntary avoidance recommendation measures may be implemented, and any Blanding’s turtles found on-site would be carefully moved to suitable habitat outside the Project ROW. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

Timber RattlesnakeThe timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a listed state special concern species, and is may occur in rocky areas and bluffs near the Chippewa River. Voluntary avoidance recommendation measures may be implemented, and no timber rattlesnakes would be intentionally killed. Species occurrence within the Project area is likely.

As summarized in Table 15 and in the text above, the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat, whooping crane, Eastern massasauga, Higgins eye pearly mussel, sheepnose mussel, karner blue butterfly, and the prairie bush-clover are the only federally listed species likely to occur within the Project ROW. In addition, bald and golden eagles may be present in the Project area. Bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the Project area, and the WDNR identified two areas of known eagle nests near the southern portion of the Project. At the time of submitting this EA, no response had been received from the USFWS to identify any known nearby eagle nests in the Project area. The golden eagle does not breed in Wisconsin, but the south end of the Project area may provide wintering habitat for golden eagles. Numerous state-listed species are also likely located within the Project area.

14


5.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThe Project ROW crosses two different MLRAs; the Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies and the Northern Mississippi Valley Loess Hills within the Driftless Area of Wisconsin (Section 5.2). However, a large portion of the Project is located within agricultural and developed road ROW areas, which have been significantly modified from their original habitats. Based upon the Project location, a response from the WDNR requires timing restrictions on construction within suitable habitat areas for peregrine falcon, Kentucky warbler, red-shouldered hawk, and within 660 feet of a known eagle nests. Dairyland would follow these timing restrictions as required by the WDNR. Dairyland would also obtain an incidental take permit for the Eastern massasauga, as required by the WDNR for construction with the TWA. The USFWS did not provide any additional comments regarding required avoidance or mitigation measures.

Based on the analysis completed and summarized in Table 14, RUS has determined that the Project “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or critical habitat in accordance with Section 7 of ESA. In addition, the WDNR determined that if the Project would incorporate and implement the required actions provided in the August 10, 2017, and February 19, 2018, correspondence (Appendix C), and obtain an ITP for Eastern massasauga, that the Project would comply with state endangered species laws.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to threatened and endangered species would occur.

5.6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Mitigation and Monitoring Dairyland would implement the species-specific requirements for Eastern massasauga, peregrine falcon, Kentucky warbler, red shouldered hawk, and bald eagle nests as required by the WDNR. These included the following disturbance avoidance periods:

Peregrine falcon habitat from March 1 through July 31 (Sheet Map 20), Kentucky Warbler habitat from May 16 through August 15 (Sheet Maps 12 through 14), Red-shouldered hawk habitat from May 15 through July 31 (Sheet Map 12), Bald eagle active nests within 660 feet of Project area between February 1 and July 30 (Sheet Maps

11 through 14, and 18 through 20).

To reduce overall project impacts to habitat and water quality, Dairyland would avoid impacts to wetlands to the extent feasible and implement standard erosion and sediment control BMPs. Monitoring of the Project area would occur throughout the duration of the Project in accordance with applicable permit conditions.

5.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources5.7.1 Fish and Wildlife ResourcesBased on the habitat present along the Project ROW, fisheries and wildlife resources include a range of species groupings (birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects), both resident and migratory. Habitat is likely used by one or more of these species groupings in almost every life-cycle stage (e.g.,

15


forage, shelter, breeding, rearing, migration, etc.). The Project ROW consists primarily of cultivated crops, deciduous forest, open space developed areas, and hay/pasture lands. Agricultural fields and hay/pasture within the Project ROW may provide stopover habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds and foraging habitat for mammals such as white-tailed deer. Field edges and road ROWs may provide shelter, breeding, and foraging habitat for songbirds, upland game birds, and small mammals. Species that may occur in these habitats include small mammals, such as voles, shrews, mice, squirrels, and rabbits, and larger mammals, such as coyotes, raccoons, foxes, and white-tailed deer; and songbirds. Fish, reptiles, and amphibians such as snakes, turtles, toads, and frogs would likely be found near the wetlands and waterway crossings along the Project ROW.

5.7.2 Fish and Wildlife Resource ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThere is minimal potential for long-term displacement of non-federally or non-state-listed wildlife and loss of habitat from the Project because it would be constructed along an existing transmission ROW and adjacent to existing road ROWs. Wildlife could be temporarily displaced within the immediate area of construction activity. Migratory birds are not expected to be significantly affected because no major nesting areas were identified within the Project ROW.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to fish and wildlife resources would occur.

5.7.3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Coordination with the USFWS and WDNR has not identified any additional concerns beyond those related to special-status species; therefore, mitigation measures beyond those associated with erosion and sediment control measures to prevent impacts to water bodies are not proposed.

5.8 Cultural Resources5.8.1 Cultural ResourcesIn March 2017, Dairyland’s cultural resources consultant, Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center (MVAC), conducted a Literature Review of the Project area and completed an addendum to this review in January 2018 to include portions of new build and alternatives not included in the March 2017 review. The results of the reviews are provided as Appendix D.

MVAC used the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database (WHPD) to identify a list of previous surveys and previously recorded sites within 1 mile of the Project. According to WHPD, 38 previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within 1 mile of the Project, 27 of which are Phase I archaeological surveys. A very small portion of two previous surveys overlap the Project ROW, and two extensive surveys along a retire segment of the Project in Dunn County near Missouri Creek, resulted in dozens of recorded archaeological sites in the area. The four previous surveys that overlap the Project are listed in listed in Appendix D (MVAC 2017 and 2018).

According to the WHPD review, 163 previously recorded sites occur within 1 mile of the Project. Thirteen previously recorded sites occur adjacent to or overlap the Project, as described in Appendix D (MVAC

16


2017 and 2018). Three previously recorded sites are located along the rebuild segment, nine are located along the retire segment, and one is along the alternatives segment. No previously recorded sites were identified along the new build segment of the Projects. The previously recorded sites along the Project include cemeteries and burial sites, campsites/villages, lithic scatter, depressions, isolated finds, and unknown sites (MVAC 2017 and 2018).

A Phase I Archaeological Survey was conducted for a 7.5 mile portion of the Project in Buffalo and Pepin counties. The results of the survey were submitted to the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and a SHPO concurrence was received for that portion of the Project.

In June and October 2018, personnel from the MVAC conducted a Phase I archaeological survey for Dairyland of approximately 19 miles of portions of the N-5 transmission line rebuild from the Nelson Substation to the Maxville Substation in Buffalo County, and from the Ella Substation to the Rock Elm Substation in Pepin and Pierce Counties, Wisconsin. Since the pole locations were the only planned ground disturbance, MVAC surveyed the pole location only in areas where surface visibility was less than twenty percent, and pedestrian surveyed the pole locations and in between the pole locations in plowed fields with good surface visibility.

There are six sites listed in the National Park Service (NPS) National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) public data (NPS 2018) located within 1 mile of the Project, as listed below:

Alma Historic District—added to the NRHP in 1982 (NPS 1982a). Laue, Frederick, Jr., House—built in 1896 and was added to the NRHP in 1982 (NPS 1982b). Senn, John L., House—built in 1885 and was added to the NRHP in 1982 (NPS 1982c). Sherman House—built in 1866 and was added to the NRHP in 1979 (NPS 1979b). Steiner, John, Store—built in 1883 and was added to the NRHP in 1982 (NPS 1982d) Laue, Frederick, House—built in 1866 and was added to the NRHP in 1979 (NPS 1979a).

The NRHP sites listed above are located within the City of Alma within 1 mile of a retire segment of the Project. No impacts are anticipated as the transmission line would be removed from its current location and no new Project facilities would be constructed in its place.

5.8.2 Cultural Resource ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThere are 13 previously recorded sites that occur adjacent to or overlap the Project, as noted in the Literature Review and addendum performed by MVAC (MVAC 2017 and 2018, Appendix D), including one site located along the alternative segment.

Based on a review of the literature search and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), RUS is proposing that a finding of no historic properties affected is appropriate for the Project in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Dairyland submitted a form requesting SHPO Comment and Consultation on a Federal Undertaking for a 7.5 mile portion of the Project in Buffalo and Pepin counties and received a response from the SHPO (Appendix C) on January 31, 2018, indicating that no historic properties would be affected by this portion of the Project.

17


Two new prehistoric isolated finds, 47BF255, and 47PI684, were found during the Phase I Survey completed by MVAC in June and October 2018. No additional artifacts were found associated with these sites within the Project area, and no further work was recommended for the sites.

Along the Project area, there were 28 poles that MVAC could not survey due to lack of landowner permission. This included 5 contiguous poles in one area and 23 contiguous poles in another area. MVAC discussed this with Dr. Leslie Eisenberg at the SHPO, and Dr. Eisenberg suggested that MVAC compile a table with the pole numbers, location, probability of cultural resources, and survey recommendations for when access can be obtained to enter the property. Dairyland submitted a table to SHPO containing the pole numbers, location, probability of cultural resources, and survey recommendations for all 28 poles that were not surveyed due to lack of access (Appendix C). MVAC recommended that 1 pole be shovel tested when access is granted, conduct a pedestrian survey on 14 poles when access is granted, and 13 poles where no survey was recommended. SHPO provided a concurrence email regarding the survey recommendations to Dairyland on January 18, 2019 Appendix C).

Dairyland submitted a form requesting SHPO Comment and Consultation on a Federal Undertaking for the Project area on December 201, 2018 and received a response from the SHPO (Appendix C) on January 4, 2019, indicating that no historic properties would be affected by this portion of the Project. Aside from surveying the remainder of the poles when access is obtained, no further archaeological work is recommended for this project.

Dairyland also submitted coordination letters containing results of the literature review and addendum and a description of the Project to Indian Tribes for review and comment on January 31, 2018, (Appendix C). As of March 12, Dairyland had received responses from four tribes, as summarized below.

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe responded on February 7, 2018, that they do not have any recorded sites of religious or cultural importance in the area but would like to be notified if any human or suspected human remains are encountered.

White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe responded on February 15, 2018, that they would defer to local tribes regarding pre-application notification on the Project.

The Upper Sioux Community responded on March 5, 2018, that they would like to review the Project location shapefiles. Dairyland provided the shapefiles on March 6, 2018. No further response has been received from the Tribe.

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma responded on March 9, 2018, that they do not have any documented connection to the Project site but would like to be notified if any human remains or Native American cultural items or archaeological evidence is found at the Project.

No impact to NRHP-listed sites are anticipated. The NRHP-listed sites within 1 mile of the Project are all located within the Alma Historic District; Laue, Frederick, Jr., House; Senn, John L., House; Sherman House; Steiner, John, Store; or Laue, Frederick, House. As all of these sites are located within 1 mile of a retire segment of the Project, no impacts are anticipated as the transmission line would be removed from its current location and no new Project facilities would be constructed in its place.

18


No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to cultural resources would occur.

5.8.3 Cultural Resource Mitigation and Monitoring In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources:

Supervisory construction personnel would be instructed on the protection of cultural resources, with reference to relevant laws and penalties and the need to cease work in the location if cultural resource items are discovered.

If human bone or cultural resources are discovered during construction, work would be immediately suspended and Dairyland would contact the RUS and the State Archaeologist.

5.9 Air Quality5.9.1 Air QualityBuffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, and all Project segments, are in attainment with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead). Currently, there are three counties in Wisconsin not meeting NAAQS; two along Lake Michigan near Milwaukee (Kenosha and Sheboygan counties) that have nonattainment for NAAQS for 8-hour ozone, and one in the northcentral portion (Oneida County) of the state in nonattainment for NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (USEPA 2018a).

5.9.2 Air Quality ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeConstruction of the Project would result in relatively low amounts of construction equipment exhaust emissions, and if soil along the access routes is loose and dry, there would be some potential for fugitive dust emission. Air emissions are expected to be similar over the rebuild, new build and retire segments of the Project.

NR 154.11 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code states that no person shall allow materials to be transported without taking precautions to prevent the particulate matter from becoming airborne. Temporary impacts from fugitive dust would be minimized or avoided by using mitigation measures as described below.

Emissions resulting from corona-related ozone and nitrogen during operation of the transmission line are discussed in Section 5.13.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to air quality would occur.

19


5.9.3 Air Quality Mitigation and Monitoring In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to air quality:

Water would be applied to alleviate dust nuisance generated by construction activities. If water proves to be ineffective as a dust suppressant, soil binders would be used.

5.10 Visual Resources5.10.1 Visual ResourcesVisual or aesthetic resources are naturally occurring or man-made visible physical features (e.g., land, water, vegetation, structures, etc.) that occur along a landscape. Landscape character includes the distinctive qualities and arrangement of the features of a landscape, such as land, water, vegetation, and structures.

The Project would be located in the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin, which is characterized by steep valleys, sandstone bluffs, spring-fed creeks, and flat ridges. The predominant land use in the area is agriculture, with deciduous forests the second most common land use. The vegetation within the Project area includes fallow and active croplands and grasslands, surrounded by areas of deciduous forests. The Project area entails both native and non-native species, including smooth brome, white clover, dandelion, goldenrod, Queen Anne’s lace, a variety of grasses, white pine, green ash, quaking aspen, a variety of rye grasses, among other species. Riparian vegetation is also present in the Project area and is associated with rivers, creeks and other perennial drainages that traverse the landscape. Perennial rivers and creeks traverse the landscape and various would be crossed by the rebuild and new build segments, including Chippewa River, Buffalo River, Mill Creek, Trout Creek, and several other named and unnamed drainageways. The new build segment of the Project would parallel existing roadways for the majority of its length within a newly acquired 80-foot-wide ROW. The rebuild segment would be rebuilt in within the existing ROW. The alternative segments would also parallel existing roadways for the majority of its length.

Man-made modifications in the Project area include dispersed residences associated with agricultural lands and associated ancillary structures (e.g., barns, maintenance sheds, fences, and animal feeding operations). Local infrastructure modifications within the area (Figure 1) include USH 10, SH-25, county roads, local paved and unpaved roads, communication towers, a railroad corridor, five existing substations, and various electric transmission lines including the existing Alma-Rock Elm 69 kV transmission line. In addition, three private airports are located within five miles of the Project ROW. The Project also crossed the City of Alma.

Potential visually sensitive areas would be limited to the areas around rural residences, near the City of Alma, within the TWA located east of the Chippewa River, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Designated Scenic Byway Great River Road (SH-35).

20


In addition, the Great River Road Scenic Byway (SH-35) traverses a retire segment near the southern terminus of the Project (Figure 7). The Great River Road Scenic Byway was designated a state scenic byway in 1999. The WisDOT Scenic Byways program was established to identify and promote state highway corridors with scenic and/or historical attributes that provide travelers an enjoyable visual, education and recreational experience (WisDOT 2018d). No rebuild, new build, or alternative segments cross any designated scenic byways.

5.10.2 Visual Resource ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeConstruction of all segments of the Project would create direct short-term effects to visual resources by introducing vehicles, equipment, materials, and a workforce during the construction period. Viewers would see transmission line structure assembly and erection and conductor stringing activities. Visual effects from construction activities would not be significant because of the short-term duration of the construction timeframe, anticipated to be an intermittent 4 to 5 days at each structure.

Sensitive viewsheds include the views from local residences. Residences located adjacent to the Project ROW have views that range from unobstructed to partially or intermittently screened by vegetation located between the residence building and the existing and new ROWs. Fifteen residences are located within 500 feet of the rebuild segment, 32 residences are located within 500 feet of the new build segment, 7 residences are located within 500 feet of the retire segment, and 22 residences are located within 500 feet of the alternative segment of the Project. One residence is located within the Project ROW, along an alternative segment.

Overall, effects to the aesthetic environment are anticipated to be minor because vertical elements similar to the Project already exist in the landscape, so the Project would not be out of character with the existing landscape. Furthermore, many sensitive views would be partially to completely screened by existing vegetation and/or topography. The sensitive views identified along the Project (including the designated Scenic Byway and the Alma historic district) are located along the retire segment of the Project, which would be removed and therefore improve visual impacts. No other sensitive recreational viewers were identified within the Project area.

The rebuild segments transmission line structures would be single-pole wood structures that are similar in form and color to the existing structures being replaced. For the segments of the Project that are to be rebuilt, the alignment for the transmission line would be offset from the existing alignment within the existing Project ROW to allow the existing transmission line to remain in service during reconstruction of the transmission line.

The new build segments transmission structures would also be single-pole wood structures that are similar in form and color to the existing structures on the rebuild segment of the Project. For the new build segments of the Project, the majority of the alignment would be located along previously disturbed existing public road corridors. For the new build segment, approximately 14.6 miles would be located within a new 80-foot-wide ROW and would parallel existing roads, and approximately 2.8 miles would be located along a new utility ROW along property field boundaries to connect the new build segment to the

21


rebuild segments of the Project. All of the new 80-foot-wide ROW for the alternative routes would be located along existing road ROWs.

The Project would not have a significant effect on visual resources. The rebuild segments of the Project would be similar in form and color as the structures being replaced, and the new build and alternative segments of the Project would not be out of character with the aesthetic character of the existing landscape because many man-made features (e.g., high-voltage transmission lines, substations, distribution lines, communication towers) are common within the area.

The retire segments of the Project would involve removing approximately 23.7 miles of 69 kV transmission line from the existing ROW and quitclaiming the lands to the previous landowners. The removal of transmission structures would result in a positive impact to the visual setting of the existing transmission line to be removed.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to visual resources would occur.

5.10.3 Visual Resource Mitigation and Monitoring The Project design reduces impacts to a level that is less than significant by locating the Project within an already disturbed corridor. In addition to implementing the BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources:

Existing undisturbed trees, shrubs, and native vegetation would be preserved to the extent possible to maintain visual contrast in the landscape.

5.11 Transportation5.11.1 Transportation

Transportation corridors in proximity to the Project consist of private residential roads, county roads and highways, U.S. and interstate highways, and railroads. The Project ROW crosses 97 roads. Table 16 shows the average annual daily traffic counts for roads crossed by the Project that have publicly available traffic count data. The Project also crosses the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad along one retire segment in the City of Alma (WisDOT 2018c).

Table 16: Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes for Select Roads Crossed by the ProjectProject Segment Road Name Traffic Count

Rebuild SH-25 2,900

CH-N 360

CH-Z 180

USH-10 2,800

CH-D 320

New Build CH-HH/450th Avenue 140

22


Table 16: Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes for Select Roads Crossed by the ProjectProject Segment Road Name Traffic Count

CH-S 210

USH-10 2,800

CH-Z 120

CH-ZZ 110

Retire SH-35 4,600

CH-E/2nd Street 770

CH-S (Buffalo County) 210

SH-37 980

CH-Z (Dunn) 120

CH-S (Pierce County) 300

CH-Z (Pepin County) 180

Alternatives USH-10 2,800

CH-S 300

Source: WisDOT (2018a)

Three airports are located within 5 miles of the Project; the closest airport is the Durand Municipal Airport being less than 0.1 mile (approximately 185 feet) east of a rebuild segment of the Project, northwest of the Town of Maxville. The closest heliport is the Chippewa Valley Hospital Heliport in the City of Durand, which is approximately 5.1 miles northeast of a rebuild segment of the Project in Pepin County. Airports within 5 miles of the Project are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Airports within Five Miles of the ProjectCounty Name Distance and Direction from Project (miles)

Buffalo Durand Municipal Airport <0.1 east

PepinRutherford Airport 1.1 miles northeastLittle Plum Creek Airport 4.5 miles southwest

CFR Title 14 Part 77.9 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:

Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level Any construction or alteration:

o Within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport that exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet

o Within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport that exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet

o Within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface

23


Any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above-noted standards

When requested by the FAA Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of

height or location.

No communication towers are located within the Project ROW. There are two communications towers within 1 mile of the Project, including a Dairyland Power Cooperative-owned tower and a Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company tower, both in Alma, Wisconsin, approximately 0.4 mile southeast of a retire segment of the Project.

5.11.2 Transportation ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeEffects to transportation resulting in construction of the Project are not expected to be significant and would be temporary in nature. Construction crews would use roadways and/or farm roads and overland travel to access structure locations and to string conductor along the 69 kV transmission line route and to remove existing transmission structures. A small construction crew consisting of approximately 15 to 20 people for the transmission line would be required. It is not anticipated that construction equipment or transportation for construction crews would have a significant impact on traffic volumes or flow on local roadways or state/county highways. Any increases in traffic would be short-term in nature and would be limited to the construction time period near individual transmission structures.

Ninety-seven roads would need to be crossed to string the conductor (new build, rebuild, and alternative segments) or remove the conductor, and traffic may temporarily be delayed for the time that it would take to string or remove the conductor across the road. Conductor stringing and/or removal at these locations is estimated to require only a few hours per crossing. If lane closures are necessary while conductor stringing or removal takes place, at least one lane would remain open to traffic at all times. Temporary guard or clearance structures would also be installed to ensure that conductors do not obstruct traffic during stringing. Once the installation of new conductor or removal of existing conductor has been completed, the temporary guard structures would be removed. Dairyland would coordinate with the appropriate county highway or WisDOT regarding lane closures.

No impacts to airports or heliports during construction or operation of the Project are anticipated. The closest airport is located less than 0.1 mile east of a retire segment of the Project, although it would be removal of an existing transmission line rather than construction of a new transmission line. Dairyland used the FAA Notice Criteria tool on 12 structure locations that were closest to the identified airports to determine whether structures along any segments of the transmission line would require Dairyland to file a notice to construct with the FAA (FAA 2018). The screening tool indicated that the Project does not exceed the Notice Criteria (Appendix C). Based upon previous experience consulting with the FAA, Dairyland would file Form 7460-1 and Form 7460-2 for all structures that exceed the notice criteria after final structure locations have been determined. Dairyland also assumes that for these structures an aeronautical study would be completed by the FAA, and that all structures filed would result in a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.” Dairyland would complete all necessary consultation with the FAA prior to construction within the FAA Notice Criteria area.

24


The Project would cross one railroad corridor at a retire segment in Alma (WisDOT 2018c). Dairyland would coordinate with the railroad company to obtain any necessary permits prior to construction. Conductor stringing or removal at the railroad crossings is estimated to require only a few hours and temporary guard or clearance structures would be installed to ensure that conductors do not obstruct the railroad tracks during stringing or removal. Construction of the Project would not impede railroad operations, so no impacts to railroads are anticipated.

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project would have no significant effects on transportation or access in the Project area. The minor effects that would take place during construction would be minimized by utilizing the mitigation measures described below.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to transportation would occur.

5.11.3 Transportation Mitigation and Monitoring In addition to implementing those BMPs described in Dairyland’s Manual for Transmission Lines and Substation Construction and Maintenance Activities, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce potential impacts to transportation:

Confirm with the FAA that a, “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” has been obtained for all structures that exceed the FAA Notice Criteria prior to construction.

Roadway crossings would be maintained in a condition that would prevent tracking of sediment onto the roadway.

Mud tracked onto paved roadways would be cleaned off the road daily. Road crossings resulting from stringing operations would be discussed with the appropriate

transportation organization and, if required, personnel would be enlisted to assist with public safety and to ensure minimal disruption to traffic flow.

Construction personnel would not utilize state or county road/highway ROW for parking. Construction personnel would be required to make necessary provisions for conformance with

federal, state, and local traffic safety standards using traffic control, signage, and hazard cones as necessary to minimize the obstruction and to provide for the smooth flow of traffic around or through the construction area.

Temporary guard or clearance structures may be installed to ensure that conductors do not obstruct traffic during stringing or removal.

5.12 Health and Safety5.12.1 Health and SafetyAll Dairyland facilities are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed applicable standards of design and performance set forth in the NESC and Wisconsin State Electric Code—Part 2. Specific health and safety measures associated with overhead transmission lines are discussed below.

25


Electromagnetic Fields and InterferenceVoltage on any wire (conductor) produces an electric field. The intensity of the electric field is proportional to the voltage of the transmission line and distance from the wires. The flow of electrical current on a wire produces a magnetic field. The intensity of the magnetic field is proportional to the current flow through the wires. Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) extend outward from the wires and decreases rapidly with distance. There is no federal or Wisconsin state standard for transmission line EMF.

Additional information can be found in the Electric Power Research Institute brochure on EMF. This brochure is available online at: http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006827

Environmental Risk ManagementNo hazardous waste would be created, stored, or disposed of onsite. No petroleum product storage is anticipated onsite. However, if any petroleum product is stored onsite with a total aggregate greater than 1,320 gallons, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan for facilities would be prepared and implemented as required by the USEPA regulation under 40 CFR § 112.

WDNR maintains an online database (BOTW, or Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System on the Web) that includes information on sites with potential and confirmed soil and groundwater contamination in an online remediation and redevelopment sites map (WDNR 2018c). No open (ongoing cleanup) contamination cleanup sites are located along the Project ROW. One closed site is located along the Project ROW, which is associated with the Koch Pipeline milepost 47 site. Five closed sites are associated with the Dairyland Alma Substation. Cleanup sites that are considered closed (cleanup complete) by the WDNR are not anticipated to impact the Project.

No Brownfields sites or Superfund sites were identified within 1 mile of the Project using the USEPA EnviroMapper (USEPA 2018b).

5.12.2 Health and Safety ImpactsElectromagnetic Fields and InterferenceProposed Action AlternativeThere would be no health impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project, because the electromagnetic or electrostatic characteristics are nonexistent. Sources of EMF in the proximity to the Project include the existing 69 kV transmission lines and several distribution lines. Since much of the Project would be replacing an existing 69 kV transmission line, it would not be introducing new a source of EMF in the Project area. In areas where new transmission line would be constructed, new sources of EMF would be introduced. However, many studies of EMF have been conducted but none has identified a mechanism by which EMF can cause disease. Considerable research has been devoted to this subject over the past 30 years. More information and questions and answers can be found on the website for The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: <http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm>.

26

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006827

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006827


The potential for injuries or mortality from a variety of accidental causes involving the Project is a valid consideration with any high voltage facility. Dairyland’s transmission line design is in accordance with the NESC and Wisconsin State Electric Code—Part 2, and designed to minimize the possibility of injury from either inadvertent causes or ill-advised tampering by the public. There exists a possibility of human hazards despite all attempts to educate the public and design tamper-proof facilities. However, this hazard would be no greater for the Project than presently exists from existing similar facilities in the area.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to health and safety would occur.

Environmental Risk Management ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeNo hazardous waste would be created, stored, or disposed of onsite. No petroleum product storage is anticipated onsite; however, if any petroleum is stored onsite, the total aggregate would be less than 1,320 gallons so that a Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure Plan would not be required. No open (ongoing cleanup) contaminated land activities were found along the Project ROW. No Brownfields or Superfund sites were identified within 1 mile of the Project.

The potential environmental risk from the Project is considered minor, because no open (ongoing cleanup) contamination cleanup sites, Brownfields, or Superfund sites were identified near the Project area using the WDNR and USEPA web mapping tools. In addition, no generation or storage of hazardous wastes would be created or stored as a result of the Project.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to environmental risk management would occur.

5.12.3 Health and Safety Mitigation and MonitoringNo impacts to human health and safety are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.

5.13 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio and Television Interference5.13.1 CoronaCorona is the electrical breakdown of the air near high voltage conductors into charged particles. Corona consists of audible noise (AN) and radio and television interference from electromagnetic interference, both of which are described below.

5.13.2 Audible NoiseAN may consist of a variety of sounds of different intensities across the entire frequency spectrum. AN is measured in units of decibels on a logarithmic scale. Because human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound, certain frequencies are given more “weight.” The A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are measured in A-weighted decibels. Table 18 shows noise levels associated with common everyday sources.

27


Table 18: Common Noise Sources and LevelsSound Pressure Level (dBA) Typical Sources

100–105 Leaf blower100–104 Circular Saw84–89 Vacuum Cleaner76–83 Garbage disposal68–73 Inside car, windows closed, 30 MPH55–65 Normal conversation50 Background music40 Living room28–33 Quiet Room

Source: NPC (2011)

The primary land uses in proximity to the Project are developed open space (i.e., existing roadways), cultivated crops, hay/pasture, and undeveloped land; rural residences and farmsteads are scattered throughout the Project area, as well as being located through the City of Alma and connecting to other existing facilities. Current average background noise levels in these areas are typically in the range of 30 to 40 dBA, although averages are likely higher in areas adjacent to developed facilities and municipalities. Ambient noise in rural areas is commonly caused by rustling vegetation, light traffic, and agricultural equipment use. Higher ambient noise levels, typically in the range of 50 to 60 dBA, are produced near roadways, urban areas, and commercial and industrial properties.

Sources of AN in proximity to the Project include the equipment noise from agricultural operations, residential activities, noise generated by cars and trucks on local roads and state highways, and noise from municipalities crossed.

5.13.3 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio, and Television Interference ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeCorona from transmission lines can create buzzing, humming, or crackling. Measures such as carefully handling the conductor during construction to avoid nicking or scraping or otherwise damaging the surface and using hardware with no sharp edges or points are typically adequate to control corona. Corona effects are expected to be low enough that no objectionable AN would result outside the Project ROW. Corona-related ozone and nitrogen oxide emissions are the primary air quality concerns related to transmission line operation. The concentration of ozone caused by corona is a few parts per million near the conductor and is not measurable at any distance from the conductor.

The construction of the new build and alternative segments of the Project would result in AN. The construction of the rebuild segment of the Project would also result in AN; however, this segment would involve replacing an existing 69 kV transmission line; therefore, no additional AN would be added to these parts of the Project area. Temporary short-term noise increases would occur for the Project in areas where construction and staging are taking place. Indirect effects from post construction activities, which would include the AN effects from the transmission line and inspection and maintenance activities (new-build and rebuild segments) would be insignificant because of their short duration and infrequency. The AN generated during construction would be caused by foundation construction, assembly and erection of

28


the transmission line structures, removal of transmission line structures, and noise generated by construction equipment such as auguring machines, cranes, heavy machinery, and trucks. Construction related AN would be short term.

Typical equipment associated with transmission line construction and the associated noise levels at full power are shown in Table 19. Shaded areas indicate reference noise levels.

Table 19: Construction Equipment Noise Levels

EquipmentTypical Noise Levels

50 feet from Source (dBA)1

Rural area during daytime1 40Residential area during daytime 50Normal conversation at 6 feet 55–65Trucks 75Air compressor 81City traffic 80Backhoe 80Concrete mixer 85Mobile crane 83Bulldozer 85Grader 85Rotary drilling rig2 87Peak combined equipment3 89Lawn mower 90

Note: Shaded areas indicate reference noise levels.1 Source: DOT (2006) except as noted.2 Yantak (2007)3 DOE (2002)

Under peak conditions during construction, with the noisiest construction equipment operating simultaneously, the highest average expected noise level is estimated to be 89 dBA-equivalent sound level (referred to as Leq) at a reference distance of 50 feet (DOE 2002). This noise level is approximately equivalent to noise experienced on a sidewalk next to a busy urban street. Noise decreases with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the noise source. Based on this attenuation rate, at distances above 0.25 mile, peak construction noise would be approximately 61 dBA, or equivalent to normal conversation at 6 feet.

Noise from heavy machinery during construction of the proposed transmission line may create a short-term nuisance to nearby residents. Dairyland would mitigate the nuisance by ensuring that construction vehicles and equipment are maintained in proper operating condition and equipped with manufacturer’s standard noise control devices or better (e.g., mufflers or engine enclosures).

Landowners in proximity to electric transmission lines are often concerned that new transmission lines would affect their radio or television reception. This is a legitimate concern, not only related to transmission lines, but for distribution and communications lines as well. It is Dairyland’s general

29


experience that when the radio or television receiver is located outside the Project ROW, very few problems with radio or television reception are encountered. There are no communication towers located within the Project ROW, although there are two communications towers within 1 mile of the Project, including a Dairyland Power Cooperative-owned tower and a Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company tower, both in Alma, Wisconsin. However, at these distances, impacts to the communication towers are not anticipated.

Corona associated with the Project is expected to be low enough so that no radio or television interference is anticipated outside of the Project ROW, consistent with the operation of the existing transmission line. However, Dairyland is committed to taking all reasonable steps to assure area landowners that the Project would not interfere with radio or television reception. In cases where there is a demonstrable effect from the transmission line on reception, very often simple corrective steps, such as checking line hardware for loose or defective hardware and repairing or replacing defective items is sufficient to solve the problems. In a very limited number of cases, it has been necessary to take more extensive corrective steps such as relocating individual television or radio antenna systems or installing systems where none previously existed. In most cases, however, it is possible to entirely avoid radio and television interference by appropriate routing steps and by post-construction adjustments of line hardware.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to corona, audible noise, radio, and television interference would occur.

5.13.4 Corona, Audible Noise, Radio, and Television Interference Mitigation and Monitoring

The Project is located primarily in a rural agricultural area with scattered residences, so significant impacts resulting from construction noise are not anticipated. Impacts associated with the generation of corona are not anticipated and there would be no impact to radio and television interference; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.

5.14 Socioeconomic and Community Resources5.14.1 Socioeconomic and Community ResourcesData from the U.S. Census estimates from July 1, 2016, the most recent data available, were used to assess population and income data for the counties in the Project area.

Buffalo CountyRebuild, new build, and retire segments of the Project are located in Buffalo County. According to the 2016 U.S. Census estimates, Buffalo County had a total population of 13,099, a 3.6-percent decrease since the 2010 Census. General 2016 Census demographic estimates show a 51.1 percent male and 48.9 percent female distribution of the predominantly (97.7 percent) white population (U.S. Census 2018). Per capita income in the county ($26,973) is approximately 8 percent lower than the statewide average of $29,253. Unemployment in Buffalo County was 2.6 percent, lower than the statewide average (3.0 percent) for November 2017 (BLS 2017).

30


Dunn CountyNew build and retire segments of the Project are located in Dunn County. According to the 2016 U.S. Census, Dunn County had a total population of 44,704, a 1.9 percent increase since the 2010 Census. General 2016 Census demographic estimates for Dunn County show a 50.4 percent male and 49.6 percent female distribution of the predominantly (94.7 percent) white population (U.S. Census 2018). Per capita income in the county ($25,120) is approximately 14 percent lower than the statewide average of $29,253. Unemployment in Dunn County was 2.4 percent, lower than the statewide average (3.0 percent) for November 2017 (BLS 2017).

Pepin CountyRetire segments of the Project are located in Pepin County. According to the 2016 U.S. Census, Pepin County had a total population of 7,307, a 2.2-percent decrease since the 2010 Census. General 2016 Census demographic estimates for Pepin County show a 50.6 percent male and 49.4 percent female distribution of the predominantly (98.2 percent) white population (U.S. Census 2018). Per capita income in the county ($26,280) is approximately 10 percent lower than the statewide average of $29,253. Unemployment in Pepin County was 2.9 percent, lower than the statewide average (3.0 percent) for November 2017 (BLS 2017).

Pierce CountyRebuild segments of the Project are located in Pierce County. According to the 2016 U.S. Census, Pierce County had a total population of 41,238, a 0.5 percent increase since the 2010 Census. General 2016 Census demographic estimates for Pierce County show a 49.8 percent male and 50.2 percent female distribution of the predominantly (96.4 percent) white population (U.S. Census 2018). Per capita income in the county ($30,009) is approximately 3 percent higher than the statewide average of $29,253. Unemployment in Pierce County was 2.6 percent, lower than the statewide average (3.0 percent) for November 2017 (BLS 2017).

5.14.2 Socioeconomic and Community Resource ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeAny impacts to social and economic resources would generally be of a short-term nature. Dairyland anticipates that one crew of 15 to 20 construction workers would be needed for construction of the Project. The construction contractors would not likely be local. Revenue; therefore, would likely increase for some local businesses, such as restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, and hotels, because of an increase in the number of out-of-town workers in the area. Other local businesses, such as gravel suppliers, hardware stores, welding and machine shops, and heavy equipment repair and maintenance service providers, would also likely benefit from construction of the Project. The existing businesses and social services would be adequate to support the Project because of the small size of the construction crew and the short-term nature of the construction activities. The increased availability of reliable power in the area would have a positive effect on local businesses and the quality of service provided to the general public.

Given the relatively small size of the construction crew needed for construction of the Project, no impacts to emergency health care facilities or law enforcement services are anticipated.

31


No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no impacts to socioeconomic and community resources would occur.

5.14.3 Socioeconomic and Community Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Negative effects resulting from construction of the Project are not anticipated, so no mitigation is necessary.

5.15 Environmental Justice5.15.1 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, states that “each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The analysis pursuant to this EO follows guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Environmental Justice Guidance under the NEPA (CEQ 1997).

The CEQ guidelines state that minority populations should be identified where “… (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ 1997).

In compliance with the CEQ guidelines, the minority and economic aspects of the Project were evaluated on a regional basis. Minority and low-income data were analyzed for each census tract that the Project would cross. It should be noted that the census tracts that were analyzed encompass a much larger area than the Project, so the actual population located adjacent to the Project ROW is smaller than what is shown for the census tract. The socioeconomic trends shown by the census tract are expected to be representative of the population located in proximity to the Project. Table 20 shows the census data for the state, for the counties crossed by the Project, and for the census tracts crossed by the Project.

Table 20: Census Data by County and Census Tracts crossed by the Project

Location PopulationRace Percentages Per Capita

Income (Dollars)Percent of Population Below

Poverty LevelCaucasian Minority2016 DataState of Wisconsin 5,778,708 87.5 12.5 29,253 11.8

Buffalo County 13,099 97.7 2.3 26,973 10.5Census Tract 9603 2,155 96.0 4.0 28,034 9.0Census Tract 9604 2,452 98.0 2.0 29,013 8.6

Dunn County 44,704 94.7 5.3 25,120 12.5Census Tract 9706 4,308 94.1 5.1 27,077 10.3

Pepin County 7,307 98.2 1.8 26,280 11.5Census Tract 9502 3,384 97.7 2.3 27,814 9.7

Pierce County 41,019 96.4 3.6 30,009 8.1Census Tract 9601 2,948 98.5 1.5 25,161 11.1Census Tract 9608 3,578 97.0 3.0 30,040 7.0

32


Data for 2016 were available for Wisconsin, and Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, including census tracts within each of these counties that would be crossed by the Project (U.S. Census 2016). Use of these datasets represents the most recent available data and provides an appropriate comparison given the low incidence of minority populations across datasets. According to the 2016 data, minority populations are less than 6 percent of the populations in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties. Minority populations within the county census tracts that would be crossed by the Project range from approximately 1.5 percent to 5.1 percent, all of which are lower than state-level data. Per capita income in Buffalo, Dunn, and Pepin counties (including census tracts) and Census Tract 9601 in Pierce County are lower than those reported for the state, with Census Tract 9608 in Pierce County higher than that of state as a whole.

Poverty levels in all census tracts crossed by the Project are lower than those reported for the State of Wisconsin.

5.15.2 Environmental Justice ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeThe percentages of minority populations in the census tracts that cross the Project are generally the same as, or lower than, those found in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, or the State of Wisconsin, with the exception of Census Tract 9603 in Buffalo County, which is higher than the Buffalo County average but lower than the State of Wisconsin average. The percentages of populations below the poverty level in Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties are lower than or similar to the State of Wisconsin, and all census tracts crossed by the Project have a lower percentage of the population below the poverty line than the State of Wisconsin.

Although some populations below the poverty level and some areas with per capita income below the Wisconsin average would be crossed, the Project is a rebuild with new build of the existing Alma to Rock Elma transmission line, and none of the census tracts crossed have a higher poverty rate than the State of Wisconsin. In general, the percentages of minority populations and the poverty level in the census tracts crossed are similar to or lower than the county and state averages, and the per capita incomes are similar to the county averages for each county crossed by the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would have no disproportionate environmental affects to minority and low-income populations within Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties.

No Action AlternativeIf the Project is not built, no environmental justice impacts would occur.

5.15.3 Environmental Justice Mitigation and Monitoring Construction of the Project would not have disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations, so no mitigation is necessary.

33


6. Cumulative Impacts

CEQ regulations define cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.70). Also, cumulative impacts are those “which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions have cumulatively significant impacts” (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)).

Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an action are added to the effects of other actions occurring in a specific geographic area and timeframe. The cumulative impact analysis follows CEQ’s guidelines: Considering Cumulative Effects under the NEPA (CEQ 1997). The steps associated with the analysis include requirements that the assessor:

Specify the class of actions for which effects are to be analyzed. Designate the appropriate time and space domain in which the relevant actions occur. Identify and characterize the resources to be assessed. Determine the magnitude of effects on the receptors and whether those effects are accumulating.

The cumulative effects analysis presented in this section is resource-specific. The temporal and spatial boundaries used for the cumulative effects analysis are specific to each resource area. For those resources where the spatial boundary is defined as the Project area, this includes the ROW, access routes, and up to four temporary laydown areas. For those resources where the temporal boundary is defined as the lifetime of the Project, this is estimated to be 50 years. If the Project is not expected to result in direct or indirect impacts on a resource, then that resource was eliminated from the cumulative effects evaluation.

Dairyland contacted the land use or zoning administrators of Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, as well as reviewed the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Northwest Region 2018-2023 Highway Improvement Program (WisDOT 2018b) and the Midcontinent Independent Service Operator (MISO) Regional Transmission Organization Midwest Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP) 18 Active Project List (MISO 2018) to identify any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to the cumulative effect analysis.

Administrators in Buffalo, Dunn, and Pepin counties were not aware of any recent past, present, or foreseeable future projects. Within Pierce County, an existing Koch Pipeline maintenance project was completed near the Town of Maiden Rock, although the overall area of land disturbance from the maintenance work was small. Correspondence with each of the county administrators is located in Appendix C.

The Pierce County pipeline project would have likely caused temporary disturbances and impacts to water quality, vegetation, air quality, and transportation. However, because these impacts were likely

1


temporary, the project has been completed, and the construction schedules would not overlap, no significant cumulative impacts from this project and the Project are anticipated.

The MISO MTEP 2018 list was reviewed, and no proposed projects were identified near the Project area.

According to WisDOT, no projects are currently underway or in design within the Project area. One planning study is currently underway in Dunn County, an Interstate 94 Red Cedar River-Wisconsin 29 study, although construction has not been scheduled at the time of submittal of this EA. As construction is not yet scheduled and the Project does not cross Interstate 94, these projects would not likely overlap.

In summary, Dairyland does not anticipate any cumulative impacts as a result of the Project.

2


7. Agencies Consulted and Permitting Requirements

Dairyland consulted with agencies to solicit comments regarding potential impacts associated with the Project. Dairyland sent consultation letters to the following resource management agencies:

USFWS concerning federally listed threatened or endangered species and wetlands USACE concerning wetlands and floodplains WDNR concerning state-listed threatened and endangered species, wetlands and waterways Wisconsin SHPO concerning cultural and historic resources Tribal sovereign nations concerning cultural and historic properties of concern NRCS concerning prime farmland

Copies of the consultation letters sent to resource management agencies and responses received to date are provided in Appendix C.

At the time this EA was submitted to RUS, responses have been received from the WDNR and USFWS. The WDNR replied by email to Dairyland on August 10, 2017, regarding the southern portion of the Project and on February 19, 2018, regarding the northern portion of the Project, and indicated that they queried their database and provided required actions and recommended minimization measure to reduce impacts to state special status species (Appendix C). The USFWS replied by email on February 22, 2018 and stated that they are in agreement with Dairyland’s January 31, 2018, consultation letter that the Project would not adversely affect any federally listed species (Appendix C).

In addition, Dairyland met with the WDNR and USFWS to discuss the Project impacts and construction methods within the TWA on March 8, 2016 and again on August 29, 2017. Meeting notes are provided in Appendix C, which include comments that were provided by the WDNR and USFWS.

Finally, Dairyland received an ITP from the WDNR regarding Eastern massasauga to conduct soil borings within the TWA on January 2, 2018. The USFWS replied by email on December 19, 2017, concurring that the Project is not likely to adversely affect the Eastern massasauga within the TWA to complete exploratory soil borings (Appendix C). A copy of the final ITP and implementation plan is included in Appendix C.

Dairyland submitted a form requesting SHPO Comment and Consultation on a Federal Undertaking for a 7.5 mile segment of the Project located in Buffalo and Pierce counties and received a response from the SHPO (Appendix C) on January 31, 2018, stating that no historic properties would be affected by this segment of the Project.

As of June 25, 2018, the following tribal correspondence had been received.

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe responded on February 7, 2018, that they do not have any recorded sites of religious or cultural importance in the area but would like to be notified if any human or suspected human remains are encountered.

1


White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe responded on February 15, 2018, that they would defer to local tribes regarding pre-application notification on the Project.

The Upper Sioux Community responded on March 5, 2018, that they would like to review the Project location shapefiles. Dairyland provided the shapefiles on March 6, 2018. No further response has been received from the Tribe.

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma responded on March 9, 2018, that they do not have any documented connection to the Project site but would like to be notified if any human remains or Native American cultural items or archaeological evidence is found at the Project.

If Dairyland receives additional responses from interested tribal sovereign nations or agencies, it would appropriately address the concerns and notify RUS of the response.

In addition to those consultations listed above, Dairyland would also be consulting with the WDNR regarding the WPDES Construction Storm Water Runoff General Permit WI-S067831 and would obtain permit coverage prior to construction.

Dairyland anticipates applying for all necessary federal, state, and county permits for the Project in 2018 and 2019.

2


8. Public Notice and Comment

In compliance with 7 CFR 1970.14, Dairyland and RUS are required to notify the public of the availability of the Draft EA and about proposals that impact prime and important farmland, floodplains, and wetlands. The purpose of the notification is to solicit comments on the Project. Upon acceptance of the Draft EA by RUS, Dairyland published a newspaper advertisement and legal notice in local newspapers to inform the public of the proposed construction. A copy of the newspaper advertisement and legal notice is provided in Appendix E.

The public is afforded 30 days to comment on the Draft EA and upon the completion of the comment period, RUS will make a determination as to whether their agency can make a finding of no significant impact or whether the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Once RUS has made a determination, a second newspaper advertisement and legal notice would be published in local newspapers.

1



2


9. References

Buffalo County, Wisconsin. 2018. Zoning Department and Ordinances. https://www.buffalocounty.com/268/Zoning. Accessed February 9, 2018.

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2017. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map. November 2017. Available online at https://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet?survey=la Accessed December 5, 2017.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington: Council of Environmental Quality, 64 pp.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Bonneville Power Administration, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Coulee–Bell 500kV Transmission Line Project (DOE/EIS-0344). August 2002.

DOT (U. S. Department of Transportation). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.

Dunn County. 2017. Dunn County Code of Ordinances. http://www.co.dunn.wi.us/index.asp?SEC=BD1C40A4-202D-433F-8987-AD5BEC210A89&Type=B_BASIC. Accessed February 9, 2018.

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2018. Federal Aviation Administration Notice Criteria Tool. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm. Accessed January 30, 2018.

MISO (Midcontinent Independent Service Operator). 2018. MISO Transmission Expansion Planning MTEP 2018 Active Project List. https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/MTEP/MTEP%20Active%20Project%20List.xlsx Accessed March 13, 2018.

MVAC (Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center). 2017. Literature Review for a Portion of the Dairyland Power Cooperative N5 Rebuild and Partial Line Retirement in Buffalo, Pepin, Dunn, and Pierce counties, Wisconsin.

———. 2018. Addendum to Literature Review for a Portion of the Dairyland Power Cooperative N5 Rebuild and Partial Line Retirement in Buffalo, Pepin, Dunn, and Pierce counties, Wisconsin.

NatureServe Explorer. 2017. Various species habitat summaries. http://explorer.natureserve.org/ Accessed February 8, 2018.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) 2018. MLRA Explorer. Available online at: http://apps.cei.psu.edu/mlra/ Accessed January 26, 2018.

1

http://apps.cei.psu.edu/mlra/

http://explorer.natureserve.org/

https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/MTEP/MTEP%20Active%20Project%20List.xlsx

https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/MTEP/MTEP%20Active%20Project%20List.xlsx

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm

http://www.co.dunn.wi.us/index.asp?SEC=BD1C40A4-202D-433F-8987-AD5BEC210A89&Type=B_BASIC

http://www.co.dunn.wi.us/index.asp?SEC=BD1C40A4-202D-433F-8987-AD5BEC210A89&Type=B_BASIC

https://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet?survey=la

https://www.buffalocounty.com/268/Zoning


NPC (Noise Pollution Clearing House). 2011. Typical Noise Levels. http://www.nonoise.org/library/household/index.htm . Accessed February 26, 2018.

NPS (National Park Service). 2018. National Register of Historic Places Program: Research – Data Downloads. https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm . Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1982a. Alma Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Map. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466. Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1982b. Laue, Frederick, Jr., House. National Register of Historic Places—Community Survey Form. Available online: https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/82000634.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1982c. Senn, John L., House. National Register of Historic Places—Community Survey Form. Available online: https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/82000635.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1982d. Steiner, John, Store. National Register of Historic Places—Community Survey Form. Available online: https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/82000636.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1979a. Laue, Frederick House. National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form. Available online: https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/79000062.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

———. 1979b. Sherman House. National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form. Available online: https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/79000063.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2018.

Pepin County, Wisconsin. 2018 Pepin County Code of Ordinances. https://library.municode.com/wi/pepin_county/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed February 9, 2018.

Pierce County Wisconsin. 2018. Pierce County Code. https://www.ecode360.com/9819274. Accessed February 26, 2018.

U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2018. State & County QuickFacts: Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties, and State of Wisconsin. https://www.census.gov/...oixcountywisconsin,polkcountywisconsin,piercecountywisconsin,dunncountywisconsin,barroncountywisconsin/PST045216 Accessed January 26, 2018.

———. 2016. American FactFinder Guided Search for Buffalo, Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce counties. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml Accessed January 26, 2018.

2

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml

https://www.census.gov/...oixcountywisconsin,polkcountywisconsin,piercecountywisconsin,dunncountywisconsin,barroncountywisconsin/PST045216

https://www.census.gov/...oixcountywisconsin,polkcountywisconsin,piercecountywisconsin,dunncountywisconsin,barroncountywisconsin/PST045216

https://www.ecode360.com/9819274

https://library.municode.com/wi/pepin_county/codes/code_of_ordinances

https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm

http://www.nonoise.org/library/household/index.htm


USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2006. “Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin.” USDA Handbook 296. Available online at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2018a. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants, February 28, 2018. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html. Accessed March 13, 2018

———. 2018b. EnviroMapper. https://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home Accessed February 13, 2018.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018a. IPaC Trust Resources Report. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/GQZOI-VFOBJ-F63IR-7OWGX-OENZLM . Accessed January 11, 2018.

———. 2018b. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetland Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html . Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2017. Bald Eagle Nesting in the Upper Midwest, County Distribution. December 21, 2017. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/conservation/baeacounties.html. Accessed February 5, 2018.

USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 2007. Protecting Wisconsin’s Groundwater Through Comprehensive Planning. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/stcroix/index.html. Accessed January 26, 2018.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2018a. Public Access Lands. http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=Public_Access_Lands. Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2018b. Surface Water Data Viewer, https://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=SWDV. Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2018c. RR Sites Map. http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?viewer=rrsites. Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2018d. WDNR 24k Hydrography Dataset. http://dnr.wi.gov/maps/gis/datahydro.html. Accessed January 15, 2018.

———. 2016. Final Approved 2016 Impaired Waters List, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/2016ir_iwlist.html, Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2011. Depth to bedrock. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/documents/StateMaps/Map_S14_Bedrock_Depth.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2018.

———. 2009. Wisconsin Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan, Burnett, Polk, and Washburn Counties, February 2009. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/documents/Co_Burnett_Polk_Washburn02_web.pdf Accessed January 18, 2017.

3

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/documents/Co_Burnett_Polk_Washburn02_web.pdf

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/documents/StateMaps/Map_S14_Bedrock_Depth.pdf

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/2016ir_iwlist.html

http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?viewer=rrsites

https://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=SWDV

http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/H5/?Viewer=Public_Access_Lands

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/stcroix/index.html

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/conservation/baeacounties.html

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/GQZOI-VFOBJ-F63IR-7OWGX-OENZLM

https://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf


———. 2006. Wisconsin Whooping Crane Management Plan. Available online at http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0650.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2018.

WisDOT (Wisconsin Department of Transportation). 2018a. Average Annual Daily Traffic Count Interactive Map. https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/roadrunner/ . Accessed January 26, 2018.

———. 2018b. Six Year Highway Improvement Program 2018–2023—Northwest Region. http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/default.aspx. Accessed January 17, 2018.

———. 2018c. Wisconsin Railroad and Harbors 2018. http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/rail/railmap.pdf . Accessed January 26, 2018.

———. 2018d. Wisconsin Scenic Byways Program. http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/scenic-ways/default.aspx. Accessed January 26, 2018.

Yantak, David S.; David K. Ingram, and R.J. Matetic. 2007. In-Cab Noise Reduction on an Air-Rotary Drill Rig. Journal of Noise Control Engineering, May–June 2007; 55(3): pp. 294-310.

4

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/scenic-ways/default.aspx

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/scenic-ways/default.aspx

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/rail/railmap.pdf

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/default.aspx

https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/roadrunner/

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0650.pdf


10. List of Preparers

Name TitleChuck Thompson Dairyland Power Cooperative, Manger, Siting and Regulatory AffairsJoleen Trussoni Dairyland Power Cooperative, Siting and Regulatory Affairs CoordinatorMark Rothfork, PMP Tetra Tech, Project ManagerSarah LeMoine, P.E. Tetra TechJared Brandell-Douglas Tetra Tech

1



2


Figure 1: Project OverviewFigure 2: TCSB Typical DrawingFigure 3: Transmission Structure Typical DrawingFigure 4: Route Alternatives ConsideredFigure 5: Water Resources Figure 6: Prime FarmlandFigure 7: Formally Classified Lands, Recreation Areas, and Historic Places

1



2


Appendix A:Sheet Maps


Appendix B:Transmission Planning Study


Appendix C:Agency Coordination


Appendix D:Cultural Resources Literature Review and Addendum


Appendix E:Notice of Availability Newspaper Advertisement and Legal Notice