Montana-Dakota Utilities Miles City 2 Project

Final Environmental Assessment Custer County, Montana

DOE/EA-2109

April 2020

Table of Contents PART I. PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1. Proposed Action ...... 1 2. Anticipated Schedule ...... 2 3. Project Location ...... 2 4. Agency Authorities and Need for Action ...... 2 5. Necessary Permits and Approvals ...... 3 6. Project Alternatives:...... 4 PART II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST ...... 7 1. Evaluation of Alternative A: No Action ...... 7 2. Evaluation of Proposed Action ...... 7 a. Land Resources (Land Use, Geology, and Soils) ...... 7 b. Air ...... 10 c. Water Resources ...... 12 d. Vegetation ...... 15 e. Fish and Wildlife...... 16 f. Noise/Electrical Effects ...... 18 g. Risk/Health Hazards ...... 21 h. Community Impact ...... 22 i. Public Services/Taxes/Utilities ...... 23 j. Aesthetics/Recreation ...... 25 k. Cultural/Historical Resources ...... 26 l. Cumulative Impacts ...... 27 3. Evaluation of Alternative B: Alternate Route ...... 28 PART III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 29 1. Public Involvement ...... 29 2. Public Comment Period ...... 29 3. Comments Received ...... 29 PART IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION ...... 30 1. Person(s) responsible for preparing the EA ...... 30 2. List of agencies or offices consulted during preparation of the EA ...... 30 PART V. REFERENCES CITED...... 31 APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX ...... 34

PART I. PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION

1. Proposed Action Currently, the town of Miles City receives power from one transformer and one transmission line. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Montana-Dakota) proposes to undertake the following work (Project) to create a redundant power source for Miles City: • Construct a new 8.3-acre Montana-Dakota-owned substation. The new substation would be located on property owned by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS). • Remove 4.2 miles of existing 60 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. • Construct 1 mile of new 60 kV transmission line. A small portion of this transmission line would be located on ARS property. The remainder of this transmission line would be located on Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MT FWP) property. • Construct 4.2 miles of new 115kV transmission line, which would replace an existing 60 kV line. The majority (3.7 miles) of the new 115kV transmission line would be placed within the existing 60 kV project right-of-way (ROW). The remaining 0.5 miles of new 115 kV line would be in new ROW on ARS property. A portion of this transmission line would be built on property owned by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The new transmission line would tie into WAPA’s existing Miles City 2 Substation. The Miles City 2 Substation is also located on Federal property.

Typical construction equipment would consist of cranes, aerial lift trucks, earth moving equipment, and pickup trucks. Construction activities typically involve a number of separate stages, including mobilization/staging, access road, and staging/laydown area construction; grubbing/land clearing; topsoil stripping; cut-and fill operations (i.e., earthmoving); grading, ground excavation; drilling, if required; foundation treatment; erection of pole structures; electrical and mechanical installation; and landscaping (e.g., site cleanup, decompaction, final grading, and reseeding).

For line removals, the existing wire (conductor) and pole structures would be removed. Pole removal would include clearing of roughly 3 feet of soil around the structures, then pulling the pole from the ground using cranes and pickups. For new line construction, an auger would be used to drill new pole holes. The average hole would be 6 feet deep and between 36 to 42 inches in diameter.

The Project is still in the design phase (5% complete) and would be funded by Montana-Dakota. Montana-Dakota’s Project Coordinator is: Robert Frank 400 North 4th Street Bismarck, ND 58501 (701) 222-7846

2. Anticipated Schedule Work is planned to begin in late fall (September or October) of 2020. The work is expected to last roughly 1 year and be completed no later than spring of 2021.

3. Project Location The Project area is located in Township 8 North, Range 47 East, Sections 25, 35, and 26 and Township 7 North, Range 47 East, Section 1-4 in Custer County, Montana.

The Project would primarily be within existing transmission ROW that parallels U.S. Interstate 94 (I-94) and is adjacent to Miles City, Montana (Figure 1). Table 1.1 summarizes the land use within the Project ROW.

Table 1.1 – Project Size Land Type Acres Percent of Project Area 1. Developed 43.4 24.9% a. Residential 11.3 6.5% b. Industrial 16.2 9.3% c. Roads, Railroads, and ROW 15.8 9.1% 2. Vegetated Open Space 87.2 50.0% 3. Wetlands/Riparian Areas 12.7 7.3% 4. Productive 31.1 17.9% a. Cultivated cropland 2.4 1.4% b. Pasture 28.7 16.5% TOTAL 174.4 100.0% Source: Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2016. Montana Land Cover/Land Use Theme. Helena, Montana

4. Agency Authorities and Need for Action Several federal and state agencies (collectively, called “agencies”) would have involvement in this Project. The following section describes each agency’s proposed action and the authority for taking such action.

WAPA If there is available transmission capacity on the federal transmission system, WAPA provides open access to transmission services so that energy producers can transmit power to their customers. Any entity requesting transmission services must submit an application for interconnection. Montana-Dakota has submitted an Application for Interconnection to WAPA. The application is for a new 115kV Point of Interconnection at WAPA’s Miles City 2 Substation. WAPA’s action is to consider and respond to Montana-Dakota’s interconnection request in accordance with the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Tariff (WAPA is a member of SPP) and the Federal Power Act. If WAPA grants Montana-Dakota’s interconnection request, WAPA would also need to install a variety of electrical equipment (a circuit breaker, disconnect switches, take- off structures, transformers, bus/control/protection equipment, and capacitor) within the existing Miles City 2 Substation in order to accommodate the new interconnection.

BLM BLM granted Montana-Dakota a ROW on January 31, 1972. This ROW grant authorized Montana-Dakota to construct a 60kV powerline within a corridor 2,552 feet long by 50 feet wide. Montana-Dakota requested permission to replace a section of existing powerline located on the BLM ROW with a higher voltage transmission line.

The ROW was previously granted under the authority of the Act of March 4, 1911, which was later repealed by the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. According to 43 CFR § 2807.22(e), “BLM will not renew grants issued before October 21, 1976.” According to BLM policy, all new ROW authorizations must be granted under the authority of FLPMA.

Because of this, BLM needed to amend Montana-Dakota’s existing pre-FLPMA ROW and reauthorize the ROW grant under the FLPMA. The amendment would: • Allow Montana-Dakota to replace 2,552 feet of existing 60 kV transmission line with a 115 kV line and new poles, while staying within the existing authorized 50-foot ROW width. • Authorize the grant for a 30-year term, with the option to renew.

BLM completed this action on August 30, 2018 and no further BLM action is necessary. Information on BLM’s action can be found online at the following website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/projectSummary.do?methodName=renderDefaultProjectSummary&projectId=1 12642.

USDA ARS Montana-Dakota’s newly proposed substation and 0.5 miles of transmission line would be located on lands owned by USDA ARS. Any entity wishing to locate a facility on ARS property must work with the ARS Location Manager, who then requests an easement in writing from the Area Realty Specialist. ARS’ action is for the ARS Location Manager, ARS Realty Specialist, and the Area Director to consider and respond (either approve or deny) to Montana-Dakota’s request for an easement. If all ARS parties approve, the Realty Specialist will process the easement using an ARS easement form.

MT FWP A portion of Montana-Dakota’s proposed transmission line would cross lands currently owned by MT FWP. Any entity requesting to locate facilities on MT FWP property must submit a request for ROW Easement. Montana-Dakota submitted a request for ROW. MT FWP’s action is to consider and respond (either approve or deny) to Montana-Dakota’s request for Grant of ROW Easement.

5. Necessary Permits and Approvals In addition to the agency approvals described above, Montana-Dakota would need to obtain the permits or approvals listed below (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2: Necessary Permits/Approvals Approval Agency Permit/Approval Name Discussion U.S. Army Corps of Clean Water Act, Nationwide Anticipating that disturbance will Engineers (COE) Permit (NWP) 12 be less than 0.1 acres. Montana State Compliance with Section 106 of Archeological and cultural site Historical the National Historic protection. Preservation Office Preservation Act (SHPO) U.S. Fish and Compliance with Section 7 of Protection of Federally-listed Wildlife Service the Endangered Species Act threatened and endangered species (USFWS) and their designated critical habitat. U.S. Federal Crossing Easement An easement is needed in order to Highway cross I-94. Administration Montana Department Montana Pollutant Discharge An authorization under the General of Environmental Elimination System (MPDES) Permit for Stormwater Discharges Quality (MT DEQ) General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Discharges Associated with Activity is required for Construction Activity construction activities that include clearing, excavating, grading, grubbing, or placement/removal of earth material with a total area of one or more acres. Custer County Floodplain Permit A floodplain permit is required to establish, alter, or substantially improve an artificial obstruction, nonconforming use or development within the Regulated Flood Hazard Area Custer County Site Plan Approval County zoning regulations require a site plan application to be reviewed and approved for the project. This would be done concurrently with the floodplain permit.

6. Project Alternatives: Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, WAPA would not approve an interconnection agreement or complete work inside the Miles City 2 Substation. USDA would not grant an easement and MT FWP would not grant an easement. Montana-Dakota would not establish a redundant power source.

Alternative B: Alternate Route

Montana-Dakota could propose an alternate route for the transmission line and substation location. An alternate route may require permissions and approvals from other agencies. Even with an alternate route, the Project would still require an interconnection agreement with WAPA and associated equipment work inside the Miles City 2 Substation. Because of the highly speculative nature of this alternative, the agencies could not complete an impact analysis for this alternative.

PART II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

1. Evaluation of Alternative A: No Action The No Action alternative would have no new impact on the physical environment (land, air, water, vegetation, and fish/wildlife). This alternative is not likely to impact the human environment (noise, land use, health hazards, aesthetics/recreation, and cultural or historical resources), with the exception of impacts to public services and community impacts. Miles City would remain without a redundant power supply, which jeopardizes the reliability of the town’s power supply. An unreliable power supply could negatively impact the wellbeing of existing residents and businesses.

Existing impacts to the physical and human environment are expected to continue. These impacts include ongoing conversion of undeveloped land to developed uses, which often results in a loss of native vegetation abundance and diversity, decreased fish and wildlife habitat, and increased noise.

2. Evaluation of Proposed Action The Proposed Action alternative would impact the physical and human environment. Impacts to various resource areas are described in more detail in the following sections.

a. Land Resources (Land Use, Geology, and Soils) Land uses within the area include a mix of industrial, commercial, and agricultural lands. Raising livestock and growing dryland and irrigated crops are the principal industries in Custer County. Livestock, mainly cow-calf operations, account for about 85% of the agricultural cash receipts in the county. Dryland crops consist mainly of wheat and barley. Corn, alfalfa, and sugar beets are grown in the areas of irrigated cropland along the Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers.

The land uses within and adjacent to the project area consist of a housing subdivision and developed landscape including residential, industrial, and commercial areas. The commercial businesses include a tire and auto service store, marina and cycle, U-Haul dealer, a church, Bobcat of Miles City, and the Tongue River Winery. There is an oxbow side-branch on the southeast side of the project area adjacent to the primary bed of the Tongue River which surrounds BLM land. The I-94 corridor bisects the project area in a southwest to northeast direction. An existing railroad runs in a north/south direction. The Custer County Cemetery is also present.

The Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, managed by the USDA, is located along the southwestern boundary of Miles City. This 55,000-acre facility is a rangeland beef cattle research facility that operates under three broad disciplines; rangeland ecology, plant ecophysiology and animal nutrition. The mission of the research facility is to develop strategies to reduce the cost of beef production by enhancing nutrient utilization and improve reproductive performance. Of the 55,000 acres, 50,000 acres are native rangeland, 2,500 acres are dryland planted pasture, 1,000 acres are irrigated pasture, and 700 acres are irrigated cropland. The remaining 800 acres are headquarters area and corrals.

The Miles City State Fish Hatchery is located along the southwestern border of Miles City. The hatchery was originally constructed by the USFWS in 1958; MT FWP took over the operation of the hatchery in 1983 and the facility was expanded in 1987. There are 49 rearing ponds varying from 0.5 to 3 acres in size, providing over 54 water surface acres available for fish production.

The Spotted Eagle Recreational area is located directly east of the fish hatchery. The 123-acre property is owned by the City of Miles City and maintained by the local chapter of Walleyes Unlimited and Custer County Rod and Gun Club. The facility provides walking trails, non-motorized boating, picnic tables, and houses a trap and skeet shooting area.

Geology The geologic units near Miles City are sedimentary and range in age from the Upper Cretaceous Period to recent. The primary geologic unit is the Fort Union Formation, which was deposited not long after the dinosaur extinction about 65 million years ago. The Fort Union Formation contains sandstones, shales, and coal beds.

Soils Soils are primarily silty clay or silty clay loam. These soil types are primarily alluvium (i.e., gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits) from modern river channels and flood plains. There may also be some soil series formed from a combination of deposits from glacial lakes and drainage-ways. This soil type is associated with slopes and uplands, is more likely to be sandy, and found on hills, escarpments, ridges, and sedimentary plains. Since this area was unglaciated, the primary source for glacial sediment was drainage from glacial Lake Glendive, which would have been to the northeast of Miles City. Outcrops of Scoria (sometimes called “Clinker”) can also be found. Scoria/Clinker is formed when intense heat causes coal to ignite and burn. The burning coal bakes the adjacent sedimentary layers and creates a hard, dense red rock.

Environmental Commitments • No construction or routine maintenance activities will be performed during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment. If such equipment creates ruts in excess of four (4) inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support construction equipment. • Obtain a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from MT DEQ. This permit would identify conditions, such as preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), to protect water resources. The SWPPP requires the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control (such as seeding and culverts), sediment control (such as silt fencing, straw bales, vehicle traffic controls), and administrative controls (such as dust control, fencing, spill prevention measure). • Montana-Dakota would span the Tongue River and the inundated portions of the cutoff oxbow of the Tongue River and no structures would be placed within the ordinary high-water mark. • Montana-Dakota would stage construction activities to limit the area of disturbed soils exposed at any particular time.

Environmental Impact Foundations and footings would impact the topmost two feet of soil and would not impact geologic substructure. Because there are few faults in the area and there are no unique geological or physical features in the area, the current risk of earthquakes, landslides, ground failure, or other natural hazards is negligible.

The Project would temporarily impact soils on slightly over 34 acres: 29 acres within the existing transmission line ROW and 5 acres of new transmission line ROW. The Project would permanently impact roughly 9 acres: an 8 acre substation and less than 1 acre of new pole structures.

Some vegetation would be removed (for example, where foundations or footings are placed) and soils could be compacted during construction (for example, by repeated heavy vehicle traffic). Vegetation removal and compaction can contribute to increased soil erosion, as well as reduce soil productivity and soil stability. Modifications to river channels are not expected as structures will not be placed within the ordinary high-water mark of the Tongue River or the cutoff oxbow.

Construction activities would occur on a short-term basis (less than 1 year) and impacts would occur on a localized scale.

The existing land uses do not constrain or prohibit the proposed Project. The Project is largely located in existing transmission ROW and land use is generally expected to remain the same. The Project is not expected to reduce profitability of current industrial and commercial operations in the area. The Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory is of unique research and educational importance. The Project substation would convert 8 acres from research use into commercial use, but this change in land use would not impede on the research or educational use of the Fort Keogh Research Laboratory.

The Project would not cause the relocation of residences. Electrical transmission lines can potentially impact the enjoyment and property value of existing residences. Property values may be impacted by the visibility of electricity transmission structures, as well as health and safety (electromagnetic fields or EMF) concerns (see section 2.f and 2.g below), and noise. Although various studies have attempted to measure the impact of transmission lines on property values, the results are often inconclusive. Generally, price differentials for residential properties based on sales data in appraisal studies tended to be small, usually 5 percent or less, with slightly larger price impacts for agricultural, commercial, and industrial land.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to land resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.1: Impact Evaluation on Land Resources Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Soil instability or changes in geologic substructure? Effects to X soil surface stability? Disruption, displacement, erosion, compaction, moisture loss, or over-covering of soil, which would reduce productivity or X fertility? Soil erosion by wind or water? Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or X physical features? Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion patterns that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed or shore of a X lake? Exposure of people or property to earthquakes, landslides, X ground failure, or other natural hazard? Alteration of or interference with the productivity or X profitability of the existing land use of an area? Conflict with a designated natural area or area of unusual X scientific or educational importance? Conflict with any existing land use whose presence would X constrain or potentially prohibit the proposed action? Adverse effects on or relocation of residences? X Affect local land use through effects on: • Flood plains or wetlands? • Location land use? X (also see 2.c) • Aesthetics? • Access to minerals? b. Air The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. According to the EPA, Custer County has been in compliance with Primary standards since 1992, which is the oldest that EPA data is available.

The nearest MT DEQ air monitoring station is located in Broadus, MT, roughly 80 miles southeast of the Project Area. A second air monitoring station is located in Sidney, MT, roughly 125 miles northeast of the Project area. The air quality is generally regarded as “good.” At the Broadus monitoring station in 2018, the air quality was: “unhealthy for sensitive groups” on 4 days,

“moderate” on 71 days, and “good” on the remaining 290 days. At the Sidney monitoring station in 2018, the air quality was: “unhealthy for sensitive groups” on 1 day, “moderate” on 59 days, and “good” on the remaining 305 days.

Environmental Commitments • Minimize fugitive dust emissions by accessing transmission lines from public roads and designated routes, to the maximum extent possible. • Use surface access roads, on-site roads, and parking lots with aggregates that maintain compacted soil conditions to reduce dust generation. • Ensure that all pieces of heavy equipment meet emission standards specified in the State Code of Regulations, and conduct routine preventive maintenance, including tune-ups to manufacturer specification to ensure efficient combustion and minimum emissions. If possible, equipment with more stringent emission controls should be leased or purchased. • Limit idling of diesel equipment to no more than 10 minutes unless necessary for proper operation. • Water unpaved roads, disturbed areas (e.g., scraping, excavation, backfilling, grading, and compacting), and loose materials generated during project activities as necessary to minimize fugitive dust generation. • Install wind fences around disturbed areas if windborne dust is likely to impact sensitive areas beyond the site boundaries (e.g., nearby residences). • Spray stockpiles of soils with water, cover with tarpaulins, and/or treat with appropriate dust suppressants, especially when high wind or storm conditions are likely. Vegetative plantings may also be used to limit dust generation for stockpiles that will be inactive for relatively long periods. • Minimize potential environmental impacts from the use of dust palliatives by taking the necessary measures to keep the chemicals out of sensitive terrestrial habitats and streams. The application of dust palliatives must comply with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

Environmental Impact Fugitive dust emissions from vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, soil disturbance activities, and/or wind erosion would be the greatest concerns regarding air quality impacts, especially during construction. Typically, wind-blown dust from the construction area would be negligible compared to other wind- blown dust, especially from agricultural fields. These fugitive dust emissions and other combustion- related emissions would be minimized through application of the environmental commitments listed above.

Construction equipment would also be a source of emissions. These emissions would be short term and are expected to have a negligible impact on the ambient air quality, both on a local and regional scale.

Table 2.2 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to air resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.2: Impact Evaluation on Air Resources Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Emission of air pollutants or deterioration of ambient air X quality? Creation of objectionable odors? X Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature patterns or any change in climate, either locally or X regionally? Adverse effects on vegetation, including crops, due to X increased emissions of pollutants? Any discharge, which will conflict with federal or state X air quality regulations? Causing odors or releasing odoriferous substances to X air? Releasing toxic substances to the air in quantities that could affect human health or safety, or environmental X quality? Releasing particulate matter to the air? X Changes to local meteorological conditions or air X movement patterns? Releasing substances for which there is a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e., sulfur oxides, X nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, etc.)? Contributing to climate change? X c. Water Resources The Tongue River drains most of southwestern Custer County and joins the Yellowstone River at Miles City. The confluence of the Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers puts a significant portion of the local area within a floodplain. Portions of the Project area are located within a special flood hazard area designated as “Without Base Flood Elevation” and “Regulatory Floodway.” As a Regulatory Floodway, development in these floodways must be regulated to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations.

Other water resources in the area include wells, which are commonly used for domestic and stock water purposes. The Fort Union formation, primarily the Tullock and Tongue River members, is the main source of ground water in Custer County. The Fox Hills and Hell Creek formations, as well as alluvial deposits, are also commonly used as aquifers in this county.

A field survey identified a handful of small wetlands in the project area. The largest of these wetlands was 3.5 acres.

Environmental Commitments • Obtain a floodplain permit from Custer County to proceed with development within the Regulated Floodway. • Obtain a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from MT DEQ. This permit would identify conditions, such as preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), to protect water resources. The SWPPP requires the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control (such as seeding and culverts), sediment control (such as silt fencing, straw bales, vehicle traffic controls), and administrative controls (such as dust control, fencing, spill prevention measure). • Span the main channel of the Tongue River. Transmission structures would be placed outside of the river channel, resulting in no encroachment or work taking place below the ordinary high-water mark of the river. • Any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) would be reported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. • Utilize NWP 12 Utility Line Activities for impacts to wetlands and other Waters of the U.S.

Environmental Impact Although portions of the project are located within a regulatory floodplain, the Project would not cause an increase in upstream flood elevations. The Project does not have potential to impact aquifers or other groundwater resources.

The Project does have potential to discharge pollutants (i.e., sediment, chemicals) into waterbodies; a potential discharge could impact aquatic life and water quality. By implementing the sediment control measures and SWPP described above, limited sediment transport and pollutant discharge is expected.

Any discharges into wetlands or Waters of the U.S. are prohibited unless authorized by a permit. Montana-Dakota anticipates coverage for discharges under NWP 12, which allows for certain utility line activities that do not impact greater than 1/10th of an acre of aquatic resources.

Table 2.3 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to water resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.3: Impact Evaluation on Water Resource Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Discharge into surface water or any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, X dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Changes in drainage patterns or the rate and amount of X surface runoff? Alteration of the course or magnitude of floodwater or X other flows? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body or creation of a new water body? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? Changes in the quality or quantity of groundwater? X Increase in risk of contamination of surface or X groundwater? Effects on any existing water right or reservation? X Effects on other water users as a result of any alteration X in surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Affecting a designated floodplain? X Discharge that will affect federal or state water quality X regulations? Degrading water quality in a sole source aquifer? X Decreasing aquifer yield or affect water rights? X Affecting aquatic life? X Causing or contributing to flow variation in a stream or X spring? Degrading the aesthetic properties and/or potential uses X of either ground or surface waters? Affecting chemical quality of ground or surface waters (pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, dissolved solids, X pesticides, etc.)? Affecting physical quality of ground or surface waters (suspended solids, turbidity, color, oil, temperature, X etc.)? Causing odors or release odoriferous substances to X water? Affecting or be located in a wetland, flood plains, or the X coastal zone?

15 d. Vegetation The Project is in the Tongue River valley and adjacent hilly uplands east and south of Miles City and the Yellowstone River. The area includes a mix of scrubland, agricultural land, and urban development. Agricultural crops include wheat, barley, corn, alfalfa, and sugar beets. The buttes and hills of the uplands are mostly sagebrush steppe and mixed grass prairie with some rangeland.

Prime farmlands are subject to protection under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Within the Project footprint, there were zero acres of Prime Farmland, 14 acres of Prime Farmland if Irrigated, and 75 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance.

There are eleven species of plant that are listed as a Plant Species of Concern in the State of Montana that have verified occurrences within Custer County (Montana Natural Heritage Program, 2018). The Montana Natural Heritage Program (2019) data mapper was reviewed for observed presence of all plant species in the project area. All observed plant species in the project area listed within the database are either common/widespread, not ranked or not applicable; none of the observed plant species in the Project area are listed within the State of Montana species of concern list.

Environmental Commitments • Re-seed disturbance areas with a seed mixture appropriate for the ecological site type Saline. The seed mixture will contain no primary or secondary noxious weeds and shall be certified or registered weed seed free. • Site Project facilities in previously altered landscapes, to the extent practical. • Coordinate siting with landowners to minimize interference with farming or livestock operations. • Establish a controlled inspection and cleaning area for trucks and construction equipment that are arriving from locations with known invasive vegetation problems. Visually inspect construction equipment arriving at the project area and remove and contain seeds that may be adhering to tires and other equipment surfaces. Vehicles should be cleaned outside of active agricultural areas to minimize the possibility of the spread of noxious weeds. • Existing roads would be used to the extent possible, but only in safe and environmentally sound locations. If new access roads are necessary, they would be designed and constructed to the appropriate standard necessary to accommodate their intended function (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles) and minimize erosion. Access roads that are no longer needed would be recontoured and revegetated.

Environmental Impact Local plant communities would be impacted by site clearing and grading, facility construction, access road use, and vehicle travel activities. Most of these impacts would be temporary disturbance, such as trampling and mowing, and would be minimized by the environmental commitments and reseeding efforts.

Vegetation would be permanently removed in areas where it poses a safety risk (for example, tall trees underneath the transmission line) and in the footprint of permanent features such as the substation and transmission line pole locations.

As with all disturbance activities, the Project poses an increased risk of infestation by pest or invasive plant species. Invasive vegetation could decrease productivity of native vegetation and decrease wildlife habitat. Additionally, exposure to contaminants during accidental spills could affect plant survival and growth.

Approximately 29 acres of the Project are located in existing transmission ROW, where vegetation impacts have already occurred. New vegetation impacts would occur in slightly over 5 acres of new transmission ROW and slightly over 8 acres where the new substation would be built. The ROW is not prime or unique farmland. The substation location is rated as farmland of statewide importance.

Table 2.4 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to vegetation resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.4: Impact Evaluation on Vegetation Resources Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Changes in the diversity, productivity or abundance of plant species (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and X aquatic plants)? Alteration of a plant community? X Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened, or X endangered species? Reduction in acreage or productivity of any agricultural X land? Establishment or spread of noxious weeds? X Affecting prime and unique farmland? X e. Fish and Wildlife Wildlife and wildlife habitat in the project area is sparse, due to the developed nature of the landscape. Urban wildlife does include passerines, shorebirds, waterfowl, eagles and raptors, as well as whitetail and mule deer, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Osprey are known to perch on transmission lines near the MT FWP fish hatchery and prey upon hatchery fish. Table 2-5 below provides a list of federally-protected fish and wildlife species that have potential to occur in the area.

Table 2-5: USFWS Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Species Habitat Status Northern Long-eared Bat Caves, mines and bark retaining trees Threatened Whooping Crane Wetlands; migrate eastern MT Endangered Pallid Sturgeon Bottom dwelling, Missouri and Endangered Yellowstone River

The project area entirely lacks habitat for northern long-eared bat, whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon.

Environmental Commitments • Montana-Dakota has implemented a company-wide Avian Protection Plan (APP) to minimize potential bird interactions with company-owned transmission lines. The APP incorporates recommendations from three reference documents: o Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 o Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012, and o 2005 Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. • Construction holes left open overnight would be covered. Covers would be secured in place and be strong enough to prevent livestock or wildlife from falling through and into a hole. • Powerlines would be constructed in accordance to standards outlined in “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines” (1996 and 2006). • Montana-Dakota would install perch discouragers on the top of the new poles that are located between the hatchery and Spotted Eagle Recreation area.

Environmental Impact Wildlife and their habitat could be impacted by the project. The overall impact of the Project on wildlife populations is expected to be unquantifiable due to limited wildlife habitat and individuals currently in the area, combined with the short duration of construction activities. Small migratory birds are the primary wildlife that could experience impacts if they are in the project area vicinity during construction or make use of the 8 acres of land where the substation would be constructed.

Wildlife would likely avoid areas of human activity during construction and operation, and are likely to displace to other nearby habitats. Behavioral responses could include short-term increases in stress and avoidance of the area. Decreased reproduction of osprey could occur due to the addition of perch deterrents on power pole structures, which would result in decreased foraging opportunities of hatchery fish. No other reproductive impacts are anticipated for wildlife because there are no other known sensitive breeding areas nearby.

There is an increased risk of invasive vegetation leading to decreased wildlife habitat.

There would be no effect to threatened or endangered species

Table 2.6 provides a summary of the anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.6: Impact Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Deterioration of critical fish or wildlife habitat? X Changes in the diversity or abundance of game animals X or bird species? Changes in the diversity or abundance of nongame X species? Introduction of new species into an area? X Creation of a barrier to the migration or movement of X animals? Adverse effects on any unique, rare, threatened, or X endangered species? Increase in conditions that stress wildlife populations or limit abundance (including harassment, legal or illegal X harvest or other human activity)? Be performed in any area in which T&E species are present, and will the project affect any T&E species or X their habitat? Introduce or export any species not presently or X historically occurring in the receiving location? Affecting undisturbed natural areas or a wild and scenic X river? Affecting game animals or fish or their taking? X Affecting rare, threatened, or endangered species, or a X critical habitat? Affecting species balance, especially among predators? X f. Noise/Electrical Effects Natural and man-made sources of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are commonplace in the United States. Man-made sources of EMFs within the Project area include the existing WAPA substations, various WAPA and Montana-Dakota power lines, as well as ordinary household appliances such as hairdryers, electric shavers, computers, wireless networks, cell phones, microwaves, and remote controls.

Existing sources of noise include highway I-94, the railroad, local businesses, WAPA’s substations, the research lab, the fish hatchery, the Spotted Eagle Recreational area, and the trap and skeet shooting facility.

Environmental Commitments • Maintain all equipment in good working order in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Suitable mufflers and/or air-inlet silencers would be installed on all internal combustion engines and certain compressor components. • Take advantage of topography and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors when positioning potential sources of noise. • When possible, limit noisy construction activities to times when nearby sensitive receptors are least likely to be disturbed. • Locate stationary construction equipment (e.g., compressors or generators) as far as practical from nearby sensitive receptors. • In the unlikely event that blasting or pile driving would be needed during the construction period, notify nearby residents in advance.

Environmental Impact Short-term construction noise is expected. The dominant noise source for most construction equipment would be diesel engines. Most construction equipment would have noise levels comparable to the sound of a propeller plane flying overhead, a noisy urban street, or a B-757 cabin during flight. Potential noise impacts would be greatest when heavy-duty truck traffic is at its peak. All construction activities would occur during the day, when noise is tolerated better because of the masking effect of background noise. Also, construction sound at any one location would only be expected to occur for a few days because as construction in one area is completed, construction activities would move elsewhere within the overall Project area.

Long-term operational noise from both the transmission line and substation is also expected. Modern transmission lines are designed, constructed, and maintained so that during dry conditions the lines generate minimal noise. During dry weather, noise from transmission lines is generally indistinguishable from background noise. Under wet conditions, however, moisture collecting on the lines increases noise. Occasional corona humming noise at 120 hertz and higher is easily identified and, therefore, may cause complaints from nearby residents. Although corona noise could be an issue where transmission lines run through populated areas, it is not likely to cause a problem unless a residence is located within 500 feet of the transmission lines.

There are two general sources of noise associated with substations: transformer and switchgear. A transformer produces a constant low-frequency humming noise primarily because of the vibration of its core. Switchgear noise is generated by a blast of high-pressure gas used to break high voltage connections. The resultant noise is impulsive in character (i.e., loud and of very short duration). The industry is moving toward the use of more modern circuit breakers that use a dielectric gas to extinguish the arc and generate significantly less noise. The frequency of switchgear activities, such as regular testing, maintenance, and rerouting, is an operational issue related to utility company practices.

EMFs may exist within substations and switchyards and along the transmission line that connects the facility to the grid. The substation and switchyard locations are not accessible to the general public; however, the public would have greater accessibility to transmission-related locations because some locations would be located on public ROWs, and others would be accessible for agricultural uses. Potential health effects from EMF have been extensively studied. The studies found a weak link

20 between EMF exposure and a slightly increased risk of childhood leukemia. Studies that have been conducted on adults show no evidence of a link between EMF exposure and adult cancers, such as leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer. Because EMFs are vector quantities, they have a strength and a specific direction. The strength of an EMF decreases substantially with increasing distance from the source.

There are currently no Federal or State regulations on maximum EMF intensity. However, the EPA recommends that you limit your exposure to 0.5 milliGaus (mG) to 2.5 mG. For a 115 kV transmission line, the expected EMF levels are:

Table 2.7: Example EMF Levels with Increasing Distance from a Power Transmission Line a a Transmission Electric Field (kV) Average Magnetic Field (mG) Line Voltage At the 100 Feet 200 Feet 300 Feet At the 100 Feet 200 Feet 300 Feet (kV) Source Away Away Away Source Away Away Away 115 1.0 0.07 0.01 0.003 29.7 1.7 0.4 0.2 (a) kV = kilovolt, mG = milligauss

At 100 feet away, persons would be within the acceptable exposure recommendation. The transmission line ROW is a minimum of 50 feet wide, so residential exposure has already been limited in the areas of previous disturbance. The 1.5 miles of new transmission line construction would also receive a ROW, which would limit exposure risk by preventing new development near the transmission line.

Table 2.8 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to noise and electrical resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.8: Impact Evaluation on Noise and Electrical Effects Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Increases in existing noise levels? X Causing or contributing to unacceptable noise level? X Exposure of people to severe or nuisance noise levels? X Creation of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects that X could be detrimental to human health or property? Interference with radio or television reception and X operation?

21 g. Risk/Health Hazards

Environmental Commitments • Montana-Dakota must comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, with regard to any toxic substances that are used, generated by or stored in the project area and especially, provisions on polychlorinated biphenyls. • Any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) would be reported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. • Develop a Project health and safety program that addresses protection of public health and safety during construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning activities. The program would establish a safety zone or setback for Project facilities from residences and occupied buildings, roads, ROWs, and other public access areas that is sufficient to limit accidents resulting from various hazards during all phases of development. It would identify requirements for temporary fencing around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during construction or decommissioning activities. It would also identify measures to be taken during the operations phase to limit public access to facilities (e.g., equipment with access doors shall be locked to limit public access, and permanent fencing with slats shall be installed around electrical substations). • Montana-Dakota would work with appropriate agencies (e.g., DOE and Transportation Security Administration) to address critical infrastructure and key resource vulnerabilities, and to minimize and plan for potential risks from natural events, sabotage, and terrorism. • Prepare a hazardous materials and waste management plan that addresses the selection, transport, storage, and use of all hazardous materials needed for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility. The plan should include a comprehensive hazardous materials inventory; Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for each type of hazardous material; emergency contacts and mutual aid agreements, if any; site map showing all hazardous materials and waste storage and use locations; copies of spill and emergency response plans, and hazardous materials-related elements of a decommissioning/closure plan. • Hazardous materials and waste storage areas or facilities would be formally designated and access to them restricted to authorized personnel. Construction debris, especially treated wood, would not be disposed of or stored in areas where it could come in contact with aquatic habitats.

Environmental Impact As with any development, the Project would be at risk from natural disasters (earthquakes, storms, etc.), mechanical failure, human error, sabotage, cyber-attack, or deliberate destructive acts. The Project is not anticipated to be an unusual risk for natural disasters, mechanical accidents, or acts of sabotage or terrorism during Project construction, operation, or decommissioning.

Hazardous materials, such as transmission oil, pesticides, lubricating oils, coolants, paints or other corrosion-control coatings, herbicides, solvents, and fuels, would be present on the Project site in limited quantities. Improper storage and handling of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills, leaks, and fires, which presents a health risk. Because of the relatively small amount of fuel and other chemicals expected to be stored and used at the Project, an accidental release of these materials would be expected to impact only a small site. Proper storage and handling of hazardous materials, per the environmental commitments above, would reduce the risk of accidental releases.

Table 2.9 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to health hazards as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.9: Impact Evaluation on Risk/Health Hazards Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, X or radiation) in the event of an accident or other forms of disruption? Affecting an existing emergency response or emergency X evacuation plan, or create a need for a new plan? Creation of any human health hazard or potential X hazard? Use of any chemical toxicants? X Involving special hazards, such as radioactivity or X electromagnetic radiation? Affecting public health or safety? X h. Community Impact

Environmental Impact The Project could impact commercial and residential property values, as described in 2.a. No other impacts to community resources are anticipated.

Table 2.10 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to community resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.10: Impact Evaluation on Community Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or X growth rate of the human population of an area? Alteration of the social structure of a community? X Alteration of the level or distribution of employment or X community or personal income? Changes in industrial or commercial activity? X Increased traffic hazards or effects on existing transportation facilities or patterns of movement of X people and goods? Socioeconomic aspects of an area including: • Population? • Housing supply or demand? • Commercial activities? X • Industrial activities? • Cultural patterns? • Environmental justice? Causing public reaction or controversy? X Impacts from energy usage or alternative energy? X i. Public Services/Taxes/Utilities Several major transportation routes exist in the vicinity.

I-94 runs along the Yellowstone River. US Hwy 12 runs east from Miles City, while US Hwy 312 runs south from Miles City. MT Hwy 22 runs northwest from Miles City. The Burlington Northern Railroad crosses through the county along the Yellowstone River.

Frank Wiley Airport is primarily used for the transport of mail and goods and limited passenger service. The existing passenger terminal does not meet Transportation Security Agency requirements for passenger air service. In the past, the airport provided passenger air service through the subsidized Essential Air Services program; however, commercial passenger service is not currently available.

Environmental Commitments • When possible, transport equipment and materials during non-peak traffic times to limit congestion.

Environmental Impact The majority of transportation operations would involve material and equipment moved to the site during the construction phase. In general, the heavy equipment and materials needed for site access, site preparation, and foundation construction are typical of road construction projects and do not pose

24 unique transportation considerations. The types of heavy equipment required would include bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-end loaders, compactors, and dump trucks. Typically, the equipment would be moved to the site by flatbed combination truck and would remain on site through the duration of construction activities. Typical construction materials hauled to the site would include gravel, sand, and water, which are generally available locally. Ready-mix concrete might also be transported to the site, if available. The movement of equipment and materials to the site during construction would cause a relatively short-term increase in the traffic levels on local roadways during the construction period.

No other impact on public services is anticipated. Table 2.11 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to public services and utilities as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.11: Impact Evaluation on Public Services/Taxes/Utilities Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant An effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: fire or police protection, schools, parks/recreational X facilities, roads or other public maintenance, water supply, sewer or septic systems, solid waste disposal, health, or other governmental services? If any, specify: An effect upon the local or state tax base and revenues? X A need for new facilities or substantial alterations of any of the following utilities: electric power, natural gas, X other fuel supply or distribution systems, or communications? Increased use of any energy source? X Affecting local or regional systems related to: • Transportation? • Water supply? X • Power and heating? • Solid waste management? • Sewer or storm drainage?

25 j. Aesthetics/Recreation There are numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation in Custer County. These include hunting for big game and game birds, as well as fishing in numerous ponds. The Yellowstone River provides opportunities for boating and fishing. The Spotted Eagle Recreation Area is located directly northwest of the new substation. This area is used for fishing, picnicking and trap/skeet shooting.

Custer County owns a cemetery along Cemetery Road just south of Miles City. The existing transmission line ROW is currently located on the northern boundary of the cemetery. The new 115 kV transmission line would be replacing one of the existing 60 kV transmission lines in this existing ROW.

Environmental Commitments • Site project facilities in previously disturbed areas, whenever possible. • Coordinate with landowners to minimize disruptions (visual, noise, land use, etc.). • Utilize existing landscape features (i.e., tree belts, hills, buildings, roadways) to camouflage or blend visual features of the Project.

Environmental Impact Potential visual impacts that could result from the Project include contrasts in form, line, color, and texture resulting from ROW clearing with associated debris; road building/upgrading; construction and use of staging and laydown areas; vehicular, equipment, and worker presence and activity; and associated vegetation and ground disturbances, dust, and emissions.

The Project would produce visual contrasts by virtue of their design (form, color, and line) and the reflectivity of their surfaces and resulting glare. The degree of visual impact for an electricity transmission facility is highly subjective and would be influenced by the number of viewers that experience the impacts, as well as the type of activity viewers are engaged in when viewing a visual impact, their inherent sensitivity to visual impacts, their educational and social background, life experiences, and other cultural factors. The perception of visual impacts associated with electricity transmission facilities would likely vary among potential viewers and could change over time. These factors could interact in complex ways with landscape characteristics, such as scenic value, visual absorption capacity, and scenic integrity.

There are no new visual impacts anticipated to the cemetery because the construction of the new transmission line would occur in an existing transmission line ROW.

Table 2.12 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to aesthetics and recreation resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.12: Impact Evaluation on Aesthetics/Recreation Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Alteration of any scenic vista or creation of an aesthetically offensive site or effect that is open to X public view? Alteration of the aesthetic character of a community or X neighborhood? Alteration of the quality or quantity of X recreational/tourism opportunities and settings? Impact to designated or proposed wild or scenic rivers, X trails or wilderness areas? k. Cultural/Historical Resources A file search identified 32 previously recorded cultural resource sites and 30 previously conducted surveys in the vicinity of the Project. Four of the previously discovered cultural resource sites are present in the Project footprint. Three of the sites are aboveground historic sites and one site is a historic pipeline corridor.

A field survey located two new archeological sites and one isolated find. The isolated find is a prehistoric lithic scatter, which is unevaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. One of the new archeological sites is the remains of a historic bridge; the other site is a sparse lithic scatter.

The Project area has no existing religious or sacred uses.

Environmental Commitments • Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered would be immediately reported to the WAPA Archeologist. • Montana-Dakota would suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by WAPA. An evaluation of the discovery would be made by the authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent a loss of significant cultural or scientific value.

Environmental Impact Destruction or alteration of the pre-historic lithic scatter would be avoided by cutting off the base of the existing pole at ground level to avoid disturbance, and avoiding placement of new poles in the lithic scatter. With the use of this environmental commitment, WAPA has determined the Project would have no adverse impact to cultural or historic properties. The Montana State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination.

Table 2.13 provides a summary of the anticipated impact to cultural and historic resources as a result of the proposed Project.

Table 2.13: Impact Evaluation on Cultural/Historical Resources Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Destruction or alteration of any site, structure or object X of prehistoric historic, or paleontological importance? Physical change that would affect unique cultural X values? Effects on existing religious or sacred uses of a site or X area? Affecting historic or cultural resources? X Affecting a known or potential cultural, historical, or X archaeological site, district, or area? l. Cumulative Impacts The Project would contribute to the incremental expansion and conversion of undisturbed land to more developed uses. The Project would also contribute to air emissions, ambient noise, and the visual landscape. These incremental impacts are not expected to have an impact beyond the local scale.

Table 2.14: Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts Impact

Could the proposed action result in: None Minor Unknown Potentially Potentially Significant Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? Have adverse cumulative effects? Potential risks or adverse effects, which are uncertain X but extremely hazardous if they were to occur? Potential conflict with the substantive requirements of any local, state, or federal law, regulation, standard or X formal plan? Establishing a precedent or likelihood that future actions with significant environmental impacts will be X proposed? Generation of substantial debate or controversy about X the nature of the impacts that would be created? Expected organized opposition or generation of X substantial public controversy?

3. Evaluation of Alternative B: Alternate Route Under this alternative, impacts to the physical and human environments would occur at a scale and scope similar to the impacts of the Proposed Action. Montana-Dakota has not identified an alternate route, so it is impossible to determine how this alternative would impact site- specific resources (such as wetlands or vegetation). If Montana-Dakota proposed an alternate route, an environmental analysis of the route would be required prior to approval by WAPA or any other Federal agency.

PART III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1. Public Involvement The public was notified of the availability of the draft EA and opportunity to comment on the document in the following manners: • Public notice was published in the Miles City Star on October 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2019. • Public notice on the MT FWP webpage, available at the following link: http://fwp.mt.gov. • Public notice on the WAPA website, available at the following link: www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/Environment/Pages/MDUMilesCity.aspx • Letters mailed to individual landowners and other stakeholders within and adjacent to the project area.

The agencies have determined that this level of public notice and participation is appropriate for a localized project with limited impacts, many of which can be avoided or minimized.

2. Public Comment Period The public comment period extended for thirty (30) days following the publication of the legal notice. Written comments were accepted until close of business on November 6, 2019. Comments were accepted in the following ways: • By mail to: Western Area Power Administration Attn: Ms. Christina Gomer 2900 4th Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 • By email to [email protected] • By fax to (406) 255-2900 • By phone to (406) 255-2811

3. Comments Received WAPA received 7 comments during the comment period. A summary of the comments and WAPA responses is included in Appendix A.

PART IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION The Agencies have prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Agencies will use this EA to determine whether the Project is likely to result in significant environmental impacts. If the Agencies find no significant environmental impacts, a Finding of No Significant Impact would be prepared. If significant impacts are identified, the Agencies would begin the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. An EIS provides a more thorough evaluation of impacts and alternatives, as well as a more formal public involvement process.

1. Person(s) responsible for preparing the EA Christina Gomer, Western Area Power Administration, NEPA Coordinator Andy McDonald, Montana-Dakota, Environmental Scientist Kelly Garvey, HDR, Environmental Project Manager Michael Swenson, HDR, Wetland Biologist Michael Justin, HDR, Archeologist Monica Peterson, HDR, Environmental Scientist

2. List of agencies or offices consulted during preparation of the EA • BLM • BOR • MT FWP • USDA • COE

PART V. REFERENCES CITED Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006 Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, Calif. Available online at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1224/ML12243A391.pdf.

2012 Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 1994 Electric Power Lines: Questions and Answers on Research into Health Effects. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Energy.

HDR 2019 Final Archaeological Inventory. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Miles City 115 kV Transmission Line and Substation Project. Custer County, Montana. HDR Project No. 10117141. January 29, 2019.

Kroll, C., and T. Priestley 1992 The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Review and Analysis of the Literature, Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Analysis Planning Task Force, Washington, DC. Available online at http://staff.haas.berkeley.edu/kroll/pubs/tranline.pdf.

Lee, J.M., K.S. Pierce, C.A. Spiering, R.D. Stearns, and G. VanGinhoven 1996 Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) 2001 Open File MBMG 426, Plate 1 of 1Geologic Map, Miles City 30'x60' Quadrangle. Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke, Stanley J. Luft, Roger B. Colton, and Edward L. Heffern.

2007 Geologic Map of Montana, Map 62. Edition 1.0. Compiled by: Susan M. Vuke, Karen W. Porter, Jeffrey D. Lonn, and David A. Lopez.

Montana Natural Heritage Program 2010 Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie — Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie. Montana Field Guide. Electronic resource available at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=7114.

2018 Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report, Plant Species of Concern. Updated 09/25/2018. Accessed online 7/24/2019. http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/output/NHP_Plant_SOC.pdf

2019 Montana Point Observations Export Generalized Observations for Species. VascularPlants = ALL Vascular ((All Vascular Plants)) Within Lat/Long: (46.24978,-105.46043) to (46.45494,-106.05106). Natural Heritage Map Viewer. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on July 18, 2019, from http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 1999 NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields, Publication No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available online at https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_p_z/report_powerline_electric_mg _predates_508.pdf.

2018 Electric & Magnetic Fields. Available online at https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm.

National Park Service (NPS) 2017 Earth Science Concepts: Geology by Region. Physiographic Provinces. Electronic resource available at https://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/education/concepts/concepts_regional_geol ogy.cfm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003 Soil Survey of Custer County, Montana. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId= MT

2012 Montana 2012 Agricultural Statistics, 2010-2011 County Estimates. Compiled by USDA, NASS, Montana Field Office, Helena. Available online at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Annual_Sta tistical_Bulletin/2012/2012_Bulletin.pdf

2018 Soil Survey of Custer County Area, Montana. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Electronic resource available at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992 EMF in Your Environment. Available online at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/000005EP.PDF?Dockey=000005EP.PDF.

2019a. Air Data Air Quality Monitors. Available online at https://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_maps.html.

2019b Montana Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Data current as of February 28, 2019. Access from https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_mt.html.

2019c Outdoor Air Quality Data, Index Report. Access June 28, 2019 from https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-index-report

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2019 Environmental Conservation Online System, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Online resources accessed on April 4, 2019 from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index

World Health Organization (WHO) 2007 Extremely Low Frequency Fields, Environmental Health Criteria 238, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland.

34 APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX Letter Comment Date of Comment Entity Comment Response Number Number Comment Topic Ms. Gomer returned the call on 10/15/19. The private A private citizen called Ms. Gomer (WAPA) and left a voicemail requesting a hard copy of the draft A 1 Private Citizen 10/11/2019 citizen was able to download the electronic report and no General EA. longer needed a hard copy. We have reviewed the proposal and the Draft Environmental Assessment located at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/Environment/Documents/DraftEA_MDUMilesCity.pdf. The Draft EA does not include reference to Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) involvement or impact to MDT facilities. However, Figure 1 of the Draft EA shows the proposed 115 kV WAPA responded via email on 10/30/19 with the following transmission line intersecting Interstate 94 in an area not currently identified as existing Federal response: Thanks Heidy, I’ve forwarded this information transmission right-of-way. If the proposed project will impact highway infrastructure and/or right of B 1 Highway 10/21/2019 on to the project developer/applicant (Montana-Dakota Land Use way, it may require State and Federal approvals. Administration Utilities) and expect them to reach out to Troy shortly, if

they haven’t made contact already. Please coordinate your efforts with the MDT. As necessary, MDT will work with our office to secure applicable federal authorizations. Since MDT is a large organization, I have copied Troy Hafele, Glendive District Utility Agent. Please contact Mr. Hafele to discuss your proposal with him. His email is [email protected] and his phone number is (406) 345-8227. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) has reviewed Farm Service C 1 10/10/2019 the proposed project for MDU Miles City 2 Project and found no FSA inventory or conservation Comment noted. General Agency contracts in or near the project. USDA Farm Service Agency has no comment. Ms. Gomer returned the call on 10/15/19 and left a A private citizen called Ms. Gomer (WAPA) and left a voicemail, requesting a call back to discuss the D 1 Private Citizen 10/11/2019 voicemail with contact information and an invitation to call General project. back to discuss the project. Ms. Gomer returned the citizen's call on 10/15/2019. They discussed the citizen's comments on the project, which included: 1. The Project will negatively affect their home value. 10/9/2019 The private citizen Ms. Gomer (WAPA) called twice and left multiple voicemails, requesting a call 2. The Project will negatively affect their health because the Socioeconomics E 1 Private Citizen 10/11/2019 back to discuss the project. new transmission line will be closer than 25 feet to their Human Health house, which is above the exposure recommendations of the EPA. 3. They'd like to see the route changed to either shift outside of the subdivision or be buried.

35 Letter Comment Date of Comment Entity Comment Response Number Number Comment Topic WAPA responded via email on 11/13/19 with the following Ms Gomer, response: Thank you for the comments on Montana-

Dakota’s proposed project. Although WAPA’s authority in My name is [Private Citizen}. My home is located at [Redacted] in Miles City Mt. The current 60 kv this project is limited to the point of interconnection (at the transmission line is located along the western edge of my property line. The existing wood poles are Miles City 2 Substation), WAPA has forwarded your less than 25 feet from the west wall of my home. The western edge of my property is approximately suggestions regarding an alternate alignment to Montana- 35 feet from several structures that make up the Horizon Storage facility. My neighbor home to the Dakota. south is also 25 feet or Less from the existing 60 kv transmission line.

Regarding your concerns about the closeness of the The map and draft EA for the proposed 115kv transmission line indicates it will follow the existing transmission line (both the existing line and the proposed alignment of the 60 kv transmission line. This proposal puts the 115 kv transmission line less than 25 line) to your property, all Montana-Dakota must be Socioeconomics feet of my home. E 2 Private Citizen 10/13/2019 installed in accordance with State, County, or local zoning Land Use

ordinances. Mr. Bill Ellis is the head of the Custer County Human Health The proposed alignment of the 115 kv transmission line will negatively impact my health, quality of Planning and Floodplain Department. He can be reached at life due to increased noise and higher than allowable EMF (reference page 19 para 2 and table 2.7) [email protected] or (406) 874-3424. exposure limits, and ultimately decrease the value of my home and neighborhood.

In regards to your concerns about human health, noise, I vehemently oppose the proposed alignment of the 115kv transmission line adjacent to my EMF exposure, and home prices, WAPA will review the property and through the Southgate Subdivision. I strongly recommend a new alignment be corresponding sections of the EA to determine whether adopted. additional analysis is necessary.

I would be open to meet with you or any MDU designee at my home to discuss my concerns and Thank again for your comments and your interest in the observe the on-site conditions I have mentioned. project. Christina, the MDU project in Miles City will have to comply with. WAPA responded via email on 10/15/19 with the following Custer County 1. Custer County Floodplain Regulations 310 Floodplain Permit from me Bill Ellis at 1-406-874-3424 response: Good morning Mr. Ellis, Thank you for your Planning and 2. Custer County Zoning Regulations Site Plan Application from Michael Rinaldi at 1-406-366-1424 F 1 10/8/2019 comment. I’ve forwarded this information on to Montana- General Floodplain Dakota. They were aware of the Floodplain Permit and will Administrator I look forward to working with MDU and WAPA on this project to provide a dependable power coordinate with Mr. Rinaldi on the Site Plan Application. source to the residents of Miles City and Custer County. WAPA verified only Pallid Sturgeon, Whooping Crane, and The current list of candidate, proposed, threatened or endangered species, occurring in Custer Northern Long-eared Bat occur within 1 mile of the project County, Montana is as follows: U.S. Fish and based on information provided on the USFWS Ipac site. Pallid Sturgeon Fish and G 1 Wildlife 10/17/2019 Additionally, no critical habitat occurs within the project. Interior Least Tern Wildlife Service While the Least Turn is located in Custer County, the Whooping Crane project does not cross the Yellowstone or Missouri River, Northern Long-eared Bat where turns are known to use sandbars and islands. If a federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out a proposed action, the responsible federal agency, or its delegated agent, is required to evaluate whether the action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. If the federal agency or its designated agent determines the action “may affect, is U.S. Fish and likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitat, the responsible federal agency shall WAPA has determined "no effect," so further consultation Fish and G 2 Wildlife 10/17/2019 request formal section 7 consultation with this office. If the evaluation shows a “may affect, not is not necessary. Wildlife Service likely to adversely affect” determination, concurrence from this office is required. If the evaluation shows a “no effect” determination for listed species or critical habitat, further consultation is not necessary.

36 Letter Comment Date of Comment Entity Comment Response Number Number Comment Topic For your information, the greater sage-grouse, no longer considered a candidate for listing under the ESA, may also occur in the vicinity of the proposed project in sagebrush, sagebrush-grasslands, wetland and riparian areas, and associated agricultural lands. This species is managed by the State WAPA reviewed the Greater Sage Grouse map for Montana of Montana (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MFWP] and Department of Natural Resources and and found that no core areas occur within 1 mile of the Conservation [DNRC]) as well as by BLM on BLM-administered lands. U.S. Fish and project. However, general habitat does occur near the We recommend consultation with these agencies regarding locations of sage-grouse leks and other Fish and G 3 Wildlife 10/17/2019 project. Based on the level of human disturbance along the important habitat in the project vicinities. Some project sites may occur within greater sage-grouse Wildlife Service route and the general habitat designation, WAPA general or core habitat as mapped by the State of Montana, and greater sage-grouse General determined it is unlikely that there would be any effect to Habitat Management Areas or Priority Habitat Management Areas as delineated by the BLM. We Greater Sage Grouse. recommend reviewing the Montana Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Program website (https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/) and interactive map to assist in determining where designated greater sage-grouse habitat occurs relative to proposed project locations. We also recommend that proposed project activities be coordinated with the Montana DNRC, The Montana DNRC was included in the Project distribution U.S. Fish and Conservation and Resource Development Division, regarding any applicable required compliance list. The BLM has been contacted and completed their Fish and G 4 Wildlife 10/17/2019 with Montana Executive Order 12-2015 and the Montana sage-grouse conservation strategy, as well environmental review of the project in August of 2018. The Wildlife Service as with the BLM regarding compliance with sage-grouse considerations specified in the Resource BLM's ROW permission includes terms and conditions, Management Plan for any BLM-administered lands that are traversed by the proposed project. which Montana-Dakota will adhere to. Montana-Dakota has voluntarily committed to implementing the following steps to reduce avian impacts: • Montana-Dakota has implemented a company-wide Avian Protection Plan (APP) to minimize potential bird interactions with company-owned transmission lines. The APP incorporates recommendations from three reference documents: The proposed project may result in effects to migratory birds. To the extent practicable, we o Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power recommend that activities be scheduled so as to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds or Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 their eggs, if present in the project area. Active nests may not be purposefully removed. The Service U.S. Fish and o Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State has developed, and continues to revise and develop, general and industry-specific conservation Fish and G 5 Wildlife 10/17/2019 of the Art in 2012, and measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds Wildlife Service o 2005 Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. (https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation- • Powerlines would be constructed in accordance to measures.php). We recommend that the proposed project consider and incorporate these standards outlined in “Suggested Practices for Raptor measures into project design, construction, and documentation as appropriate. Protection on Powerlines” (1996 and 2006). • Montana-Dakota would install perch discouragers on the top of the new poles that are located between the hatchery and Spotted Eagle Recreation area.

The steps outlined in the Draft EA document the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to avian species.

37 Letter Comment Date of Comment Entity Comment Response Number Number Comment Topic To minimize the electrocution hazard to birds, we generally recommend that any new proposed power lines be buried. If this is not possible, we urge that any newly constructed power lines or power lines that may need to be modified or reconstructed as a result of the projects be designed and built to the APLIC standards in the 2006 Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines document. To increase power line visibility and reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions U.S. Fish and with power lines, the Service recommends all new power lines that are proposed to be located in Fish and G 6 Wildlife 10/17/2019 known raptor or water bird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal Comment noted. Wildlife Service migratory bird movement routes or stopover sites, should include daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these diurnally moving species per techniques outlined in Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Both publications can be obtained by writing or calling the Edison Electric Institute, P.O. Box 266, Waldorf Maryland 20604-0266, (1-800- 334-5453) or visiting their website at www.eei.org. When applicable, security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site. Certain activities may require a permit from the Service’s Migratory Bird Management Division. U.S. Fish and Please contact the Region 6 Migratory Bird Permits Office if you are uncertain if activities may result Fish and G 7 Wildlife 10/17/2019 in purposeful take of migratory birds, eggs, or nests. Additional information about permits can be Comment noted. Wildlife Service found at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbpermits.html. Service guidance regarding bird nest destruction can be found at https://www.fws.gov/policy/m0407.pdf. The Service is not aware of active eagle nests within a mile of the proposed project site. We provide U.S. Fish and the following for your information, as currently unknown nests could occur in the project vicinity Comment noted. If eagle nests occur in the vicinity of the Fish and G 8 Wildlife 10/17/2019 where suitable habitat exists, and nest surveys have not been conducted. [General information project, this information will be used to avoid impacts to Wildlife Service regarding the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and protections for eagles under the Migratory the nest(s). Bird Treaty Act]