EQB & MN Rules - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proposed alternative would trigger undue noise impacts to those using the park reserve.74 75. Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant City Administrator, submitted comments on behalf of the City of Orono. Like many of the residents of the Huntington Farms neighborhood, the City expressed concerns over the visual impacts of the proposed substation. Specifically, it urged the Commission to condition any approval of the application on the installation of effective, natural measures to screen the visual impacts of the proposed substation. In its comments it detailed a number of interventions that it regards as necessary— such as the installation of trees of certain types and height. Additionally, the City seeks an opportunity to have its engineer review finalized site plans before project construction begins.75 76. Jamie Schrenzel, Principal Planner for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Review Unit, submitted comments on behalf of the DNR. She urged greater coordination between agency permitting activities, in general, and as to this project in particular, because the mitigation measures raise matters of common concern. Specifically, Ms. Schrenzel recommended that the mitigation plans require compliance with the winter construction methods required by Minn. R. 6135.1300, deployment of Swan Flight Diverters along the transmission line alignment so as to reduce collisions by trumpeter swans and annotation of project plans or materials so as to specify where these diverters will be placed.76 77. Craig Affeldt, Supervisor of the Environmental Review Unit of the MPCA, submitted comments on behalf of the agency. Because Katrina Lake is an impaired water for nutrient/eutrophication increased stormwater treatment may be necessary during construction and post construction. These requirements must be addressed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Construction Stormwater Permit application prepared for the project. Mr. Affeldt also noted the presence of several properties near the project area with actual or potential soil or groundwater contamination. Any contaminated soil or water uncovered or disturbed during construction must be managed properly." Environmental Assessment of Routes 78. The EA evaluated the Xcel Energy Proposed Route (Finding 7) along with one route alternative, the Baker Park Reserve Alternative (Finding 9). The EA described, but did not evaluate alternative substation locations.78 74 Ex.26 at p.5 (AU Report) 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ex.23(MPCA comment letter) '$Ex. 12 at pp. 5-7(EA) 17