EQB & MN Rules - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOC EFP Staff Comments and Recommendations PUC Docket E002/TL-11-223 Page 4 Approximately seven people attended the public information and scoping meeting; two individuals took the opportunity to speak on the record. A court reporter was present to document oral statements. Written comments were due no later than Friday, August 26, 2011. EFP received four comment letters during the scoping comment period. Xcel Energy also submitted a comment letter after the close of the comment period. Issues raised during the scoping period included: alternative routes and substation sites, purpose and need for the project, aesthetic impacts, impacts to wetlands and water resources, tree removal, relationship of the project to land use and planning, noise and air pollution, election of the proposed route, structure types, and potential for future expansion. After the close of the comment period Xcel Energy also submitted a letter addressing alternative substation sites proposed during the scoping period. These items and issues, along with the typical HVTL routing impacts, have been incorporated into the EA Scoping Decision. Scoping Decision The items, issues and alternatives raised during the scoping meeting and comment period were reviewed in preparation of the proposed EA Scoping Decision. An alternative route through the Baker Park Reserve and four alternative substation sites were proposed during the scoping period. The EA Scoping Decision identified two routes to be evaluated: The Xcel Energy Proposed Route, and the Baker Park Reserve Route Alternative. No alternative substation sites were included in the EA Scoping Decision. No additional substation sites were included in the EA Scoping Decision. The Department released its EA Scoping Decision on September 14, 2011. EFP staff provided a Notice of Scoping Decision to all parties on the project contact list. Environmental Assessment An EA must be prepared for all high-voltage transmission projects being reviewed under the alternative permitting process. The procedures EFP staff must follow in preparing the EA are described in Minnesota Rule 7850.3700. The EA contained information on the human and environmental impacts of the proposed project as identified in the scoping decision document. It also addressed required methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such impacts for all routes considered. The EA is the only state environmental review document required to be prepared for _ _ this project. EFP staff released the EA on November 30, 2011. A corrected version of Appendix B of the EA was e-filed on December 13, 2011; the print version supplied for public review contained the correct version of Appendix B. EFP staff noticed the availability of the EA in mailings to interested persons and local government officials on November 30, 2011. Notice of the availability of the EA was published in the EQB Monitor on December 12, 2011. Public Hearing EFP staff made request to the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative law judge (ALJ) to preside over the public hearing and provide a summary of testimony. EFP staff issued a Notice of Public Hearing on November 30, 2011, and provided the Notice to all individuals on the project contact list and to local officials. The notice of the public hearing was