Orono Substation Expansion - Enviromental Assessment (1)

Home Browse Search

1 Energy Facility Permitting ' Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 ' three people provided oral comments and/or asked questions about the proposed project. Topics and issues raised by the public at the meeting included: visual impact, structure heights,possible future expansion, extent of the cleared area, alternate substation locations, and a route alternative ' through Baker Park Preserve to minimize impacts to residences.2 Public Comments ' A public comment period, ending on August 26, 2011,provided the public an opportunity to submit comments to EFP staff via e-mail, fax,U.S. Mail or online on issues and alternative ' routes and alignments for consideration in the scope of the EA. Four comment letters were received by the close of the comment period.3 Xcel Energy also submitted a comment letter on September 7,2011, addressing alternative routes and substation sites proposed during the ' scoping period.4 A letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR)raised issues such as the ' wetland impacts,tree removal, impacts to the Baker Park Preserve and potential impacts to trumpeter swans. The DNR also indicates a preference for the Proposed Route or Route Alternative 1 described in the application, as it appears,based on the information contained in ' the application, that these routes would result in the fewest environmental impacts. DNR did recommended further coordination to minimize impacts to Painter Creek and use of bird flight diverters to minimize the risk of bird collisions. ' The city of Orono submitted comments outlining issues they wanted to see addressed in the EA. These issues include: aesthetic impacts,relationship of the Project to the land use and planning, ' project purpose and need, impacts to vegetation and habitat, impacts to cultural and sensitive ecological resources, impact to wetlands and water resources,plans for management of stormwater runoff, traffic, noise and air pollution, and cumulative potential effects from the Project. The letter did not propose any alternative routes or identify a preferred alternative. Xcel Energy's letter proposed use of Y-frame structures at two locations and requests that the ' EA evaluate the proposed Y-frame structures. Michael Kuruvilla, a resident of the Huntington Farm neighborhood and president of the Hunt ' Farm Home Owner's association, submitted comments expressing concern with the location of the substation, impacts to wetlands,health and safety impacts from the Project, and economic impacts to landowners from the Project. Mr. Kuruvilla proposed four additional substations ' locations; these locations are addressed below. The scoping meeting comment report and each comment letter are available for viewing and downloading on the project website maintained by the Commission at: 2 Public Information and Environmental Scoping Meeting Comments,eDocket Id.20119-66024-01. s Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments. eDocket Id.20119-66024-02. 4 Xcel Energy Comment Letter on Scope of Environmental Assessment. eDocket Id. 20119-66015-01. 3 of 9