Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Xcel Energy Orono HVTL Project <br /> Draft Scoping Document <br /> PUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 <br /> Page 7 <br /> 1. Lakes,Creeks, Streams,Rivers, and Other Waterways <br /> 2. Wetlands(including description and function) <br /> 3. Riparian Areas <br /> 4. Floodplains <br /> L. Soil and Groundwater <br /> M. Flora and Fauna <br /> 1. Wildlife Management Areas <br /> 2. Scientific and Natural Areas <br /> 3. State,Federal, and Regional Parks and Forests <br /> 4. National Wildlife Refuge/Waterfowl Production Areas <br /> 5. Avian Line Markers/Diverters <br /> 6. Vegetation Removal <br /> N. Threatened/Endangered/Rare and Unique Natural Resources <br /> VI. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> ASSESSMENT <br /> Any routes, route segments, or alignment alternatives in addition to the Route proposed by Xcel <br /> Energy in its route permit application to be evaluated in the Environmental Assessment would be <br /> identified here and shown in an attached map. <br /> Under Minnesota Statute (MS 116E.04, subd. 3)the Applicant need not propose additional routes <br /> beyond that proposed by Xcel Energy in its route permit application. Any person may propose <br /> additional routes, route segments, or alignments to be evaluated in the EA. Minnesota Rules <br /> 7850.3700, subpart 2.B. directs the Department to assess additional routes only if it is determined <br /> that evaluation of additional routes will assist in the Commission's ultimate decision on the permit <br /> application. <br /> VU. IDENTIFICATION OF PERMITS <br /> The environmental assessment will include a list and description of permits from other <br /> government entities that may be required for the proposed project. <br /> VIII. ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> The scope of the Orono Transmission Project EA will not consider the following: <br /> A. No-build alternative. <br /> B. Issues related to project need, size,type, or timing. <br /> C. Any route or substation alternatives not specifically identified in this scoping decision <br /> document. <br /> D. Policy issues surrounding whether utilities or local-government should be liable <br /> for the cost to relocate utility poles when roadways are widened. <br /> E. The manner in which land owners are paid for transmission rights-of-way <br /> easements, as that is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. <br />