DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern Wind Project Draft Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1902 Roberts County, South Dakota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern Wind Project Draft Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1902 Roberts County, South Dakota Northern Wind Project Draft Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1902 Roberts County, South Dakota U.S. Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Need for the Proposed Project ...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Applicant’s Underlying Need ..................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................2 1.4 Agency Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................3 1.5 Authorizing Action ..................................................................................................................................................3 1.6 Public Participation .................................................................................................................................................4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 6 2.1 Pre-Construction Activities .....................................................................................................................................6 2.2 Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................................................7 2.2.2 Construction Procedures ...............................................................................................................................10 2.2.3 Project Operation and Maintenance.............................................................................................................14 2.2.4 Decommissioning ..........................................................................................................................................16 2.2.5 Construction Waste Management and Restoration/Reclamation ...............................................................16 2.2.6 Environmental Protection Measures.............................................................................................................17 2.2.7 Mitigation Management Plan.......................................................................................................................18 2.2.8 Conservation Measures ................................................................................................................................19 2.3 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................................................23 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................... 24 3.1 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................................................24 3.1.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................24 3.1.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................27 3.2 Air Resources ........................................................................................................................................................28 3.2.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................28 3.2.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................29 3.3 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................................................30 3.3.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................30 3.3.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................32 3.4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................33 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................33 3.4.2 Noxious and Invasive Weeds .........................................................................................................................35 3.4.3 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................36 3.5 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................................37 3.5.1 Existing Wildlife Species ................................................................................................................................37 3.5.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species ..............................................................................................................................40 3.5.3 State-Listed Species.......................................................................................................................................45 3.5.4 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................47 3.6 Land Use ...............................................................................................................................................................52 3.6.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................52 3.6.2 Potential Impacts of the Project ...................................................................................................................54 3.7 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................56 3.7.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................................56 3.7.2 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................................................57 3.7.3 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................58 TABLE OF CONTENTS – (Continued 3.8 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................................................59 3.8.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................60 3.8.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................60 3.9 Noise .....................................................................................................................................................................61 3.9.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................62 3.9.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................63 3.10 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................................63 3.10.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................64 3.10.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................64 3.11 Safety and Health Issues .......................................................................................................................................64 3.11.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................64 3.11.2 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................................65 3.12 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................66 3.12.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................67
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies ..........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    FINAL REPORT Determination of river otter (Lontra canadensis) distribution and evaluation of potential sites for population expansion in South Dakota 1 October 2011 - 30 January 2015 Prepared for: Wildlife Diversity Program South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Submitted by Wayne E. Melquist, Ph.D. CREX Consulting [email protected] May 2015 Grant Number T-55-R-1, Study No. 2465 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this project would have been immensely more challenging were it not for the support, cooperation, and encouragement of numerous South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) personnel. Silka Kempema, biologist with the Wildlife Diversity Program, was my primary contact in administering this contract, including multiple amendments. She never hesitated to assist in any way possible and enthusiastically joined me on floats down the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne Rivers. Silka has been a good companion and friend. Behind the scene, Eileen Dowd Stukel, head of the Wildlife Diversity Program, facilitated many aspects of the project and provided valuable input and review of the final report. Heather Berg, GIS Analyst, exhibited great patience with me during production of the maps found in the report, even when we went through multiple iterations before arriving at a final product. And Chelsea West, Heather’s supervisor, has provided me with graphic assistance for a decade of South Dakota projects. Jacquie Ermer, Regional Wildlife Manager, Watertown, conducted some of the early assessments of otters in South Dakota, and was a kindred spirit when it came to furbearers. The door was always open at the “Ermer Hotel” whenever I was in the Webster area, and I enjoyed sharing time with her family.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies...........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, West-Central Minnesota, Northeastern South Dakota and Southeastern North Dakota
    Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, West-Central Minnesota, Northeastern South Dakota and Southeastern North Dakota By Christopher A. Sanocki Abstract Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected points on streams in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, located in west-central Minnesota, north-eastern South Dakota, and southeastern North Dakota, are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both laker and wetlands, the main-channel length, and the main-channel slope. The points on the stream include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, outlets of sewage treatment plants, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey low-flow, high- flow, and continuous-record gaging stations. Introduction digitizing and assisted in the preparation of this report. These contributions were essential for the completion of This is the eighth report in a series of reports detailing this report. subbasin characteristics of streams in Minnesota and adjacent states. The Upper Minnesota River Basin drains an area of 2,090 square miles and is represented Methods by hydrologic accounting unit 07020001 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974a and 1974b). The Upper U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute series Minnesota River Basin includes parts of Traverse, topographic maps were used as source maps to obtain Stevens, Big Stone, Swift, Lac qui Parle, and Chippewa the areas for the subbasin boundaries, lakes, marshes, Counties in west-central Minnesota, Roberts, Marshall, the main-channel length, and the contour elevation Grant, Codington, and Deuel Counties in northeastern points used in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment
    THE 2008 SOUTH DAKOTA INTEGRATED REPORT FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT Protecting South Dakota’s Tomorrow…Today Prepared By SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Steven M. Pirner, Secretary SOUTH DAKOTA WATER QUALITY WATER YEARS 2002-2007 (streams) and WATER YEARS 2000-2007 (lakes) The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report Surface Water Quality Assessment by the State of South Dakota pursuant to Sections 305(b), 303(d), and 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Steven M. Pirner, Secretary Table of Contents FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... II TABLES ......................................................................................................................................................III I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 3 III. SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT........................................................................ 6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................................. 6 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota's River Basins
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 543 Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota’s River Basins by Todd R. Vandegrift and Heinz G. Stefan September 2010 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABSTRACT Stream flows recorded by the USGS from 1946 to 2005 at 42 gauging stations in the five major river basins of Minnesota and tributaries from neighboring states were analyzed and related to associated climate data. Goals of the study were (1) to determine the strength of the relationships between annual and seasonal runoff and climatic variables in these river basins, (2) to make comparisons between the river basins of Minnesota, and (3) to determine trends in stream flows over time. Climatic variables were air temperature, precipitation, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI); the latter are common indices of soil moisture. Water year averages showed stronger correlations than calendar year averages. Precipitation was a good predictor of stream flow, but the PDSI was the best predictor and slightly better than PHDI when linear regressions at the annual timescale were used. With an exponential regression PDSI gave a significantly better fit to runoff data than PHDI. Five-year running averages made precipitation almost as good a predictor of stream flow (runoff) as PDSI. A seasonal time scale analysis revealed a logical stronger dependence of stream flow on precipitation during summer and fall than during the winter and spring, but all relationships for seasonal averages were weaker than for annual (water year) averages. Dependence of stream runoff on PDSI did not vary significantly by season.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Stone Lake Restoration Project: Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation
    W ETLANDS & WATERSHEDS UNIT Big Stone Lake Restoration Project: Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation Big Stone Lake is on the border between South Dakota and Minnesota. The lake occupies the valley of a glacial river that once drained historic Lake Aggasiz. The surface area of the lake is 12,610 acres, and the lake extends southward for 26 miles from Browns Valley, Minnesota, to Ortonville, Minnesota, and Big Stone City, South Dakota. Big Stone Lake and its fishery are the primary feature for Big Stone Lake State Park, Hartford Beach State Park, and several resorts. The lake is also an important recreational attraction for Ortonville, Big Stone City, and surrounding communities. The fishery of the lake has the potential to contribute sub- stantially to local and state economies. Historically, the fishery has been managed primarily for walleye, with a secondary emphasis on yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie, northern pike, largemouth bass, and channel catfish. In samples taken in 1971 through 1985, walleye abundance, as measured by average gill net catch rates, was near the low end of the "normal" range for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Agricultural, domestic, and municipal pollution have degraded fish habitat, reduced recreational oppor- tunities, reduced the aesthetic quality of the lake, and increased the likelihood of more direct effects on the fisheries in the form of fish kills. Drainage and land use changes in the lake's watershed have con- tributed to increased sedimentation, nutrient loading, changes in tributary flows, increases in water level fluctuations, and direct destruction of aquatic habitats. Big Stone Lake partners In the early 1980s citizens of South Dakota and Minnesota requested assistance from both states and EPA to begin an effort to restore Big Stone Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers of the 2013 Dakota Conference
    The Spanish Northern Plains Papers of the Forty-Fifth Annual DAKOTA CONFERENCE A National Conference on the Northern Plains Cover Illustration: Untitled, by Vladan Stiha, courtesy Frank & Jan Gibbs Art Collection THE CENTER FOR WESTERN STUDIES AUGUSTANA COLLEGE 2013 The Spanish Northern Plains Papers of the Forty-Fifth Annual Dakota Conference A National Conference on the Northern Plains The Center for Western Studies Augustana College Sioux Falls, South Dakota April 26-27, 2013 Compiled by: Amy Nelson Jasmin Graves Harry F. Thompson Major funding for the Forty-Fifth Annual Dakota Conference was provided by: Loren and Mavis Amundson CWS Endowment/SFACF Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission Tony & Anne Haga Carol Rae Hansen, Andrew Gilmour & Grace Hansen-Gilmour Mellon Fund Committee of Augustana College Rex Myers & Susan Richards Joyce Nelson, in Memory of V.R. Nelson Rollyn H. Samp, in Honor of Ardyce Samp Roger & Shirley Schuller, in Honor of Matthew Schuller Jerry & Gail Simmons Robert & Sharon Steensma Blair & Linda Tremere Richard & Michelle Van Demark Jamie & Penny Volin Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Anderson, Grant K. State Sponsored Hail Insurance in South Dakota (1919-1933) ............................................. 1 Browne, Miles A. Abraham Lincoln: A Founding Father .................................................................................. 20 Browne, Miles A. The Gettysburg Address
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in South Dakota and Identifying Drivers of Assemblage Variation Kaylee L
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Theses and Dissertations 2016 Assessing Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in South Dakota and Identifying Drivers of Assemblage Variation Kaylee L. Faltys South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Faltys, Kaylee L., "Assessing Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in South Dakota and Identifying Drivers of Assemblage Variation" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1106. http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/1106 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASSESSING FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND IDENTIFYING DRIVERS OF ASSEMBLAGE VARIATION BY KAYLEE L. FALTYS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree for the Master of Science Major in Biological Sciences South Dakota State University 2016 ii ASSESSING FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND IDENTIFYING DRIVERS OF ASSEMBLAGE VARIATION This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate of the Master of Science in Biological Sciences degree and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements of this degree. Acceptance of this thesis does not imply the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department.
    [Show full text]
  • Bu Sf NARMTIVE REPORT
    Bu Sf NARMTIVE REPORT PIG. rT0I3E NATIONAL VllLLIFE REFUGE CBTOIf/ILLE, MINNESOTA CALENDAR YEAR, 1972 PERMANEITT PERSONNEL Charles ¥. Gibbcns Refuge Manager Dcnald J. Peterson (EOD June 12, 1972) Assistant Refuge Manager Dennis ¥. Strom (EOD June 12, 1972) Assistant Refuge Manager Eronne T. Mikkelson Clerk-Stenographer Nornaan P. Christensen (EOD May 1, 1972) Maintenanceman TEMPORARY PERSONNEL DarreU D. Haugen (^-17-72/12-8-72) Biological Technician Robert P. Schneck (6-12-72/9-22-72) Laborer UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONTENTS Page I. GEKERAL A, Establishment and Purpose 1 B« ¥eatber Conditions . • 2 C. Habitat Conditions 3 1. ¥ater 3 2. Food and Cover 1 4. II. WILDLIFE A. Migratory Birds 5 E. Upland Game Birds 7 C. Big Game Animals 7 D. Other Mammals 8 E. Birds of Prey 8 F. Other Birds 9 G. Fish 10 H. Reptiles and Amphibians 10 I. Disease 10 J. Rare and Endangered Species 10 in. REFUGE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE A. Physical Development II B. Plantings 15 C. Collections and Receipts 17 D. Control of Vegetation 17 E. Planned Burning 17 F. Fires 17 IV. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A. Grazing 17 B. Haying 17 C. Fur Harvest 17 D. Timber Removal 18 E. Commercial Fishing -• 18 F. Other Uses 18 V. FIELD INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED RESEARCH VI. PUBLIC RELATIONS A. Recreational Uses 18 B. Refuge Visitors 19 C. Refuge Participation 19 D. Hunting 22 E. Violations v 22 VII OTHER ITEMS A. Items of Interest 22 \ i xiiiCAi m&jLTrci. idTmz uq srum jodimhi KiuniT, hefiich.
    [Show full text]
  • Whetstone River Restoration Project
    Whetstone River Restoration Project Amber Doschadis, Administrator PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project: .Project Background .Goals .Impacts .Components .Funding .Schedule .Questions? PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT LOCATION . The Whetstone River is a tributary of the Minnesota River, approximately 35 miles long, beginning in the Coteau des Prairies region in South Dakota. PROJECT LOCATION . The project is generally located in the Project abandoned historic Location Whetstone River channel and the north- south roadways, south of Ortonville PROJECT HISTORY Big Stone Minnesota Lake River . Historically the Whetstone River Diversion flowed into the Channel Minnesota River south of Ortonville. The river was diverted into Big Stone Lake in the 1930’s to increase Big Stone Lake levels during times of drought. Historic . The river now flows Channel into Big Stone Lake, just upstream from the Big Stone Lake Dam. PROJECT HISTORY The dam in Ortonville controls the lake elevations. PROJECT HISTORY The historic channel was abandoned and currently only has flows from adjacent land. PROJECT HISTORY In recent years, high flows have caused flooding in Big Stone Lake, with the Whetstone River contributing a substantive amount of water. PROJECT GOALS PROJECT GOALS RESTORATION . Restore ecological services by reestablishing perennial flow to an estimated 9,000 feet of open channel. (Hydrologically and ecologically reconnect a portion of the Whetstone River to the Minnesota River.) PROJECT GOALS CONDITION IMPROVEMENT .By default, improve conditions within Big Stone Lake
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 74:51:03 Uses Assigned to Streams
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. SURFACE WATER QUALITY 74:51 CHAPTER 74:51:03 USES ASSIGNED TO STREAMS Section 74:51:03:01 Beneficial uses of South Dakota streams to include irrigation and fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering. 74:51:03:02 Beneficial uses of stream segments indicated by listings. 74:51:03:03 Segment boundaries described. 74:51:03:04 Minnesota River's tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:05 Missouri River and certain small tributaries' beneficial uses. 74:51:03:06 Bad River and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:07 Big Sioux River and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:08 Cheyenne River and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:09 Battle Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:10 The Belle Fourche River and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:11 Box Elder Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:12 Elk Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:13 Fall River and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:14 French Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:15 Lame Johnny Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:16 Pleasant Valley Creek and certain tributaries' uses. 74:51:03:17 Rapid Creek and certain tributaries' uses.
    [Show full text]