The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrono Substation Replacement I I I NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY APPLICATION TO THE I MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES I COMMISSION FOR A ROUTE PERMIT I I ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT I And NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT I Alternative Permitting Process MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I June 7, 2011 I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Page I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 Proposal Summary 1 1.2 Completeness Checklist 3 I 2.0 INTRODUCTION 6 2.1 Statement of Ownership 6 I 2.2 Requested Action 6 2.3 Permittee 6 I 2.4 Certificate of Need 8 2.5 Route Permit,Alternative Permitting Process 8 I 2.6 Notice to Commission 8 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 9 3.1 Project Location 9 I 3.2 Project Proposal 9 3.3 Need for Project 10 I 3.4 Project Schedule 10 3.5 Project Cost 11 I 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND ROUTE SELECTION RATIONALE 12 4.1 Transmission Line Description 12 4.2 Route Width and Alignment Selection Process 14 I 4.2.1 Route Width 14 4.2.2 Route Selection Process 14 I 4.3 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected 16 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1 16 4.3.2 Alternative Route 2 16 I 4.3.3 Alternative Route 3 17 4.3.4 Alternative Route 4 17 I 4.4 Associated Facilities and Substation Modifications 18 4.4.1 Orono Substation (Replacement) 18 4.4.2 Transmission Structures 076,077 and 078 (Existing) 19 I 4.5 Design Options to Accommodate Future Transmission Lines 20 5.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 21 I 5.1 Structures, Right-of-Way, Construction and Maintenance 21 5.1.1 Transmission Structures 21 I i I I Table of Contents I (continued) Page I5.1.2 Right-of-Way Width 23 5.1.3 Right-of-Way Evaluation and Acquisition 27 I5.1.4 Transmission Construction Procedures 29 5.1.5 Restoration Procedures 30 I 5.1.6 Maintenance Procedures 31 5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields 31 5.2.1 Electric Fields 31 I5.2.2 Magnetic Fields 32 5.2.3 Stray Voltage 36 5.3 Farming Operations,Vehicle Use,and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines 36 6.0 LAND USE,RECREATION,AND HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES 38 6.1 Description of Environmental Setting 38 I6.1.1 Topography 39 6.1.2 Geology and Soils 39 6.2 Human Settlement 40 I6.2.1 Public Health and Safety 40 6.2.2 Commercial,Industrial,and Residential Land Use 40 I6.2.3 Displacement 41 6.2.4 Noise 42 I 6.2.5 Television and Radio Interference 45 6.2.6 Aesthetics 45 I 6.2.7 Socioeconomic Impacts 47 6.2.8 Cultural Values 48 6.2.9 Recreation 48 I 6.2.10 Public Services 49 6.3 Land-Based Economics 50 I 6.3.1 Agriculture 50 6.3.2 Forestry 50 6.3.3 Tourism 51 I 6.3.4 Mining 51 6.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources 51 I 6.5 Natural Environment 52 6.5.1 Air Quality 52 I 6.5.2 Water Quality 53 1i 1 Table of Contents (continued) Page 6.5.3 Wetlands 54 ' 6.5.4 Flora 58 6.5.5 Fauna 59 6.6 Rare and Unique Natural Resources 60 7.0 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROU IES 63 8.0 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT,PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,AND REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS 65 8.1 Agency Contacts and Response 65 8.1.1 Notice to Local Government Units 65 8.1.2 Notice to Other Agencies and Interested Parties 65 8.1.3 Natural Resource Conservation Service 65 ' 8.1.4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 65 8.1.5 Minnesota Department of Transportation 66 8.1.6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 66 8.1.7 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 66 8.1.8 Metropolitan Council 67 8.1.9 Three Rivers Park District 67 8.2 Identification of Landowners 67 8.3 Public Participation 67 8.4 Required Permits and Approvals 69 9.0 REFERENCES 71 10.0 DEFINITIONS 74 ' 11.0 ACRONYMS 76 1 1 1 1 1 iii I I ILIST OF TABLES Table 1 Completeness Checklist 3 I Table 2 Estimated Project Schedule 10 Table 3 Estimated Project Cost 11 Table 4 Detailed Description of Proposed Route 13 I Table 5 Structure Design Summary 22 Table 6 Calculated Electric Fields (kV/m) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) 32 I Table 7 Calculated Magnetic Flux Density (milligauss) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) 33 Table 8 Distance to Occupied Structures 41 I Table 9 Common Noise Sources and Levels 42 Table 10 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification 43 Table 11 Calculated Audible Noise (dBA) for Proposed Transmission Line Design I (3.28 feet above ground) 44 Table 12 Population and Economic Characteristics of the Project Location 47 Table 13 Wetlands within the Proposed Route 56 I Table 14 Rare and Unique Resources Near the Proposed Project 61 Table 15 Potential Required Permits 69 LIST OF FIGURES I Figure 1 Project Location 2 Figure 2 Proposed Route 7 I Figure 3 Figure 4 Photo of Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure 21 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure 21 Figure 5 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Braced Post Structure 22 I Figure 6 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements For Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure 24 Figure 7 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 I kV Davit Arm Structure 25 Figure 8 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure 26 ILIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Applicant's Notice Letter to Commission of Intent to Use Alternative Permitting IProcess Appendix B Maps I Figure B-1 General Vicinity Map Figure B-2 Proposed Project and Route Location Figure B-3 Land Use Land Cover I Figure B-4 Zoning Figure B-5 Property Parcels Figure B-6 Wetlands and Waterbodies I Figure B-7 Parks and Recreational Areas Figure B-8 Locations of Known Rare and Unique Resources I Orono Project June,2011 MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 iv 1 I Figure B-9 Archaeological and Historical Resources I Figure B-10 Orono Substation Replacement Plan Appendix C Public Correspondence I C.1 MnDNR NHIS Response C.2 List of LGUs and Other Interested Parties and Agencies Sent a 90-Day Project Notice Letter I C.3 City of Orono Response C.4 NRCS Response C.5 US Fish and Wildlife Response I C.6 MnDOT Response C.7 SHPO Response C.8 Metropolitan Council I C.9 Three Rivers Park District C.10 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Appendix D Landowner List and Public Comments I D.1 Landowner List D.2 Public Comments Appendix E Phase Ia Report and Minnesota SHPO Correspondence Appendix F Wetland Delineation Report and Minnehaha Creek Water District Response I Appendix G Summary of Application Factors G.1 Supplemental Information to Section 4.3 G.2 Detailed Description of Alternative Routes 111G.3 Figure G-1 Alternative Routes G.4 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes I I I I I I I Orono Project June,2011 , MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 v , ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Proposal Summary ' Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company") submits this application ("Application") for a Route Permit to the Minnesota Public Utilities ' Commission ("Commission" or "MPUC") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 216E and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850. ' A Route Permit is requested to replace the existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation with a new 115 kV substation, construct approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and construct approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission line within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono located west of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Project"). Figure 1 shows the general vicinity of the proposed Project. ' The substation replacement will include a complete rebuild of the existing Orono Substation from an existing operating voltage of 69 kV to an operating voltage of 115 kV. The increase in the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation is needed to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads,and allow for additional load growth in the future. The Project qualifies for the Alternative Permitting Process under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3), ' and Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 (see Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C)). The Company respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed route and authorize a 400-foot route width along the proposed route. , , , , , , , i Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 1 1 I Figure 1 I Project Location _ M. ye.,yam f :+-r - .. .ry,.. I 1 p . .. � is y I } Chir ; rma-,,,,,,,,...,... . , . I w. r •and 0 •. I • Sj'4.--''-'- Ci .. ter' - a._ a �+ _—.___ " Existing Xcel Energy Qf4 t�� Y ' -,,.„,_,.. ...-,. ,:„...,,*:,f. ;= Orono ISubstation \ ar , 1 •,'? r - . . . ,...., Q `�, . t • Property %/i �•-r_ Watertown Rtl >. _ �r//�•'. , J It . I'-^t, City of 0' ; _ _, .t ... �, •••,,•',„,-._ r -41 . , I ' _ , mi ya� f' titi14 1.',1,',.4.'l sI = ) +f 2,000 170!,' r., Tee[ t4 t - „s ' ' MRJCDocket No c i _ii Orono Project June 7, 2011 I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 2 1.2 Completenesshecklist Checklist The content requirements for an application with the Commission under the Alternative Permitting ' Process are identified under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3) and Minn. R. 7850.2900 and 7850.1700. Table 1 lists the rule requirements and the section where the information can be found in this Application. Table 1 Com•leteness Checklist Authority Required Information Where Minn. R. Subpart 1. Eligible Projects 7850.2800, Sub.. 1 C An applicant for a site permit or a route permit for one of the 2.5 ' following projects may elect to follow the procedures of parts 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 instead of the full permitting procedures in part 7850.1700 to 7850.2700 for high voltage transmission lines of between 100 and 200 kilovolts. Minn. R. Subpart 2. Notice to Commissio 7850.2800 Sub.. 2 An applicant for a permit for one of the qualifying projects in 2.6 and subpart 1, who intends to follow the procedures of parts Appendix A ' 7850.2800 to 7850.3700, shall notify the Commission of such intent, in writing, at least 10 days before submitting an application for the .ro'ects. Minn. R. Contents of App ':'.` ' alterna. .' ` .e > pro 7850.3100 ,r.� �_..;. . .. . The applicant shall include in the application the same 4.3 information required in part 7850.1900, except the applicant need ' not propose any alternative sites or routes to the preferred site or route. If the applicant has rejected alternative sites or routes, the applicant shall include in the application the identity of the ' rejected sites or routes and an explanation of the reasons for re'ectin: them. 7850.1900, Subp. 2 (applicable per Minn. R. 7850.3100) a statement of proposed ownership of the facility at the time of 2.1 filin, the a..lication and after commercial o.eration B. the precise name of any person or organization to be initially 2.3 named as permittee or permittees and the name of any other person to whom the permit may be transferred if transfer of the .ermit is contem s lated ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 3 I I Authority Required Information \\here I C. at least two proposed routes for the proposed high voltage Not Applicable transmission line and identification of the applicant's preferred per Minn. R. route and the reasons for the preference 7850.3100. I However see 4.3 D. a description of the proposed high voltage transmission line and 3.2,4.1,4.4, I all associated facilities including the size and type of the high 5.1.1 voltage transmission line E. the environmental information required under 7850.1900,Subp. 3 Chapter 6 I F. identification of land uses and environmental conditions along the Chapter 6 proposed routes G. the names of each owner whose property is within any of the 8.2 and I proposed routes for the high voltage transmission line Appendix D.1 I I. United States Geological Survey topographical maps or other Appendix B maps acceptable to the chair showing the entire length of the high I voltage transmission line on all proposed routes I. identification of existing utility and public rights-of-way along or 4.1,4.2,4.3, parallel to the proposed routes that have the potential to share 5.1.2 I right-of-way, the land used by a public utility(as for a transmission line),with the proposed line J. the engineering and operational design concepts for the proposed 5.0, 5.2 high voltage transmission line, including information on the electric and magnetic fields of the transmission line K. cost analysis of each route, including the costs of constructing, 3.5 I operating, and maintaining the high voltage transmission line that are dependent on design and route L. a description of possible design options to accommodate 4.5 I expansion of the high voltage transmission line in the future M. the procedures and practices proposed for the acquisition and 5.1.3 — 5.1.6 restoration of the right-of-way, construction, and maintenance of I the high voltage transmission line N. a listing and brief description of federal, state, and local permits 8.4 that may be required for the proposed high voltage transmission line I 0. a copy of the Certificate of Need or the certified HVTL list 2.4 containing the proposed high voltage transmission line or documentation that an application for a Certificate of Need has I been submitted or is not required Minn. R. Enonnmental Information 7850.1900, Subp. I 3 A. a description of the environmental setting for each site or route 6.1 1 B. a description of the effects of construction and operation of the 6.2 I facility on human settlement, including, but not limited to, public health and safety, displacement, noise, aesthetics, socioeconomic impacts, cultural values,recreation, and public services I Orono Project June 7,2011 I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 4 ' Authority Required Information Where C. a description of the effects of the facility on land-based 6.3 economies, including, but not limited to, agriculture, forestry, ' tourism,and mining D. a description of the effects of the facility on archaeological and 6.4 historic resources ' E. a description of the effects of the facility on the natural 6.5 environment, including effects on air and water quality resources and flora and fauna ' F. a description of the effects of the facility on rare and unique 6.6 natural resources G. identification of human and natural environmental effects that Chapter 6.0 ' cannot be avoided if the facility is approved at a specific site or route H. a description of measures that might be implemented to mitigate Chapter 6.0 ' the potential human and environmental impacts identified in items A to G and the estimated costs of such mitigative measures 1 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION , 2.1 Statement of Ownership Xcel Energy will construct, own, and operate the proposed new 115 kV transmission line and new 115 kV Orono Substation. The new transmission line will connect the expanded Orono Substation to an existing 115 kV transmission line (Line 0831) located approximately 2,600 feet northwest of the Orono Substation site. The address of the Orono Substation is 3960 Sixth Avenue North, City of Orono ("City"),Hennepin County,Minnesota. See Figure 2. Xcel Energy is a Minnesota corporation with its headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Xcel Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc., a utility holding company with its headquarters in Minneapolis. Xcel Energy provides electricity services to approximately 1.2 million customers and natural gas services to 435,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Minnesota. Xcel Energy also provides electricity service to more than 83,000 customers in South Dakota and 88,000 customers in North Dakota. Xcel Energy Services Inc.is the service company for Xcel Energy Inc. holding company system and its personnel prepare, submit, and administer regulatory applications to the Commission on behalf of Xcel Energy,including Route Permit applications. 2.2 Requested Action This Application is submitted under the Alternative Permitting Process under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, ' subd. 2(3) and Minn. R. 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 (see Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C)). While the rules do not require consideration of alternative routes in the Application (see Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.3100), Xcel Energy's evaluation of four alternative routes, in addition to the "Proposed Route", as herein described for the Project is contained in this Application. See Figure 2. For the reasons presented herein,Xcel Energy prefers the Proposed Route for the new transmission line and substation replacement, and respectfully requests that the Commission approves the Proposed ' Route and authorize a route width of 200 feet on each side of the route centerline along the Proposed Route (400 feet total width). This Application demonstrates that construction of the Project at the existing Orono Substation and along the Proposed Route will comply with the applicable standards and criteria set out in Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7, and Minn. R. 7850.4100. The Project will support the State's goals to conserve resources, minimize environmental and human settlement impacts and land use conflicts, and ensure the State's electric energy security through the construction of efficient, cost-effective transmission infrastructure. 2.3 Permittee The permittee for the proposed Project is: ' Permittee: Northern States Power Company, Address: Xcel Energy Services Inc. a Minnesota Corporation 414 Nicollet Mall,MP-8 Contact: Joseph G. Sedarski Minneapolis,MN 55401 Senior Permitting Analyst, Siting Phone: 612-330-6435 and Land Rights Email: joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com t Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 6 I I I Figure 2 Pro a osed Route 0 Existing Structure ' # ` .. • Proposed Structure p a Proposed Route t.„...,,,,f , f Existing Xcel Energy 115kV tine 0031 r .ea.EYisrng GRE 69kV Line BD t '.,,,•'/•,;',r t1 ANN GRE 69kV Lire BD To Be Removed �'¢` ry il;, an • so r proposed Relocation of GRE 694V Line BD S- Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line ,. \ 1, 1Requested Route V+Atlth(Approxirretely400Total) g u a«. : '6g I �..-7 Existing Xcel Orono Substation y, n r ., ` 1 Orono Substation Propertttt y ; Park Boundary �"+ rcx - t"- Proposed 75 Ft Right-of-VVay Yd Q Proposed Orono Substation EpansionArea - - - - Hennepin Count;Par�:-Is ,t, T- g; .. _ _._�. t� I '+ s. ti a k QNS ,°tet s } ..:4?: ; i�. I '444,C‘4 ri' rt Ti ' _Y, 077(New) ' 07 Line 08311) To be replaced laced Pit:-541:'° 078r(Line 0831) P r > To bei replace d 7' 1 I n f $� W4T •lace stlnpstru u ! 1 � (N .n C,� ar x 07x7(Line 0=4. }. f I r s %�aQ "..0.,, `' To be replaced th new structure 076-1 ('� J ;7:y:1 ' 076-2(New)_r+r fi 4' 4::-r„:7-,-.-• o • i,r r .. d✓Ott o r 11 './ .,,-....',7.: .e. i 4 �1,� \� I C -- ±'- Jf A R � \ B / "•7 t. • , r"sC 7 .x',04` x ' „,.. �.; .. .s. 'r;'+ ��,... Y,s , , 076.3 ow t II a ,, , s,. 1, t s f .,cam yn _ `, "" j .n ' ///// -N ,.• Y 1 _ 4" .l' (//://) .," r / %- 1 e , t:i 7 , � tx Tr•Y 450 l° �r. _ + K 4‘4 1 Feet J `6, mss•.=- t ki{R " / •+` �c a d: • Hennepi! Aerial Image.Source iv`,1) ptu Aerial Sepre Saurce image - Dodtet o. dated Sept 15,2009 BOO�TL-11-223 I Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 7 I I 2.4 Certificate of Need A Certificate of Need ("CON") is not required for the Project because it is not classified as a large energy facility under Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.243 and 216B.2421, subd. 2(3). While the Project is a HVTL with a capacity of 100 kV or more,it is not more than 10 miles long in Minnesota and it does not cross a state line. Therefore, a CON is not required. See Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.2421, subd. 2(3) and 216B.243. 2.5 Route Permit,Alternative Permitting Process The Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act ("PPSA") provides that no person may construct a HVTL without a Route Permit from the Commission. Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 2. Under the PPSA,an HVTL includes a transmission line that is 100 kV or more and is greater than 1,500 feet in length. Minn. Stat. § 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed new 115 kV transmission line is an HVTL greater than 1,500 feet in length and, therefore, a Route Permit is required from the Commission prior to construction. The Project qualifies for review under the Alternative Permitting Process authorized by Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C) (establishing alternative process for HVTLs between 100 and 200 kilovolts). Accordingly, Xcel Energy is following the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minn. R. 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 for this Project. 2.6 Notice to Commission Xcel Energy notified the Commission on March 17, 2011, by letter (mailed and electronically filed) that Xcel Energy intended to use the Alternative Permitting Process for the Project. This letter complies with the requirement of Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 2, to notify the Commission of this election at least 10 days prior to submitting an application for a Route Permit. A copy of the letter is attached in Appendix A. 1 Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 8 I 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Project Location The proposed Project is located within Hennepin County, Minnesota. Figure 1 shows an overview of the general vicinity of the Project and the Proposed Route is shown in Figure 2. Appendix B includes detailed maps of the proposed and the planned replacement of the existing Orono p p p Project Substation described in this Application. The Project is located wholly within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono within Township 118N,Range 23W,Sections 29,30 and 32. 3.2 Project Proposal ' Xcel Energy proposes to replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and connect the new substation to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 by constructing a new double circuit 115 kV transmission line. The proposed new 115 kV double circuit transmission line primarily runs north and west from the Orono Substation site to transmission Line 0831. Figure 2 and Figure B-2 in Appendix B show ' the Proposed Route. Appendix B also includes detailed maps concerning environmental factors of the proposed Project. ' More specifically,Xcel Energy proposes the following for the Project: • install approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line and ' structures from the new Orono Substation to the connection point with existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 at new transmission Structure 076-1; ' • remove three existing transmission structures (Structures 076, 077, and 078) and associated 1,030 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission Line 0831 and installing two new structures and approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission line to re-route the existing line off of residential property and onto adjacent Huntington Farm ' Association ("HFA")1 property adjacent to the BNSF railroad; • disconnect the existing Line 0831 at transmission Structure 077, install a new double ' circuit corner structure, and connect the new double circuit 115 kV transmission line from the new Orono Substation to Line 0831; • installing fiber optic ground wire with the new 115 kV transmission line and the replaced segment of Line 0831; • except for existing switchgear (which will be reused in the new substation), remove the existing Orono Substation and construct the replacement Orono Substation as a 115- 13.8 kV transmission substation to accommodate the new 115 kV line termination and/or ring bus by, installing a 28 MVA, 118-14.3 kV transformer, adding transfer trip ' 1 HFA is an association of landowners which are a part of the Huntington Farm residential development that is located west of the existing Orono Substation site. HFA owns undeveloped parcels surrounding the residential parcels that are part of HFA. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 9 and pilot relaying, installing fiber optic lines for relaying and transfer trip, installing I breakers, reconfiguring line protection, replacing shield wire with fiber optic shield wire, and related modifications;and • revise as needed line designations, terminals, breakers, relays, and line protection as a result of the above changes in connecting the new Orono Substation to 115 kV transmission Line 0831. Specific details to the substation replacement and associated facilities are further described in Section 4.4. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, the following work will also be completed: • disconnect approximately 385 feet of existing Great River Energy (GRE) 69 kV transmission line (BD) from the existing Orono Substation and re-route approximately 420 feet of this line around the proposed new Orono Substation and associated new 115 kV transmission line facilities (the re-routed GRE 69 kV transmission line would not be connected to the new Orono Substation). The proposed transmission structures are single-pole, galvanized steel or weathering-steel type structures. The height of the new single circuit poles will range from 70 to 90 feet while the double I circuit poles will range from 75 to 115 feet, with the spans between poles ranging from 300 to 500 feet. Xcel Energy respectfully requests a route width of up to 200 feet on each side of the Proposed Route alignment (400 feet total width), on either side of Line 0831 to Structure 076 and up to the south side of U.S. Highway 12 (see Figure 2). Following construction,the typical right-of-way width for the new transmission line will be 75 feet. 3.3 Need for Project 1 The Project,which includes increasing the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation from 69 kV to 115 kV and connecting it to Xcel Energy's existing transmission system, is needed to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future (Hollydale/Meadow Lake Load Serving Study, Xcel Energy Services, Transmission System Planning and Reliability Assessment,June 2011). ' 3.4 Project Schedule Construction for the Project is expected to begin in the first quarter 2012, and Xcel Energy anticipates a second quarter 2013 in-service date for the proposed facilities. Table 2 provides an estimated permitting and construction schedule summary. Table 2 Estimated Project Schedule Project Task Date File Route Permit Application with the Commission 2nd Quarter 2011 Route Permit Review Process Complete 4d'Quarter 2011 Begin Transmission Line and Substation Construction 151 Quarter 2012 In-Service Date 2nd Quarter 2013 I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 10 I I Iisbased on information known as of the date of this filingand upon planning Project schedule s p p g assumptions that balance the timing of implementation with the availability of crews and materials I and with other practical considerations. This schedule may be subject to revision as further information is developed. I3.5 Project Cost Xcel Energy estimates that the Proposed new transmission line and new Orono Substation will cost I approximately $5.3 million, depending upon the selected route, and broken down as follows in Table 3. I Table 3 Estimated Project Cost I Project Item Cost New 115 kV Transmission Line Facilities along Proposed $1.2 million Route IOrono Substation Removal and Replacement $4.1 million Total Project Cost $5.3 million IXcel Energy will construct, operate and maintain the new Orono Substation and transmission lines proposed in this Project. I Operating and maintenance costs for the transmission line will be nominal for several years, since the line will be new and minimal vegetation maintenance will be required. Typical annual operating and maintenance costs for 115 kV transmission voltages across Xcel Energy's Upper Midwest I system area are on the order of$300 to $500 per mile of transmission right-of-way. The principal operating and maintenance cost include inspections, which are usually done by fixed-wing aircraft and by helicopter on a regular basis. IThe Company performs periodic inspections of substations and equipment. The type and frequency of inspection varies depending on the type of equipment. Typical inspection intervals are semi- I annual or annual. Maintenance and repairs are performed on an as-needed basis, and therefore the cost varies from substation to substation. I I I I I• Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 11 I I 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND ROUTE SELECTION RATIONALE I 4.1 Transmission Line Description I The Project involves replacing the existing 69-13.8 kV Orono Substation (a distribution substation) with a 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and constructing approximately 1,095 feet of single I circuit and approximately 2,041 feet of double circuit 115 kV overhead transmission line. The proposed transmission line will originate at the proposed new Orono Substation. See Figure 2. At the point the Proposed Route exits the planned substation replacement area, it extends I approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16-acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly across HFA property and paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of- ' way approximately 1,205 feet where it will connect to a new transmission structure (to be designated Structure 076-1) that will replace existing Structure 077 on Line 0831. Existing Structure 077 will be removed from its current location on private residential property and moved to a new location on I HFA property. See Figure 2. From this point, the Proposed Route continues approximately 590 feet northwesterly and parallel to I the BNSF railroad right-of-way across HFA land to a new transmission structure (to be called Structure 077). The Proposed Route then bears southwesterly across HFA land, a water crossing and a wetland to existing Structure 078 where it will terminate. Transmission Structure 078 will be I replaced with a new structure, but it will continue to be called Structure 078 on Line 0831. See Figure 2. After exiting Xcel Energy property, the Proposed Route for the transmission line crossesI undeveloped land within the HFA for approximately 2,270 feet. Under the City of Orono Zoning Regulations, HFA land is designation "Outlot A" Common Area and is Zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). The Proposed Route will only traverse approximately 2,270 feet of HFA I land and will primarily parallel the existing BNSF right-of-way before terminating at existing Xcel Energy transmission Structure 078. A detailed description of the Proposed Route is provided in Table 4. Figure 2 provides an overview of the Proposed Route and Appendix B, Figure B-2 I provides an additional detailed map of the proposed Project. The entire proposed new 115 kV transmission line will be constructed with single-pole, galvanized I steel or weathering-steel structures with davit arms or braced posts on drilled pier foundations. The Project's proposed transmission line will create a loop connecting the new Orono Substation and Xcel Energy's Gleason Lake and Crow River Substations via transmission Line 0831. The Gleason I Lake Substation is located approximately 6.1 miles east of the Orono Substation, and the Crow River Substation is located approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the Orono Substation. The Proposed Route is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of highways, railroads and I Xcel Energy property for approximately 2,661 feet of the length of the route or 84 percent. The remaining 475 feet of the route crosses an undeveloped area of HFA property. Overall the Project crosses Xcel Energy property and undeveloped HFA land for 100 percent of the Proposed Route. I I Orono Project June 7,2011 I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 12 I 1 ITable 4 Detailed Description of Proposed Route IProposed Route Distance Road and Public Waters Crossing I Orono Substation to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV Line 0831 south of U.S. Highway 12 (2,600 feet west of Orono Substation) North out of proposed new substation on Xcel I Energy property (double circuit on proposed 100 feet No features crossed Structure 076-4)) Northwest to Xcel Energy's west property line ' (double circuit on proposed Structures 076-4 311 feet No features crossed and 076-3) North along Xcel Energy's west property line to just south of BNSF right-of-way (double 455 feet Unnamed Wetland circuit on proposed Structures 076-3 to 076-2) Northwest across HFA land and paralleling BNSF right-of-way to proposed Structure 076 1 205 feet Unnamed Wetland ' 1 (double circuit on proposed Structures 076-2 ' and 076-1) Northwest paralleling BNSF right-of-way I (single circuit on proposed Structures 076-1 590 feet Painter Creek and new 077) Southwest(single circuit on proposed new 475 feet Unnamed Wetland I Structures 077 and 078) Total Length 3,136 feet I There are no residences located within 200 feet of the Proposed Route centerline (see Section 6.2.2). A total of 34 cultural resource sites are located within one mile of the Proposed Route,including 15 archaeological sites and 19 historic architectural properties. None of the 15 archaeological sites are I listed on the National Register Considered Eligible Finding ("CEF"). Of the 19 architectural properties, none listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") (see Section 6.4). The historic character of the architectural properties will not be affected by the I Proposed Route nor does the Proposed Route cross any of the 15 archaeological sites. The Proposed Route does cross any three Public Waters Inventory ("PWI") watercourses or waterbodies. Of the PWIs crossed, Painter Creek will be crossed by the Proposed Route just prior I to or after proposed the connection to Structure 077 depending on final placement of this Structure. The Proposed Route will also cross two PWI wetlands (Unnamed (27-917-W and 27-916-W). These two wetlands appear to have been connected prior to the development of the HFA properties. The IProposed Route will span approximately 2,135 feet of wetland (see Section 6.5.4). 4.2 Route Width and Alignment Selection Process I4.2.1 Route Width The PPSA, Minn. Stat. Chapter 216E, directs the Commission to locate transmission lines in a I manner that "minimize[s] adverse human and environmental impact while ensuring continuing electric power system reliability and integrity and ensuring their electric needs are met and fulfilled in I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 13 an orderlyand timelyfashion." Minn. Stat. 216E.02 subd. 1. The PPSA also authorizes the § Commission to meet its routing responsibility by designating a "route" for a new transmission line when it issues a Route Permit. The route may have "a variable width of up to 1.25 miles" within which the right-of-way for the facilities can be located. Minn. Stat. §216E.01, subd. 8. 1 Based upon the following analysis,Xcel Energy respectfully requests that the Commission authorize a route width of 200 feet on each side of the route alignment on either side of Line 0831 to Structure 076 and up to the south side of U.S. Highway 12, for a total route width of up to 400 feet (see Figure 2) for the routes proposed in the Application. A detailed map showing currently planned route widths and proposed alignments is provided in Appendix B,Figure B-2. 4.2.2 Route Selection Process In developing the route proposed in this Application, Xcel Energy first analyzed the statutory and rule criteria set forth in the PPSA, Minn. Stat. Chapter 216E,and Minn. R. 7850.4100. Xcel Energy also gave due consideration to non-proliferation of new infrastructure corridors and met with interested stakeholders and landowners, including applicable municipalities and government ' agencies. Throughout the process, Xcel Energy evaluated several route alternatives, considering feedback provided at City of Orono ("City") planning meetings and through written comments. Xcel Energy also consulted with federal, state, and local agencies associated with the general vicinity of the Project. Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the proposed Project from the City. On September 1, 2010, the Company notified the Commission of its intent to follow the local review process for the Project (see Appendix C, C.3). The Commission, through the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security, acknowledged the Company notice in a letter dated September 10,2010 (see Appendix C, C.10,Docket No. E002/LR-10-957). On August 20, 2010, Xcel Energy submitted a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to the City, the Local Government Unit ("LGU"). See Section 8.1.1 and Appendix C of this Application for additional information. On September 20, 2010 the City Planning Commission met to discuss the Project, review Environmental Assessment ("EA") requirements for the Project, and request public comment on the scope of the EA. Public interest focused primarily on the proposed location of the new 115 kV transmission line within and near HFA and residential properties near the Orono Substation site,impacts to land values, aesthetics and health concerns. On December 13,2010,the Orono City Council voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(b), and Minn. Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4 (see Appendix C, C.3). Xcel Energy then initiated the State permitting process for the Project. The Proposed Route was subsequently developed by Xcel Energy's permitting and engineering personnel based on their investigation of the overall area in the vicinity of the Project and on input from the public and government agencies. The general vicinity around the Project was initially studied during the planning process by a team of siting, right-of-way, planning, environmental, ecological, and engineering personnel. The team also reviewed the general area surrounding the Project to help identify anticipated and significant routing issues that might arise. Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 14 I The Company also performed an analysis of environmental resources in the Project Area by using computer mapping aerial photographs, topographic maps and ground reconnaissance. Environmental resources identified within the general vicinity of the Project are discussed in ' Sections 6.5 and 6.6 of this Application. The Proposed Route is designed to best minimize the overall impacts of the Project. The proposed location of transmission line locations and associated structures and facilities were developed with the following primary objectives: • Maximize use of existing Xcel Energy property; • Minimize land use impacts by routing along transportation corridors and existing ' distribution and transmission lines to reduce the amount of new right-of-way required; • Minimize land use impacts by routing along natural corridors, field lines, and property lines,where an existing corridor (e.g.,fence line,drainage ditch,access road) is present; • Minimize use of new right-of-way; • Minimize impacts to residences; • Minimize impacts to public resources,including Baker Park Reserve;and • Minimize impacts to environmental and sensitive resources. ' The Company believes the Proposed Route and use of the existing 16-acre Xcel Energy property best meets the objectives stated above. The Proposed Route is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of highways, railroads and Xcel Energy property for approximately 2,661 feet of the ' length of the route or 84 percent. The remaining 475 feet of the route crosses an undeveloped area of HFA property. Together, the Proposed Route is within the 16-acre Xcel Energy property and undeveloped HFA land for 100 percent of the route. The Proposed Route does not cross any public roads, trails or railways. The Proposed Route requires some clearing of trees and vegetation. The clearing of trees and vegetation is required where the existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 crosses two residential lots ' that are associated with the HFA. During the route investigation phase of the Project,Xcel Energy met with these two landowners and began discussing an option to remove the existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 and associated structures located at their properties and to relocate them with a new line and structures north and on adjacent HFA property (see Figure B-2 in Appendix B). While removing the existing transmission facilities from residential parcels will minimize impacts to these residents and no longer require clearing of trees and vegetation at these parcels, it will increase the overall length of new transmission line for the Project (approximately 885 feet of additional line), add additional support structures and require some additional right-of-way clearing. The use of existing transmission line corridors, existing railroad corridor, and Xcel Energy's own ' property was an important factor for this Project because using existing corridors reduces transmission line proliferation and minimizes and reduces impacts to residences and environmental and sensitive resources. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 15 4.3 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected I In consultation with surrounding landowners, the City and applicable regulatory agencies, Xcel Energy identified and analyzed four Alternative Routes for the Project, which are identified as "Alternative Route 1", "Alternative Route 2", "Alternative Route 3" and "Alternative Route 4" (collectively, "Alternative Routes") in Appendix G, Figure G-1, and are further described in Appendix G. Table G.1 in Appendix G provides a detailed description of the Alternative Routes, including road and waterbody crossings. In evaluating the Alternative Routes,Xcel Energy focused predominantly on the location of existing transportation corridors, alignment of the existing distribution and transmission lines and land use because they best satisfy the routing criteria. The Alternative Routes follow existing rights-of-way and property lines to the extent feasible. In performing the Alternative Routes analysis, Xcel Energy considered social, environmental, and engineering-related factors, such as location of existing transportation and utility corridors, land use, site conditions, proximity to residential or commercial structures, environmental impacts, effects on trees, proximity to areas of archaeological or historical significance, proximity to wetlands or PWI watercourses, and several engineering design-related factors. Based on this analysis, Xcel Energy concluded that the Alternative Routes were not preferable to the Proposed Route for the reasons summarized below and further described in Appendix G. 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1 ' Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the Proposed Route. At this point Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more westerly course for approximately 550 feet to existing Structure 077 of Line 0831. Alternative Route 1 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill one main objective of the Project,that being to minimize impacts to residences. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy is working with the two landowners whose properties are currently crossed by existing Line 0831 to remove the Line 0831 from the properties and move the line north of their respective property lines onto adjacent HFA property. Alternative Route 1 also requires the clearing of some I mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. 4.3.2 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point Alternative Route 2 continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 (see Figure 3). The existing tower (Structure 076) located at this connection point lies within 30 feet of a paved bike path within Baker Park Reserve. , Alternative Route 2 was rejected due to the number of transportation crossings (e.g. the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12), the location of an existing Metropolitan Council sewer line located I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 16 ' between the railroad and highway and impact to Baker Park Reserve property. Alternative Route 2 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill two main objectives of the Project, those being: i) maximizing the use of existing transportation rights-of-way and transmission ' line alignments; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed Route. ' 4.3.3 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 3 and the Proposed Route share the same route from the point the routes leave ' the proposed substation replacement to approximately 1,000 feet west of the point both routes turn westerly along the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this location Alternative Route 3 extends both to the north and to the west to make connections with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission ' Line 0831. The northerly connection includes a 329 foot span across the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12, and enters into Baker Park Reserve property making the northern connection to transmission Line 0831 at existing Structure 076. Similar to the Proposed Route,this northern connection would require that existing Structure 076 be replaced by a steel single pole. The westerly connection of Alternative Route 3, south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, spans across HFA land, and spans a residential lot for approximately 384 feet to connect to Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 at Structure 077. The existing 115 kV line between the two connection points that spans the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 in Alternative Route 3 would be removed from service. However, a new span for the northern connection to Line 0831 would cross over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12. Alternative Route 3 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill one main ' objective of the Project, that being minimize to impacts to residences. As discussed in section 4.2.2 Xcel Energy is working with two residential landowners to remove the existing 115 kV transmission line from their residential lots within the HFA and move it north onto HFA land. Alternative Route ' 3 also requires the clearing of some mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. 4.3.4 Alternative Route 4 Alternative Route 4 was evaluated for the potential to parallel the existing GRE 69 kV transmission Line BD right-of-way. Alternative Route 4 exits the proposed substation replacement area ' northeasterly for approximately 100 feet over Xcel Energy property before turning southeasterly for an additional approximate 160 feet. Alternative Route 4 then parallels the GRE Line BD for approximately 3,130 of the route. Alternative Route 4 would continue east for approximately 607 ' feet prior to turning north. Upon turning north Alternative Route 4 would continue to follow the GRE Line BD north for approximately 2,523 feet leaving Xcel Energy's property and crossing over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and entering Barker Park ' Reserve. At this point the GRE Line BD turns east. Alternative Route 4 would continue north for approximately 350 feet across the Baker Park Reserve requiring new right-of-way that would not be co-located with other utility rights-of-way. Alternative Route 4 is the longest of the four routes evaluated for the Project. Alternative Route 4 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill two main ' objectives of the Project, those being. i) minimizing impacts to environmental and sensitive resources; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 17 I I Route. Additionally, Alternative Route 4 requires crossing the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan I Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 unlike the Proposed Route. 4.4 Associated Facilities and Substation Modifications The associated facilities for the Project include a replacement of the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a larger 115 kV substation, where the proposed new 115 kV transmission line will begin on the southeast end of the Project, reconfiguring Line 0831 and replacement of transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078. No additional fee land purchase is anticipated for the replacement of the existing Orono Substation. 4.4.1 Orono Substation (Replacement) The existing Orono Substation is located at 3960 6th Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County, I Minnesota, on a 16-acre site owned by Xcel Energy, approximately 900 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 6. It is approximately one mile east of the City of Maple Plain municipal boundaries (see Figure B-3 in Appendix B). The existing Orono Substation is a 69-13.8 kV distribution substation that will be partially demolished and replaced with a new 115-13.8 kV distribution substation (see Appendix B, Figure B-10). All of the substation replacement will be located within existing Xcel Energy property at the 16-acre site and will encompass the site of the existing 69 kV substation. The existing switchgear will be reused in the proposed new substation. The existing substation will remain energized until the existing switchgear enclosure in its current location can be energized from the new 115 kV source. During construction a feeder field ties with OR062 and a mobile substation with associated equipment will be installed to ensure continuity of service for the 17 MVA load before the switchgear enclosure is switched to the new 115 kV source. On the transmission portion of the Orono Substation project,the proposed replacement consists of: • a new 115-13.8 kV substation with a 28 mega volt ampere ("MVA"), 118-14.3 kV transformer; • two 115 kV line terminations, each with a motor-operated transmission line switch with a quick-break line dropping whip; • one single-phase coupling capacitors voltage transformers ("CCTVs") with carrier accessories; • a 2000 amp ("A") wave trap with line tuner;and I • three 76 kV maximum continuous operating voltage ("MCOV") station class surge arresters. The transmission portion of the replacement work also includes all bus (all 115 kV bus will be sized for a minimum 2000A capacity), cable, controls and relaying, steel, trenching, applicable setbacks, stormwater ponds, grading, foundations, fencing, new and existing rights-of-way for the transmission line and transmission line termination structures. Xcel Energy will coordinate with GRE to modify the 115 kV remote end relay settings at both Crow Rivers (CRO GRE) and Medina Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 18 1 ' (MED GRE) substations. The Project includes removal of the 69 kV termination structure and associated foundations. ' On the distribution portion of the Orono Substation project,the proposed replacement consists of: • a 115 kV motor-operated disconnect switch and switch stand for the transformer high side disconnect and a 115 kV, 1200A,40kA circuit switcher; • a 118-14.3 kV, 28 MVA., load tap changing ("LTC") transformer with oil containment, ' high-side, and low-side station class surge arresters; • a single-phase 13.8 kV potential transformer ("PT") (8400-120 volt); ' • one 50 kVA preferred station auxiliary transformer and associated equipment; ' • one 35 kV transformer-low-side box-structure to accommodate switches and conductor; • strain bus to connect the transformer low-side box structure to a second box structure next to existing switchgear in its current location;and • ' • one Electrical Equipment Enclosure ("EEE") with control panels, batter, charger, PLC, terminal cabinets, furniture,heaters,AC &DC cabinets and lighting. The distribution portion of the replacement work also includes all grounding, trenching, controls, telephone and telephone protection, and control cable. Emergency station auxiliary power would be sourced from local distribution. 4.4.2 Transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078(Existing) ' Transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078 will require replacement for the Project to accommodate the new line configuration of transmission Line 0831 and connection to the planned replacement of the Orono Substation (see Figure 4 and Appendix B, Figure B-2). Structure 076 is located within Baker Park Reserve and it will need to be replaced in order to transition the conductors from a horizontal configuration to a vertical configuration at the new double circuit structure (replacement of existing Structure 077) that will provide the in-out connection to the proposed new Orono Substation. For the Proposed Route the existing Structure 077 will be removed and replaced with a new single ' pole galvanized steel or weathering steel structure in a new location located north of its existing location, off residential property and onto HFA land located adjacent to the BNSF railroad (see Figure 2 and Appendix B,Figure B-2).The new structure will be renumbered as Structure 076-1. As indicated above, the existing Structure 077 will be removed. A new single pole galvanized steel or weathering steel structure will be installed northwest of the new Structure 076-1 and be located ' on HFA land adjacent to BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2 and Appendix B, Figure B-2). This new structure will be numbered Structure 077. Existing Structure 078 is located west of existing Structure 077 on HFA land. Similar to Structure ' 076, Structure 078 will need to be replaced to transition the conductors from a horizontal ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 19 1 1 configuration to a vertical configuration at the new double circuit Structure 076-1 and the connection to the new Orono Substation. 4.5 Design Options to Accommodate Future Transmission Lines , The proposed double circuit 115 kV transmission line is designed to meet current and projected needs. In addition, the proposed replacement of the Orono Substation will be designed and constructed for accommodating future transmission line interconnections. The proposed new substation will include one new 115 kV, 2000A, group-operated, bus tie disconnect switch to minimize outages when a second future, transformer is installed. It will also provide a low profile layout to accommodate two transformers and four switchgear enclosures and space for a future 13.8 kV bus-tie connection between the distribution transformers. The proposed conductor for the Project is 795 kcmil 26/7 ACSS which will allow for future reconductor of Line 0831. I I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 20 5.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION ' 5.1 Structures, Right-of-Way, Construction and Maintenance 5.1.1 Transmission Structures The 115 kV transmission line is proposed to be constructed partially as a single circuit line and ' partially as a double-circuit line with both portions using single-pole, galvanized or weathering steel poles placed on drilled pier foundations. Pictures of the proposed structure types are shown below Figures 3 to 5. ' Figure 3 Figure 4 Photo of Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure Steel Davit Arm Structure 1 211V - 1 I I 1 1 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 21 Figure 5 ' Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Braced Post Structure • '1y' b -- Direct embedded galvanized steel or weathering steel poles with davit arms are proposed to be used for the tangent structures if soil conditions warrant. Rock-filled culvert foundations may be required in areas with poor soils. Self-supporting galvanized steel or weathering steel poles with davit arms or braced post on concrete foundations are proposed to be used for long-span, angle, and dead-end structures. The height of single circuit poles will average between 70 and 90 feet and the double circuit structures will average between 75 and 115 feet. The average span for the structures will be approximately 300 to 400 feet, with a maximum span of approximately 500 feet to keep the conductor within existing right-of-way,where applicable. Table 5 summarizes the structure design and foundation for the line. Table 5 Structure Design Summary Structure Span Right-of- Structure Base Foundation Between Line Type Structure Structure Way Width Height Diameter Diameter Structures Type Material (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) Single Single Pole Galvanized 75 70-90 24 to 42: 5 to 8 300 to 500 Circuit 115 Braced Post Steel or tangent kV or Davit Weathering structures Arm Steel 36 to 42: angle structures Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 22 I I I Structure Span Right-of- Structure Base Foundation Between Line Type Structure Structure Way Width Height Diameter Diameter Structures I Type Material (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) Double Single Pole, Galvanized 75 75 115 Direct Direct 300 to 500 Circuit Davit Arm Steel or embedded or embedded I 115/115 Weathering 4 foot for tangents kV Steel diameter and self- culvert or 6 to supporting I 8 foot for angle/ concrete dead-end and switch I structures 6 to 8 I The proposed transmission line will be designed to meet or surpass relevant local and state codes, the National Electric Safety Code ("NESC"), North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") requirements and Company standards. Appropriate standards will be met for I construction and installation, and applicable safety procedures will be followed during and after installation. The 115 kV conductor proposed for the Project will be 795 thousand circular mil ("kcmil") 26/7 Aluminum Core Steel Supported ("ACSS") conductor per phase. I5.1.2 Right-of-Way Width Xcel Energy typically requires a right-of-way of 75 feet wide (37'6" from centerline of structure) for I new 115 kV transmission line construction such as that proposed in this Project. See Figures 6 - 8. In locations with existing rights-of-way or other engineering or site considerations, the Project may be designed to fit within a smaller right-of-way. I Where the transmission line parallels other existing infrastructure right-of-way (e.g., roads, railroads, other utilities), an easement of lesser width may be sufficient as part of the right-of-way of the I existing infrastructure, which can often be combined with the right-of-way needed for the transmission line. With the pole placement proposed for this Project, the transmission line shares the existing right-of-way, thereby reducing the size of the easement required from the private Ilandowner. When the transmission line is parallel to a roadway or railroad, poles will generally be placed 5 feet I within the private right-of-way adjacent to the roadway or railroad. Therefore, a little less than half of the line right-of-way will share the existing roadway or railroad right-of-way, resulting in an easement of lesser width being required from the landowner. In general, the structures will be Iplaced as close to the property line as practical. Xcel Energy will work with industry standard practices and applicable roadway authorities and the BNSF railroad to position and manage the right of way. I I I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 23 Figure 6 ' Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements For Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure ' s 6_6'^ tl I ,fl 0 x T { o a• u.i�iT��niitnt%�a�It4ir'�p� nan1,�' un t+ iKn ' 37.5` Orono Project June 7, 2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 24 1 1 Figure 7 Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Davit Arm Structure ' 8 -44 • 1 1 I ' { a 0 Typal Easement 37'-5 From Center 4 1 i 1 1 1 ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 25 I I Figure 8 I Typical Dimensions and Right-of-Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure A A 19 to m •-• hill. 4%6" I 0 V A 7,30,1 0 L 1166 >- N Q N LL~ ' 0 Q 2 1 1 r 11W111111.1111111 IIpIII Lnllpiiara 11111t 1 j' Typical Easement 3T-6'From Center ' k When the transmission line is placed cross-country across private land, an easement for the entire I right-of-way(up to 75 feet wide)will be acquired from the affected landowner(s). Xcel Energy plans to locate the poles as close to property division lines as reasonably possible. Figures 6-8 show the right-of-way requirements for the proposed structure. I Xcel Energy will work within existing right-of-way for the Project whenever reasonably possible. The eastern portion of the Proposed Route is located within the existing Xcel Energy Orono I Substation site, and no transmission corridor or easements are required for this part of the Project. The transmission easement for existing Line 0831 and Structures 076 and 078 will be used as much as possible for that portion of the Project where realignment of existing single circuit 115 kV I transmission line is being considered. In locations where existing easements are insufficient for this Project,new or modified easements will be obtained,if required. Approximately 866 feet of the Proposed Route will not require new right-of-way as it is proposed to I be constructed on Company owned property. Approximately 1,795 feet of new right-of-way will need to be acquired from the HFA for the Proposed Route on HFA land along the south side of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12. This portion of the Proposed Route is anticipated to be located on HFA land approximately five feet south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Approximately 475 feet of new right-of-way will also need I Orono Project June 7,2011 I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 26 I I Ito be acquired where the Proposed Route turns southwest at the western edge of the Project near the terminations point at existing Xcel Structure 078 of transmission Line 0831. I 5.1.3 Right-of-Way Evaluation and Acquisition Where the Project is expected to use existing rights-of-way, the right-of-way agent will evaluate all I existing easements. If the terms of the existing easement are sufficient and no new right-of-way is needed,the right-of-way agent will continue towork with the landowner to address any construction needs, access,impacts, damages, or restoration issues. To the extent new right-of-way acquisition is necessary, the right-of-way agent will work with landowners to determine how to expand or modify I existing easements. The current status of this evaluation is further discussed in Sections 8.1 to 8.3 of this Application. For those segments of the Project where new right-of-way will be necessary, the acquisition process begins early in the detailed design phase. For transmission lines, utilities acquire easement rights across certain parcels to accommodate the facilities. The evaluation and acquisition process includes I title examination,initial owner contacts,survey work,document preparation,and purchase. Each of these activities, particularly as it applies to easements for transmission line facilities, is described in more detail below. IThe first step in the right-of-way process is to identify all persons and entities that may have a legal interest in the real estate upon which the facilities will be built. To compile this list, a right-of-way I agent or other persons engaged by the utility will complete a public records search of all land involved in the Project. A title report is then developed for each parcel to determine the legal description of the property and the owner(s) of record of the property, and to gather information regarding easements,liens,restriction,encumbrances,and other conditions of record. IAfter owners are identified, a right-of-way representative contacts each property owner or the property owner's representative. The right-of-way agent describes the need for the transmission I facilities and how the Project may affect each parcel. The right-of-way agent also seeks information from the landowner about any specific construction concerns. I The next step in the acquisition process is evaluation of the specific parcel. For this work,the right- of-way agent may request permission from the owner for survey crews to enter the property to conduct preliminary survey work. Permission may also be requested to take soil borings to assess I the soil conditions and determine appropriate foundation design. Surveys are conducted to locate the right-of-way corridors, natural features, man-made features, and associated elevations for use during the detailed engineering of the line. The soil analysis is performed by an experienced Igeotechnical testing laboratory. During the evaluation process, the location of the proposed transmission line or substation facility may be staked with permission of the property owner. This means that the survey crew locates each Istructure or pole on the ground and places a surveyor's stake to mark the structures or substation facility's anticipated location. By doing this, the right-of-way agent can show the landowner where the structure(s) will be located on the property. The right-of-way agent may also delineate the Iboundaries of the easement area required for safe operation of the line. Prior to the acquisition of easements or fee purchase of property, land value data will be collected. IBased on the impact of the easement or purchase to the market value of each parcel, a fair market I Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 27 value offer will be developed. The right-of-way agent then contacts the property owner(s) to ' present the offer for the easement and discuss the amount of just compensation for the rights to build, operate, and maintain the transmission facilities within the easement area and reasonable access to the easement area. The agent will also provide maps of the line route or site and maps showing the landowner's parcel. The landowner is allowed a reasonable amount of time to consider the offer and to present any material that the owner believes is relevant to determining the property's value. This step is often performed prior to full evaluation in the form of an "option to purchase" contract and can be very helpful in obtaining permission for completion of all necessary evaluations. In nearly all cases, utility companies are able to work with the landowners to address their concerns and an agreement is reached for the utility's purchase of land rights. The right-of-way agent prepares all of the documents required to complete each transaction. Some of the documents that may be required include easement,purchase agreement,contract, and deed. In rare instances, a negotiated settlement cannot be reached and the landowner chooses to have an independent third party determine the value of the rights taken. Such valuation is made through the utility's exercise of the right of eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117. The process of exercising the right of eminent domain is called condemnation. Before commencing a condemnation proceeding, the right-of-way agent must obtain at least one ' appraisal for the property proposed to be acquired and a copy of that appraisal must be provided to the property owner. Minn. Stat. § 117.036, subd. 2(a). The property owner may also obtain another property appraisal and the company must reimburse the property owner for the cost of the appraisal according to the limits set forth in Minnesota Stat. § 117.036, subd. 2(b). The property owner may be reimbursed for reasonable appraisal costs up to $1,500 for single-family and two-family residential properties,$1,500 for property with a value of$10,000 or less,and$5,000 for other types of properties. ' To start the formal condemnation process, a utility files a Petition in the district court where the property is located and serves that Petition on all owners of the property. If the court grants the Petition, the court then appoints a three-person condemnation commission that will determine the compensation for the easement. The three people must be knowledgeable of applicable real estate issues. Once appointed, the commissioners schedule a viewing of the property over and across which the transmission line easement is to be located. Next, the commission schedules a valuation hearing where the utility and landowners can testify as to the fair market value of the easement or fee. The commission then makes an award as to the value of the property acquired and files it with the court. Each party has 40 days from the filing of the award to appeal to the district court for a jury trial. In the event of an appeal, the jury hears land value evidence and renders a verdict. At any point in this process,the case can be dismissed if the parties reach a settlement. As part of the right-of-way acquisition process, the right-of-way agent will discuss the construction schedule and construction requirements with the owner of each parcel. To ensure safe construction of the line, special consideration may be needed for fences, crops, or livestock. For instance, fences may need to be moved, temporary or permanent gates may need to be installed; crops may need to be harvested early; and livestock may need to be moved. In each case the right-of-way agent and construction personnel coordinate these processes with the landowner. ' i Orono Project June 7, 2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 28 5.1.4 Transmission Construction Procedures Construction will begin after federal, state, and local approvals are obtained,property and rights-of- way are acquired,soil conditions are established and final design is completed. The precise timing of construction will take into account various requirements that may be in place due to permit conditions, system loading issues,material procurement and available workforce. ' Construction will follow standard construction and mitigation practices,including best management practices ("BMPs") that were developed from experience with past transmission facility projects as well as any specific conditions identified in the Route Permit. These practices address right-of-way ' clearance, staging, erecting transmission line structures, and stringing transmission lines. Construction and mitigation practices to minimize impacts will be developed based on the proposed schedule for activities, permit requirements, prohibitions, maintenance guidelines, inspection procedures, terrain, and other factors. In some cases, activities or schedules are modified to minimize impacts on sensitive environments. ' Transmission line structures are generally designed for installation at existing grades. Typically, structure sites with 10 percent or less slope will not be graded or leveled. Sites with more than 10 percent slope will have working areas graded level or fill brought in for working pads. If the ' landowner permits, it is preferred to leave the leveled areas and working pads in place for use in future maintenance activities, if any. If permission is not obtained, the site is graded back to its original condition to the extent possible and imported fill is removed. tTypical construction equipment used on a project consists of tree removal equipment, mowers, cranes, backhoes,digger-derrick line trucks, track-mounted drill rigs,dump trucks, front end loaders, ' bucket trucks, bulldozers, flatbed tractor-trailers, flatbed trucks, pickup trucks, concrete trucks, and various trailers. Many types of excavation equipment are set on wheel or track-driven vehicles. Poles are transported on tractor-trailers. Staging areas are often established for a project. Staging involves delivering the equipment and materials necessary to construct the new transmission line ' facilities. The materials are stored at staging areas until they are needed for a project. Staging areas may also be required for additional space for storage during construction. To the extent possible,Xcel Energy will use the existing Orono Substation site or other nearby Xcel Energy substation sites as staging areas for the Project. These areas will be selected for their location, access, security, and ability to efficiently and safely warehouse supplies. If needed,any temporary ' staging areas outside of the transmission line right-of-way or at non-Xcel Energy sites will be obtained through rental agreements. Access to the transmission line right-of-way corridor is made directly from existing roads or trails i that run parallel or perpendicular to the transmission line right-of-way. In some situations, private field roads or trails are used. Existing access roads may be upgraded or new roads may be ' constructed where necessary to accommodate the heavy equipment used in construction, including cranes, cement trucks and hole drilling equipment. New access roads may also be constructed when no current access is available or the existing access is inadequate to cross roadway ditches. To the ' extent possible,these activities are coordinated with the owner of the property affected. When it is time to install the poles (structures), they are generally moved from the staging areas and delivered to the staked location. The poles are typically placed within the right-of-way until the pole Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 29 I is set. Insulators and other hardware are attached while the pole is on the ground. The pole is then lifted,placed and secured using a crane. Poles that are considered medium angle, heavy angle or deadened structures will have concrete ' foundations, also referred to as drilled pier foundations. In those cases, holes are drilled in preparation for the foundation. Drilled pier foundations may vary from approximately 5 to 7 feet in diameter and 25 or more feet in depth,depending on soil conditions. After the concrete foundation is set, the pole is bolted to the foundation. Tangent and light angle structures may be placed on poured concrete foundations or direct embedded. Direct embedding involves digging a hole for each pole, filling it partially with crushed rock and then setting the pole on top of the rock base. The area around the pole is then backfilled with crushed rock and/or soil. Environmentally sensitive and wetland areas may require special construction techniques,which may vary according to conditions at the time of construction. During construction, impacts on wetland areas will be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, construction practices that help prevent soil erosion will be utilized and measures will be taken to ensure that equipment fueling and lubricating will occur at a distance from waterways. Additional mitigative measures relating to wetlands are contained in Section 6.5.4. 5.1.5 Restoration Procedures During construction, crews will attempt to limit ground disturbance wherever possible. However, areas are disturbed during the normal course of work, which can take several weeks in any one location. As construction is completed,disturbed areas are restored to their original condition to the maximum extent practicable. The right-of-way agent attempts to contact each property owner after construction is completed to see if any remaining damage has occurred as a result of a project. If damage has occurred to crops, fences or the property, Xcel Energy will fairly reimburse the landowner for the damages sustained that are not repaired or restored by Xcel Energy or its representatives. In some cases,Xcel Energy may engage an outside contractor to restore the damaged property as nearly as possible to its original condition. Portions of vegetation that are disturbed or removed during construction of transmission lines will naturally reestablish to pre-disturbance conditions. Resilient species of common grasses and shrubs typically reestablish with few problems after disturbance. Areas with significant soil compaction and disturbance from construction activities along the proposed transmission line corridor may require assistance in reestablishing the vegetation stratum and controlling soil erosion. Commonly used methods to control soil erosion and assist in reestablishing vegetation include,but are not limited to: • re-seeding and mulching • erosion control blankets; ' • silt fence installation;and • minimizing soil disturbance during construction. i Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 30 These erosion control and vegetation establishment practices are regularly used in construction projects and are referenced in the construction permit plans. Long-term impacts are minimized by using these construction techniques. 5.1.6 Maintenance Procedures Transmission lines and substations are designed to operate for decades and require only moderate maintenance,particularly in the first few years of operation. The estimated service life of a transmission line for accounting purposes is approximately 40 years. ' However, practically speaking, transmission lines are seldom completely retired. Transmission infrastructure has very few mechanical elements and is built to withstand weather extremes that are normally encountered. With the exception of severe weather such as tornadoes and heavy ice storms,transmission lines rarely fail. Transmission lines are automatically taken out of service by the operation of protective relaying equipment when a fault is sensed on the system. Such interruptions are usually only momentary. Scheduled maintenance outages are also infrequent. As a result, the Iaverage annual availability of transmission infrastructure exceeds 90 percent. The principal operating and maintenance cost for transmission facilities is the cost of inspections, ' usually done monthly by air. Annual operating and maintenance costs for transmission lines in Minnesota and the surrounding states vary. For transmission lines with voltages ranging from 69 kV through 345 kV, experience shows that the annual maintenance cost is approximately $300 to $500 ' per mile. Actual line-specific maintenance costs depend on the setting, the amount of vegetation management necessary, storm damage occurrences, structure types, materials used, and the age of the line. ' Substations require a certain amount of maintenance to keep them functioning in accordance with accepted operating parameters and the NESC and NERC requirements. Transformers, circuit breakers, batteries, protective relays, and other equipment need to be serviced periodically in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. The site itself must be kept free of vegetation and drainage maintained. 5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields The term electromagnetic fields ("EMF") refer to electric and magnetic fields that are coupled ' together,such as in high frequency radiating fields. For the lower frequencies associated with power lines (referred to as "extremely low frequencies" [`ELF"J), EMF should be separated into electric fields ("EFs") and magnetic fields ("MFs'), measured in kilovolts per meter ("kV/m") and ' milliGauss ("mG'), respectively. These fields are dependent on the voltage of a transmission line (EFs) and current carried by a transmission line (lb's). The intensity of the electric field is proportional to the voltage of the line, and the intensity of the magnetic field is proportional to the current flow through the conductors. Transmission lines operate at a power frequency of 60 hertz (cycles per second). 5.2.1 Electric Fields There is no federal standard for transmission line electric fields. The Commission, however, has imposed a maximum electric field limit of 8 kV/m measured at one meter above the ground in its previously issued permits, including the recent order In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for a ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 31 345 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET- ' 2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (adopting ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation at Finding 194 (April 22, 2010 and amended April 30, 2010)) (September 14, 2010). The standard was designed to prevent serious hazards from shocks when touching large objects parked under AC transmission lines of 500 kV or greater. Other concerns that have been raised regarding electric fields include biological responses and health effects, stray voltage, noise, television and radio interference, further discussed herein. The maximum electric field,measured at one meter (3.28 feet) above ground, associated with the Project is calculated to be 0.437 kV/m (see Table 6 below). Table 6 Calculated Electric Fields (kV/m) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) Maximum Distance to Proposed Centerline(feet) Operating Structure Type Voltage(kV) -300 -200 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 200 300 Single Pole Davit Arm 115 kV Single 121 .007 .018 .089 .154 .267 .345 .390 .012 .005 Circuit Single Pole Braced Post 115 kV Single 121 .005 .012 .051 .087 .153 .243 .084 .050 .013 .006 Circuit Single Pole Davit Arm 115 kV/115kV 121 .002 .005 .011 .005 .071 .437 .341 .071 .005 .011 .005 .002 Double Circuit 5.2.2 Magnetic Fields There are presently no Minnesota regulations pertaining to MF exposure. Xcel Energy provides information to the public,interested customers and employees so they can make informed decisions about MFs. Such information includes the availability for measurements to be conducted for customers and employees upon request. The magnetic field profiles around the proposed transmission lines for each structure and conductor configuration being considered for the Project is shown in Table 7. Magnetic fields were calculated under normal system conditions (systems intact) for the expected peak and average current flows as projected for the year 2011-2021. The peak magnetic field values are calculated at a point directly under the transmission line and where the conductor is closest to the ground. The same method is used to calculate the magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way. The magnetic field profile data show that magnetic field levels decrease rapidly as the distance from the centerline increases (proportional to the inverse square of the distance from source). The magnetic field produced by the transmission line is dependent on the current flowing on its conductors. Therefore,the actual magnetic field when the Project is placed in service is typically less than shown in the charts. This is because the charts represent the magnetic field with current flow at expected normal peak based on projected regional load growth through 2011-2021,the maximum load projection timeline available. Actual current flow on the line will vary, so magnetic fields will be less than peak levels during most hours of the year. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 32 I ' Table 7 Calculated Magnetic Flux Density(milligauss) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) System Current Distance to Proposed Centerline(feet) Segment Condition (Amps) -300 -200 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 200 300 ' Single Pole Davit Peak 250 0.34 0.72 ®® 10.20 12.17 10.50®®® 0.65 0.29 Arm 1 Ci kV ®®® maw Sin•le Circuit Average 150 0.20 0.43 6.12 7.90 6.30 0.39 0.17 ' Single Pole Peak 250 0.27 0.57 1.86 2.84 4.60 7.46 9.64 7.78 2.85 1.81 0.50 0.22 Braced Post 115 kV Sin•le Circuit Average 150 0.16 0.34 ® 1.70 ® 4.48 5.78 4.67 2.85 ® 1.09 0.30 0.13 Single Pole Davit Peak 250 0.04 0.11 0.69 1.38 3.18 7.86 12.82 7.74 3.08 0.66® 0.10 0.04 ' Arm 115kV/115kV Average 150 0.02 0.07 0.42 0.83 ® 4.72 7.69 4.64 1.85 0.80 0.39 0.06 0.02 Double Circuit Note:The assumed peak and average line loading assumed for these calculations is the estimated flow of 50MVA. Considerable research has been conducted throughout the past three decades to determine whether ' exposure to power-frequency (60 hertz) magnetic fields causes biological responses and health effects. Epidemiological and toxicological studies have shown no statistically significant association or weak associations between MF exposure and health risks. Public health professionals have also investigated the possible impact of exposure to EMF upon human health for the past several decades. ' While the general consensus is that electric fields pose no risk to humans, the question of whether exposure to magnetic fields can cause biological responses or health effects continues to be debated. ' In 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") issued its final report on "Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The NIEHS concluded that the scientific evidence ' linking MF exposures with health risks is weak and that this finding does not warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because of the weak scientific evidence that supports some association between MFs and health effects and the common exposure to electricity in the United States, ' passive regulatory action, such as providing public education on reducing exposures,is warranted. In 2007, the World Health Organization ("WHO") concluded a review of the health implications of ' electromagnetic fields. In this report, the WHO stated: Uncertainties in the hazard assessment [of epidemiological studies] include the role ' that control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed relationship between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status. Thus,on balance, the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong to remain a concern. (Environmental Health Criteria Volume N°238 on Extremely Low Frequency Fields at p. 12,WHO (2007)). ' Also,regarding disease outcomes,aside from childhood leukemia, the WHO stated that: ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 33 1 1 A number of other diseases have been investigated for possible association with ELF ' magnetic field exposure. These include cancers in children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications and neurological disease. The scientific evidence supporting a linkage between ELF magnetic fields and any of these diseases is much weaker than for childhood leukemia and in some cases (for example, for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence is sufficient to give confidence that magnetic fields do not cause the disease. (Id. at p. 12.) Furthermore,in their"Summary and Recommendations for Further Study"WHO emphasized that: The limit values in [ELF-MF] exposure guidelines [should not] be reduced to some arbitrary level in the name of precaution. Such practice undermines the scientific, foundation on which the limits are based and is likely to be an expensive and not necessarily effective way of providing protection. (Id. at p. 12). Although WHO recognized epidemiological studies indicate an association on the range of three to ' four mG, WHO did not recommend these levels as an exposure limit but instead provided: "The best source of guidance for both exposure levels and the principles of scientific review are international guidelines." Id. at pp. 12-13. The international guidelines referred to by WHO are the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ("ICNIRP') and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers ("IEEE") exposure limit guidelines to protect against acute effects. Id. at p.12. The ICNIRP-1998 continuous general public exposure guideline is 833 mG and the IEEE continuous general public exposure guideline in 9,040 mG. In addition, WHO determined that "the evidence for a casual relationship [between ELF-MF and childhood leukemia] is limited, therefore exposure limits based on epidemiological evidence is not recommended, but I some precautionary measures are warranted." Id. at 355-56. WHO concluded that: ' given both the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, and the limited impact on public health if there is a link, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. Thus, the costs of precautionary measures should be very low... Provided that the health, social and economic benefits of electric power are not compromised,implementing very low-cost precautionary procedures to reduce exposure is reasonable and warranted.(Id at p. 13). Wisconsin, Minnesota and California have all conducted literature reviews or research to examine this issue. In 2002, Minnesota formed an Interagency Working Group ("Working Group") to ' evaluate the body of research and develop policy recommendations to protect the public health from any potential problems resulting from HVTL EMF effects. The Working Group consisted of staff from various state agencies and published its findings in a White Paper on Electric and ' Magnetic Field(EMF) Policy and Mitigation Options in September 2002, (Minnesota Department of Health,2002).The report summarized the findings of the Working Group as follows: Research on the health effects of EMF has been carried out since the 1970s. Epidemiological studies have mixed results — some have shown no statistically significant association between exposure to EMF and health effects, some have shown a weak association. More recently,laboratory studies have failed to show such Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 34 1 ' an association, or to establish a biological mechanism for how magnetic fields may cause cancer. A number of scientific panels convened by national and international health agencies and the United States Congress have reviewed the research carried ' out to date. Most researchers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove an association between EMF and health effects;however,many of them also concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove that EMF exposure is safe. (Id. at p. 1.) ' The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin ("PSCW") has periodically reviewed the science on MFs since 1989 and has held hearings to consider the topic of MF and human health effects. The ' most recent hearings on MF were held in July 1998. Recently,January 2008, the PSC published a fact sheet regarding MFs. In this fact sheet the PSC noted that: Many scientists believe the potential for health risks for exposure to EMF is very small. This is supported,in part, by weak epidemiological evidence and the lack of a plausible biological mechanism that explains how exposure to EMF could cause disease. The magnetic fields produced by electricity are weak and do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or to cause mutations in DNA. Without a mechanism,scientists have no idea what kind of exposure,if any, might be harmful. In addition, whole animal studies investigating long-term exposure to power ' frequency EMF have shown no connection between exposure and cancer of any kind. (EMF-Electric&Magnetic Fields,PSC (January 2008)). ' The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, based on the Working Group and World Health Organization findings, has repeatedly found that "there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects." In the Matter of ' the Application of Xcel Energy for a Route Permit for the Lake Yankton to Marshall Transmission Line Project in Lyon County, Docket No. E-002/TL-07-1407, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Issuing a Route Permit to Xcel Energy for the Lake Yankton to Marshall Transmission Project at p. ' 7-8 (Aug. 29, 2008); See also, In the Matter of the Application for a HT/TL Route Permit for the Tower Transmission Line Project,Docket No. ET-2,E015/TL-06-1624,Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Order Issuing a Route Permit to Minnesota Power and Great River Energy for the Tower Transmission Line Project and Associated Facilities at p. 23 (Aug. 1, 2007)("Currently, there is ' insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects."). The Commission again confirmed its conclusion regarding health effects and MFs in the Brookings County — Hampton 345 kV Route Permit proceeding ("Brookings Project"). In the Brookings Project Route Permit proceeding, Applicants Great River Energy and Xcel Energy and one of the ' intervening parties provided expert evidence on the potential impacts of electric and magnetic fields on human health. The ALJ in that proceeding evaluated written submissions and a day-and-half of testimony from these two expert witnesses. The ALJ concluded: "there is no demonstrated impact ' on human health and safety that is not adequately addressed by the existing State standards for [EF or MF] exposure." In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 345 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET- 2/TL-08-1474, ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation at Finding 216 (April 22, 2010 and amended April 30, 2010). The Commission adopted this finding on July 15, 2010. In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 345 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET-2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (September 14,2010). ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 35 i 1 5.2.3 Stray Voltage , Stray voltage (also known as Neutral to Earth Voltage ("NEV"))is a condition that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from distribution lines, not transmission lines. More precisely, stray voltage is a voltage that exists between the neutral wire of the service entrance and grounded objects in buildings, such as barns and milking parlors. Transmission lines do not, by themselves, create stray voltage because they do not connect to businesses or residences. Transmission lines, however, can induce stray voltage on a distribution circuit that is parallel to and immediately under the transmission line. 5.3 Farming Operations,Vehicle Use, and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines Insulated electric fences used in livestock operations can pick up an inducedcharge from transmission lines. Usually, the induced charge will drain off when the charger unit is connected to the fence. When the charger is disconnected either for maintenance or when the fence is being built,shocks may result. Potential shocks can be prevented by using a couple of methods including. i) one or more of the fence insulators can be shorted out to ground with a wire when the charger is disconnected;or ii an electric filter can be instilled that grounds out charges induced from a power line while still allowing the charger to be effective.' Farm equipment,passenger vehicles,and trucks may be safely used under andnear power lines.. The power lines will be designed to meet or exceed minimum clearance requirements over roads, driveways, cultivated fields, and grazing lands specified by the NESC. Recommended clearances within the NESC are designed to accommodate a relative vehicle height of 14 feet. There is a potential for vehicles under HVTLs to build up an electric charge. If this occurs, the vehicle can be grounded by attaching a grounding strap to the vehicle long enough to touch the earth. Such buildup is a rare event because generally vehicles are effectively grounded through tires. Modern tires provide an electrical path to ground because carbon black, a good conductor of electricity, is added when they are produced. Metal parts of farming equipment are frequently in contact with the ground when plowing or engaging in various other activities. Therefore, vehicles will not normally build up a charge unless they have unusually old tires or are parked on dry rock, plastic or other surfaces that insulate them from the ground. ' Buildings are permitted near transmission lines but are generally prohibited within the right-of-way itself because a structure under a line may interfere with safe operation of the transmission facilities. For example, a fire in a building on the right-of-way could damage a transmission line. As a result, NESC guidelines establish clear zones for transmission facilities. Metal buildings may have unique issues. For example, metal buildings near power lines of 200 kV or greater must be properly grounded. Any person with questions about a new or existing metal structure can contact Xcel Energy for further information about proper grounding requirements. If a customer suspects that stray voltage/NEV is a concern on their property, they can call the ' Company stray voltage hotline. The customer can contact an Xcel Energy technician or engineer and discuss the situation. If an on-farm investigation is warranted it will be scheduled. On the day of the investigation, the Xcel Energy team will arrive and conduct an investigation of the utility Orono Project June 7, 2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 36 i ' system serving the farm and the farm wiring. The team will discuss the preliminary results with the customer before leaving the farm. In most instances, recording volt meters will be set to measure activity over several days. A few days later these will be retrieved and taken to the Company for ' analysis. Upon completing the analysis, an Xcel Energy engineer or technician will call the farmer to discuss the results. ' ' ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 37 6.0 LAND USE, RECREATION,AND HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES 6.1 Description of Environmental Setting , The approximate 16 acre Orono Substation site is located in an open upland area adjacent to and south of BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council sewer line and ,west of County Road 6 and east of , the HFA residential subdivision in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (see Figure 1 and Appendix B). Typical lots sizes in this subdivision range from 2 to 4 acres. The HFA, comprised of landowners within the subdivision, also owns approximately 64 acres of undeveloped land surrounding the residential lots. HFA land generally consists of wetland areas and is no longer under agricultural use. Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve is located north of U.S. Highway 12,the Metropolitan Council sewer line and the BNSF railroad. The replacement of the existing Orono Substation located on the previously discussed 16 acre substation site is part of the overall proposed transmission line Project and is discussed in Section 4.4.1. This portion of the Project includes replacing the existing 69 kV substation with a 115 kV substation facility that is being constructed to provide a more reliable system to those areas served by transmission Line 0831. The existing fenced area of the substation site comprises approximately 0.1 acres. The new substation fenced area will comprise approximately 1.2 acres. A portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) for construction of the new transmission line is located in upland and wetland areas within the 16 acre Orono Substation site. Xcel Energy put great emphasis on utilizing this site to the greatest extent possible when reviewing potential routes for the Project. By utilizing the existing substation site property,Xcel Energy was able to directly route the transmission line to an existing transportation corridor to minimize impacts to the neighboring properties. Upon exiting the proposed substation replacement area, the Proposed Route takes a direct path to the western property line and follows the property line north to the existing BNSF right-of-way. Together, the Proposed Route follows the existing BNSF right-of-way and is within Xcel Energy owned property for 85 percent of the Route. While the route parallels the BNSF right-of-way it will be within the HFA subdivision. The proposed interconnection point with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 is also located within a wooded upland area on HFA land. See Appendix B-2. Approximately 1,795 feet (57 percent) of the Proposed Route parallels the BNSF railroad and will not conflict with current land use. The Project is located within the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section (222M),a section within the biogeographic province known as the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province under the Ecological Classification System ("ECS") developed by the Minnesota Department of National Resources ("MnDNR") and the United States Forest Service ("USFS") (MNDNR, 2010). The Project Area is further located within the Big Woods subsection of the Minnesota and Northeast ' Iowa Morainal Section. See Appendix B-1. The Big Woods subsection generally consists of circular, level topped hills bounded by smooth side slopes. The Mississippi River runs along the eastern border of this subsection. The other major rivers within this subsection are the Minnesota and Crow Rivers and over 100 lakes greater than 160 acres in size exist within the Big Woods subsection. The area was previously occupied by oak woodland and basswood forest, with characteristic trees being elm, basswood, sugar maple and bur Orono Project June 7, 2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 38 I I I oak. According to the Department of Soil Science, University of Minnesota, the subsection is predominately characterized as cropland,pasture,upland forest and wetland (Dept. of Soil Science, I Univ. of Minnesota 1973, 1980b, 1981a). Croplands and pasture lands are more predominate to the west of the Project than in the immediate area of the Project. Further, urban and rural residential development account for the majority of lands near the Project to the east and south. I6.1.1 Topography IUnlike other portions of Minnesota, the Project location was not covered by the most recent glaciations (i.e., 10,500 years before present) (Minnesota River Basin Data Center, 2010). However, melt waters and glacial lakes associated with the last glacial advance contributed large volumes of meltwater to rivers that cut deep valleys along the present course of the Minnesota, Crow, and lower I Mississippi Rivers located east, north and south of the Project. The Project is within a Big Woods subsection, which contains broad level areas between hills with closed depressions containing lakes and peat bogs. The surface water drainage network is young and undeveloped, and extensive areas I of wetlands are present. Drainage is often controlled by lake levels. Prior to settlement, the area consisted of forest lands and wetlands. I Today the topography of the area is level to gently rolling and has been greatly altered from pre- settlement times by residential development, roadways and interchanges, railroad and other man- made features. In general, the elevation within the Project ranges from 964 feet above sea level in Iwetland areas to 983 feet above sea level at the Orono Substation. Mitigative Measures IThe Project requires grading the area of the new substation site and storm water management to accommodate the substation replacement (see Appendix B, Figure B-10). To mitigate this, the preliminary design and site layout takes into account existing facilities, wetlands on the north and I east sides of the parcel, storm water runoff and management, and surrounding land uses. To the extent possible, Xcel Energy will reuse the existing substation area and avoid wetlands at the site. While the western portion of the site will require grading and a new storm water pond will be I installed at the northwest corner of the new substation area, the Project will not change the character of the landscape of the surrounding area. I6.1.2 Geology and Soils The Project site geology is composed of a gently rolling landscape and wetlands. The underlying I geology and topography has remained consistent over time. However, the surface topography and natural drainage ways have been impacted by human settlement. Depth of bedrock varies from 100 to 400 feet (Olsen and Mossler 1982) The Project Area is underlain by Cambrian sandstones. The I area north of US Highway 12 (Baker Park Reserve) has remained relatively undeveloped as have many of the wetland complexes in the area. Soils throughout the area are predominantly poorly drained hydric wetland soils that are derived I primarily from till. Based on the Soil Survey of Hennepin County (U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), 2000), the most predominant soils in the Project location include the following two soil associations: I I Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 39 • Klossner Association: Very deep, very poorly drained, nearly level muck formed in ' organic material over glacial till in wetland depressions;and • Houghton and Muskego Association: Very deep,very poorly drained, nearly level muck formed in organic material in wetland depressions. Mitigative Measures As described above, the new substation site will require grading and storm water management. Xcel Energy does not anticipate any adverse impacts to geology or bedrock from the Project. Concerning impacts from the Project to surficial soils, Xcel Energy will implement the mitigative measures as described above in Section 6.1.1. 6.2 Human Settlement 6.2.1 Public Health and Safety Proper safeguards will be implemented for construction and operation of the proposed substation and transmission facilities. The Project will be designed in compliance with local, state,the National Electrical Safety Code ("NESC"), and Xcel Energy standards for clearance to ground, crossing utilities and buildings, strength of materials, and right-of-way widths. Construction and contract crews will comply with local, state, NESC, and Xcel Energy standards for installation of facilities and standard construction practices. Established Xcel Energy and industry safety procedures will ' also be followed after the substation and transmission line are installed. This will include clear signage during all construction activities. The proposed transmission line will be equipped with protective devices (circuit breakers and relays located in the new Orono Substation where the transmission lines terminate) to safeguard the public if an accident occurs, such as a structure or conductor falling to the ground. The protective equipment will de-energize the transmission line should such an event occur. In addition, the new Orono Substation will be fenced and access limited to authorized personnel. Proper signage is posted to warn the public about the risk of coming into contact with the energized equipment. For a discussion of EMF,see Section 5.2 above. Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy does not anticipate any adverse public health and safety impacts from the Project. Therefore,no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.2 Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Land Use In addition to use of Xcel Energy's existing 16 acre site for the Orono Substation land use near the Project is primarily residential and undeveloped/open-space. The City of Orono is the largest municipality in the local area, with a current projected population of 7,437 (US Census Bureau, American FactFinder website-accessed 04/05/2011). The entire Project and proposed transmission facilities fall within the current City limits as indicated in the attached Appendix B-4. The existing Orono Substation property is zoned for rural residential use, but has a conditional use permit through the City of Orono for this property. The areas near and around the Project are zoned for rural residential use. The proposed new transmission line will have minimal impact on the amount Orono Project June 7, 2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 40 IIIIIL I I I of developable land in this area as it is sited within existing Xcel Energy property, adjacent to existing highway and railroad rights-of-way,and within undeveloped HFA land. I The closest commercial business is a gas station located in the City of Maple Plain approximately 0.75 miles northwest from the proposed Project. This structure is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 19. See Appendix B-3. IThe closest rural residence to the proposed new transmission line and substation replacement is located approximately 220 feet south and across 6th Avenue North from the proposed Orono I Substation replacement area. The closest farmstead residence is located approximately 0.5 miles directly south of the beginning of the proposed line at a residence on Orchard Park Road which is approximately 600 feet north of Watertown Rd. See Appendix B-2. I The numbers of occupied structures located within various distances from the Project are shown in Table 8 below. I Table 8 Distance to Occupied Structures I Number of Farmsteads, Number of Farmsteads, Number of Farmsteads, Residences or Residences or Residences or Commercial Operations Commercial Operations Commercial Operations within 0-50'of Proposed within 51-100'of within 101-200'of I Segment Site/Line Proposed Line Proposed Line Proposed Substation 0 0 0 Re.lacement I Pro.osed Route 0 0 0 Alternative Route 1 0 0 1 Alternative Route 2 0 0 0 Alternative Route 3 0 0 1 I Alternative Route 4 0 0 0 IMitigative Measures Land uses near the Project are not expected to change as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line and substation. Permanent impacts will be limited to the area Iwhere structures (e.g. poles) are placed and to the construction areas as described in Section 5.1.1 For the Proposed Route, the structures and overhead transmission lines will be placed within the I existing Xcel Energy property and within primarily undeveloped areas on HFA land along existing transportation corridors. Impacts to surrounding land uses will be minimized by following within or adjacent to existing roadways, railroad and utility rights-of-way as much as possible. I6.2.3 Displacement I NESC and Xcel Energy standards require certain clearances between substation and transmission line facilities and buildings for safe operation of the facilities. There is sufficient land at the existing 16 acre Orono Substation site to maintain substation clearances for the proposed expanded Orono Substation and associated new transmission line. Off of the Orono Substation site, Xcel Energy Iacquires appropriate right-of-way for transmission lines that is sufficient to maintain these I Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 41 1 clearances. Displacement can occur when an existing structure is located within the right-of-way for ' a new transmission facility. The proposed transmission line will be designed so that all existing residences are located outside of the right-of-way. Furthermore, the Proposed Route includes realignment of existing transmission Line 0831 and associated structures off of two residential properties as part of the Project. See Appendix B.2. The proposed Project will not require displacement of occupied residences. 111 Mitigative Measures It is not anticipated that any buildings or residences will be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no , mitigative measures are proposed. Xcel Energy will work with landowners where buildings or residences are near the proposed transmission structures to ensure appropriate placement of such structures. ' 6.2.4 Noise Transmission Line Noise ' Transmission conductors produce noise under certain conditions. The level of noise depends on conductor conditions,voltage level and weather conditions. Noise emissions from a transmission line occur during certain weather conditions. In foggy,damp, or rainy weather,power lines can create a crackling sound when a small amount of electricity ionizes the moist air near the wires. During heavy rain,the background noise level of the rain is usually greater than the noise from the transmission line. As a result, people do not normally hear noise from a transmission line during heavy rain. During light rain, dense fog, snow,and other times when there is moisture in the air, transmission lines can produce noise. Noise levels produced by a 115 kV transmission line are generally less than outdoor background levels and are therefore not usually audible. Since human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound, the most noticeable ' frequencies of sound are given more "weight" in most measurement schemes. The A-weighted scale corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are measured in decibels ("dBA'). A noise level change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to human hearing. A 5 dBA change in noise level,however,is clearly noticeable. A 10 dBA change in noise level is perceived as a doubling of noise loudness,while a 20 dBA change is considered a dramatic change in loudness. Table 9 shows noise levels associated with common,everyday activities. ' Table 9 Common Noise Sources and Levels ' Noise Source" Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Jet Engine (at 25 meters) 140 Jet Aircraft(at 100 meters) 130 Rock Concert 120 Pneumatic Chipper 110 Jackhammer(at 1 meter) 100 Chainsaw.Lawn Mower(at 1 meter) 90 Heavy Truck Traffic 80 Business Office,Vacuum Cleaner 70 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 42 1 I I Noise Source a Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Conversational Speech,Typical TV Volume 60 Library 50 I Bedroom 40 Secluded Woods 30 Whisper 10 I a A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota Acoustical Properties,Measurement,Analysis and Regulation,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA"),2008. I In Minnesota, statistical sound levels ("L" or Level Descriptors) are used to evaluate noise levels and identify noise impacts. The standards are expressed as a range of permissible dBA within a one hour period;L50 is the dBA that may be exceeded 50 percent of the time within an hour,while L10 may be Iexceeded 10 percent of the time within an hour. Land areas, such as picnic areas, churches,or commercial spaces, are assigned to an activity category based on the type of activities or use occurring in the area. Activity categories are then categorized I based on their sensitivity to traffic noise. The Noise Area Classification ("NAC" list in the MPCA noise regulations to distinguish the categories. Residential areas, churches, and similar type land use activities are included in NAC 1; commercial-type land use activities are included in NAC 2; and I industrial-type land use activities are included in NAC 3. Table 10 identifies the established daytime and nighttime noise standards by NAC. I Table 10 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification I Daytime Noise Standard Nighttime Noise Standard Noise Area Classification L;0 (dBA) L10 (dBA) L;0 (dBA) L10 (dBA) 1 60 65 50 55 I 2 3 65 70 65 70 75 80 75 80 The noise levels from the proposed double circuit 115 kV transmission line are expected to be only Islightly higher than the existing GRE 69 kV transmission line that is connected to the Orono substation. The GRE transmission line will be disconnected from the Orono Substation as a part of this Project. Therefore, noise levels from the new 115 kV transmission line should not be noticeably Igreater than existing levels. The proposed transmission lines were modeled using the Bonneville Power Administration CFI8X I model to evaluate audible noise from transmission lines. Where possible,the model was executed as a worst-case scenario benchmark,to ensure that noise was not under-predicted. Table 11 presents the L5 and L50 noise levels predicted for proposed transmission line structures and voltages for the Project. I I I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 43 Table 11 ' Calculated Audible Noise (dBA) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) Noise L; (Edge of Noise L50 (Edge of Right-of-Way) Right-of-Way) (Decibels Structure Type (Decibels a weighted) a weighted) Single Pole Davit Arm 115 kV Single 17.4 13.9 Circuit Vertical Conk ration ' Single Pole Braced Post 115 kV Single 18.6 15.1 Circuit Single Pole Davit Arm 115 kV/115 kV 23.3 19.8 1 Double Circuit Note:Noise calculations done using the EPRI Enviro software and the BPA standard method of calculation. The noise generated from the transmission line is not expected to exceed background noise levels and will, therefore, not be audible at any receptor location. Transmission conductors and transformers at substations can produce noise when it is foggy, damp, or rainy, including a subtle cracking or humming noise. Any audible noise will be well below the MPCA noise standards established for NAC 1,as shown in Tables 10 and 11 above. Transformer Substation Noise , Transformer "hum" is the dominant noise source at substations. Transformer hum is caused by magnetostrictive forces within the core of the transformer. These magnetic forces cause the core laminations to expand and contract,creating vibration and sound at a frequency of 100Hz (twice the a.c. mains frequency), and at multiples of 100Hz (harmonics). Typically, the noise level does not vary with transformer load,as the core is magnetically saturated and cannot produce any more noise. Generally, activity-related noise levels during the operation and maintenance of substations and transmission lines are minimal. The nearest occupied structures to the proposed Orono Substation and related transmission facilities associated with the Project include two residences located approximately 220 feet to the south and approximately 290 feet west (see Appendix B, Figure B-2). It is unlikely that substation noise will be audible at these structures. The proposed substation will be designed and constructed to comply with state noise standards established by the MPCA Mitigative Measures The transmission lines and substation are designed and constructed to comply with state noise standards established by the MPCA. Transmission line noise levels are not expected to exceed the MPCA noise standards outside the right-of-way for all NACs. Likewise, substation noise will not exceed applicable limits,including the MPCA noise limits. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for the audible noise generated by the proposed Project. Orono Project June 7,2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 44 1 6.2.5 Television and Radio Interference Corona from transmission line conductors can generate electromagnetic "noise" at the same t frequencies that radio and television signals are transmitted. This noise can cause interference with the reception of these signals depending on the frequency and strength of the radio and television signal. Tightening loose hardware on the transmission line usually resolves the problem. If radio interference from transmission line corona does occur, satisfactory reception from AM radio stations presently providing good reception can be obtained by appropriately modifying (or ' adding to) the receiving antenna system. Moreover,AM radio frequency interference typically occurs immediately under a transmission line and dissipates rapidly within the right-of-way to either side. FM radio receivers do not usually pick up interference from transmission lines because: ' • corona-generated radio frequency noise currents decrease in magnitude as the frequency increases and are quite small in the FM broadcast band (88-108 Megahertz);and a • the excellent interference rejection properties inherent in FM radio systems make them virtually immune to amplitude-type disturbances. ' A two-way mobile radio located immediately adjacent to and behind a large metallic structure (such as a steel tower) may experience interference. Moving either mobile radio so that the metallic structure is not immediately between the two units should restore communications. This will generally require a movement of less than 50 feet by the mobile radio adjacent to the metallic tower. Television interference is rare but may occur when a large transmission structure is aligned between ' the receiver and a weak distant signal, creating a shadow effect. Loose or damaged transmission line hardware may also cause television interference. ' Digital reception is,in most cases, considerably more tolerant of electric interference and somewhat less resistant to multipath reflections. In the digital realm, the picture does not gradually degrade; rather,at what is called the"avalanche point," the picture suddenly pixelates (turns into squares) and usually"freezes." Mitigative Measures ' No impacts are anticipated from the proposed Project. However, if radio or television interference occurs because of the transmission line, Xcel Energy will work with the affected parties to restore reception to pre-Project quality. If the interference is due to the power line, the electric utility will remedy problems so that reception is restored to its original quality. Generally, the problem is resolved by moving or raising or adjusting the customer's antenna. In some instances, a more 1 effective antenna or a signal amplifier is required. 6.2.6 Aesthetics ' The proposed substation replacement will be within existing Xcel Energy property and the transmission facilities will mainly follow existing BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12 rights-of-way. The Project will have some effects on the visual and aesthetic character of the area. I ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 45 1 1 The existing fenced area of the substation site is approximately 0.1 acres. It currently contains an 1 Electrical Equipment Enclosure (EEE) and several pieces of electrical equipment,which are mainly metal. The existing substation site is somewhat screened from view by trees and vegetation located along the south and west property borders. The replacement substation will comprise a new fenced area of approximately 1.2 acres, which will subsume the existing 0.1 acre fenced area. Because the existing substation area will become a part of the new substation site, the elevation of the new substation site will be similar to the existing site. The new substation will contain approximately eight pieces of mainly metal electrical equipment and include a new EEE, and the maximum height of the new equipment will be approximately 13-18 feet above ground surface. The new equipment and fenced area will be located to comply with applicable property line setbacks. During site grading, some vegetation and trees will need to be removed in the substation replacement area to the south and west of the existing fenced area,as well as along the Proposed Route. Existing GRE transmission line structures at the substation site are wood monopole structures. The proposed structures for the single circuit and double circuit 115kV line will be a single pole design. The single circuit and double circuit structures will be approximately 70 to 90 and 75 to 115 feet tall respectively and will have an average span of 325 feet. A maximum span of 450 feet will be used between the structures, which will still keep the conductor within the right-of-way under blowout conditions. The typical right-of-way required for these types of structures is 75 feet wide. The overall spacing of the poles will be comparable to other Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission structures, which can vary based on soil conditions,engineering requirements and land use constraints. The finish of the proposed transmission poles will be galvanized steel or self-weathering steel. The existing transmission line structures in this area are wood poles, and some of the existing poles are of H-frame construction. The proposed galvanized or weathering steel poles will give the new transmission line a somewhat cleaner and more modern appearance. The landscape surrounding the Orono Substation site is gently rolling, lightly wooded or wetland areas with undeveloped or residential parcels and associated county and private access roads, as well as major double lane thoroughfare (U.S. Highway 12), a Metropolitan Council sewer line and the BNSF railroad. While the double circuit line is proposed to be located within existing Xcel Energy property and on HFA land along the BNSF railroad right-of-way, it will be visible to area residents. The visual effect will depend largely on the perceptions of the observers. The visual contrast added by the transmission structures and lines may be perceived as a visual disruption or as points of visual interest. The existing transmission and distribution lines and Orono Substation limit the extent to which the proposed new transmission line and new substation are viewed as a disruption to the area's scenic integrity. Mitigative Measures The proposed substation and transmission line will be partially visible by some residents near the Project. However, the proposed substation replacement and transmission route maximizes the use of existing Xcel Energy property, transportation and utility corridors, and avoids residences to the , greatest extent practicable. Also, a portion of the Project site contains the visible existing Orono Substation and transmission and distribution lines that result in a visual impact and, therefore, the installation of new transmission facilities associated with the Project will incrementally increase visual impacts. Visual mitigation is also provided by building the substation partially into the Orono Project June 7,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 46 I I I adjacent hillside which will be held back by the installation of a retaining wall along the southwest corner of the graded area. An additional berm with prairie landscaping and trees, suitable to the existing setting,is planned along the western property line for substation screening purposes. IMitigation is also provided by using double circuit transmission structures which minimizes the number of transmission structures and right-of-way needed for the Project. Replacing the existing I wood three-pole Structure 077 with a single pole structure at a new location off of residential property will also mitigate aesthetic impacts. At the new substation site, Xcel Energy will design and construct the new facility to minimize impacts to existing vegetation and trees, as well as provide I additional screening, as needed. Xcel Energy will work with landowners to identify concerns related to the proposed substation and transmission line aesthetics. I6.2.7 Socioeconomic Impacts Census data from 2010 was not fully available at the time this Route Permit Application was prepared. Socioeconomic data was obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census. The average per capita I income is $65,825 in the City of Orono (2000) and$28,789 in Hennepin County (2000). Compared to the state or county average,the Project is located in an area that does not contain disproportionately high minority or low-income populations. No disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income I populations are anticipated from the Project. Persons living in Hennepin County have a slightly higher median family income when compared with the rest of the state. The percentage of families with income levels below the federal poverty line is approximately 5.0 percent in Hennepin County I (2000),which is slightly lower than the state average. Within the City of Orono,the average median family income is higher than that of the rest of the state. The percentage of families below the federal poverty line in the City of Orono is approximately 0.5 percent (2000). Population and Ieconomic data from the 2010 and 2000 US Census is provided in Table 12. Table 12 . IPopulation and Economic Characteristics of the Project Location Percentage of Minority Caucasian Per Capita Population Below I Population Population Income(U.S. Poverty Level Location Population (percent) (percent) dollars) (families) State of Minnesota 5,303,925 14.7 85.3 23,198 5.1 I Henne.in Coun 1,152,425 25.6 74.4 28,789 5.0 Ci of Orono 7,437 3.5 96.5 65,825 0.5 * Population characteristics are from the U.S.Census Bureau,2010 data. I * Economic characteristics are from the U.S.Census Bureau,2000 data. Approximately 15 to 25 workers will be needed over 26 weeks to construct the proposed I transmission line and substation. During construction,construction crews will spend money locally, thereby providing a small economic benefit to the community. There will be short-term impacts on community services as a result of construction activity and an I influx of contractor employees during construction the Project. Both utility personnel and contractors will be used for construction activities. The communities near the Project should experience short-term positive economic impacts through the use of the hotels, restaurants, and I other services by the various workers. I Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 47 It is not expected that additional permanent jobs will be created by the Project. The construction , activities will provide a seasonal influx of additional dollars into the communities during the construction phase,and materials such as concrete may be purchased from local vendors. Once the Project is operational, its socioeconomic effects are generally positive because it will provide a more stable and reliable supply of electricity, encourage economic development, provide for future growth,and increase the local tax base resulting from the incremental increase in revenues from utility property taxes. Socioeconomic impacts resulting from the Project will be primarily positive with an influx of wages and expenditures made at local businesses during the Project, increased tax revenue from the value of the Project and increased opportunities for business development from improved reliability. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project will not adversely impact socioeconomic factors. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.8 Cultural Values Cultural values are the history and beliefs of the area that provide a framework for community unity. The region surrounding the Project primarily depends on agricultural practices (typically corn, soybeans, and grazing),with some manufacturing and tourism,as well as educational and residential uses. Local community ties relate to work,worship, celebration, and recreation. Based on the City of Orono's website,examples of area culture and industry include the Corn Days Festival and farmer's markets in Long Lake and Maple Plain. Construction of the proposed Project is not expected to conflict with the cultural values along the route. No impacts on cultural values are anticipated. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project avoids or minimizes land uses associated with cultural values and no impacts are anticipated. Therefore,no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.9 Recreation There is one formal recreational area located north of the Project. Baker Park Reserve,which is part of the Three Rivers Park District is located within the boundaries of the City of Orono and the City of Medina and encompasses 2,700 acres (see Appendix B-7). The south end of Baker Park Reserve lies north of and across the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 from the proposed transmission line route. The new substation should not be visible from Baker Park Reserve and from U.S. Highway 12 due to the distance between these areas and the substation site, plus the higher elevation of the BNSF railroad when compared to the substation site, U.S. Highway 12 and the park. Baker Park Reserve has many activities available for park users including, biking, boating, camping, canoeing, cross-country skiing, dog trails, fishing, geocaching, golfing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, picnic and play areas, sledding, snowshoeing and swimming. The park wholly contains Spurzem Lake, Half Moon Lake and Lake Katrina and borders the southwest portion of Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 48 Lake Independence. The Project is not expected to impact Baker Park Reserve because the Proposed Route remains entirely south of the BNSF railroad and U.S.Highway 12. ' Three recreational parks owned by the City of Orono (Bederwoods Park, Lowry Woods Nature Area and Lurton Park) lie between 0.5 miles to just over one mile from the Project Area. Bederwoods Park is located approximately 1.15 miles south east of the Project. It is 8 acres in size ' and includes a baseball field, swing-set, climber, slide and bike rack. Lowry Woods Nature Area which is located approximately 0.9 miles south of the Project is a 15 acre parcel of"Big Woods"and consists of 100-year-old Red-Oak, Sugar Maple, Ash and Hickory trees. The distance between the ' Project and Bederwoods Park and Lowry Woods Nature Area along with topography, forested areas, and residential areas is significant enough that visual impacts from the Project will not occur. Likewise, the distance, topography and forested areas between the Project and these parks will be ' significant enough that audible impacts from construction of the Project will not occur at these locations. The third park (Lurton Park) is a 39 acre parcel located approximately 1/2 mile east of the Project. ' Lurton Park was donated to the City for use as a passive and natural environmental park. Visual impacts from the Project to this park are unlikely due to the elevation of the County Road 6 overpass of U.S. Highway 12. However, due to the close proximity of Lurton Park to the Project there is a ' potential that temporary audible impacts could occur during the construction of the Project. A portion on the south side of this park was recently purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation("MnDOT") for the construction of the U.S. Highway 12 bypass project. ' Mitigative Measures The proposed Project will not directly affect recreational areas.The Project has been routed to avoid ' impacts to Baker Park Reserve to minimize impacts to parks and recreation.Therefore,no mitigative measures are proposed. ' 6.2.10 Public Services Public services within the vicinity of the Project include sewer,water and transportation. In the City of Orono, water and sewer services are provided by city-owned wells and wastewater treatment facilities. As the Project lies at the edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area,water in nearby areas outside of the City is obtained from private wells as well as neighboring cities. Likewise,wastewater in surrounding areas is treated with individual septic treatment systems or neighboring cities. The Metropolitan Council forcemain interceptor 8352, which is a 12-inch outside diameter ductile iron pipe,is buried between the BNSF railroad line and U.S. Highway 12 north of the Project(see Section 8.1.8 regarding Metropolitan Council response to the Project). The U.S. Highway 12 Bypass project adjacent to and north of the Project has been completed and no additional work to this project is known at this time. U.S. Highway 12 is a high volume traffic corridor providing access to the Twin Cities Metropolitan area freeway system for the suburbs and rural areas west of the metropolitan area. U.S. Highway 12 reduces from a divided four lane highway to an undivided two lane road just west of the County Road 6 overpass and on the north side of the Project. County Road 6 borders the south and east edges of the area of the Project. Additionally,local city and township roads traverse the area around the Project. ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 49 1 1 An active BNSF railroad line is located north of the Project. While no direct impacts from the ' Project are expected to the BNSF railroad, the Proposed Route includes placement of new transmission structures approximately five feet from railroad right-of-way. Xcel Energy is discussing sharing of railroad right-of-way for transmission line overhang with BNSF. Except for the existing transmission Line 0831 crossing U.S. Highway 12, the Metropolitan Council forcemain, and the BNSF railroad line, the Proposed Route avoids these services. At this time no current or future transportation or utility corridor projects are known to exist. Mitigative Measures , With the exception of existing Line 0831 crossing U.S. Highway 12,Metropolitan Council forcemain and BNSF railroad, the proposed Project will not directly affect public services. The proposed new 115 kV transmission line will not cross the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12, County Road 6 or other local roads, thus no disruptions to these transportation corridors are expected. Construction related vehicles will utilize U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 6; however, any increase in traffic is expected to be minor.Therefore,no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3 Land-Based Economics 6.3.1 Agriculture Hennepin County has strong economic ties to agricultural production. According to the 2007 United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Census of Agriculture, Hennepin County has 582 individual farms, marking a 7% decrease in total number of farms over the previous five years. Agricultural lands cover 66,558 acres, representing approximately 73% of all lands in Hennepin County with an average farm size of 114 acres. Hennepin County ranks among the top 20 counties in nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod (ranking 3`d statewide) land uses; and horses, ponies, mules,burros and donkeys (ranking 3rd Statewide). Over$51 million was generated from both crop and livestock sales in 2007. While Hennepin County is primarily agricultural, the entire Project site and proposed transmission route is located outside of actively cultivated tracts. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, the nearest farmstead is located 1/2 mile south of the Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are not located within or near any farm lands. Mitigative Measures No impacts to agriculture anticipated from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.2 Forestry ' There are no forested areas where tree species are harvested along the proposed transmission line route or the Orono Substation replacement site.The primary tree cover in the area is associated with waterways, homesteads and Baker Park Reserve. No economically significant forestry resources are located along the proposed transmission line route or at the Orono Substation site. Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/IL-11-223 50 Mitigative Measures No forest or commercial logging impacts from the Project are expected. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.3 Tourism ' Primary tourism activities in the region include camping, recreational use of the regions lakes for fishing and boating, bicycling, cross country skiing and hunting on private lands. The Baker Park Reserve is the only park in the immediate area of the Project that could be considered a tourist area. ' However, the proposed Project does not cross any lands owned or used by the park (see Figures B.2 and B.7 in Appendix B). Besides Baker Park Reserve, areas west and north of the Project are primarily rural residential and agricultural. Areas south and east of the Project are primarily rural ' and urban residential. Mitigative Measures No effects on tourism are anticipated from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.4 Mining According to MnDOT county pit maps for Hennepin County,there is one inactive gravel pit located ' approximately four miles east of the Project site. Because no existing gravel and rock resources are being utilized within or near the Project site or proposed transmission line route, no impacts are anticipated. Unknown resources that may exist near the Project would be situated in close proximity ' to existing transportation rights-of-way,making development of mining resources unlikely. Mitigative Measures ' No effects on mining are expected from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. ' 6.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources In response to an Xcel Energy request for comment, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation ' Office ("SHPO") commented on the proposed Project in a letter dated October 21, 2010 (see Appendix C.7). The SHPO requested that an archaeological survey for the Project be completed prior the beginning of constructiviti ' To furthtoer assessnnthe potential for on arcahaeol es.ogical and historic resources to be present near the Project, Xcel Energy engaged URS Corporation ("URS") to conduct a Phase Ia background ' research/literature review for the proposed Project and prepared a Phase Ia Report. A copy of the Phase 1a Report has been included with this Application as Appendix E. Portions of the Phase Ia report have been omitted due to information considered confidential and not readily available to the ' general public. URS reviewed previously recorded cultural resource properties at the SHPO. In addition, historical maps, historic aerial photographs, and additional online resources were used to review the recent cultural and environmental history of Project site. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 51 1 The Phase Ia background research revealed that no archaeological site or inventoried standing ' structure is recorded within the proposed Project. A total of 34 previously recorded cultural resource properties were located within the proposed Project Area. The site file search identified 15 archaeological sites and 19 inventoried historic architectural properties located within one mile of the Project. The Phase Ia Report in Appendix E provides more information on these sites. Of the 15 archaeological sites, thirteen are pre-contact and consist of: six Ethic scatters, two artifact , scatters, three single artifact finds, and two Native American earthwork. The remaining two sites consist of post-contact historic structural ruins with associated artifact scatters. None of the previously recorded artifact scatters are listed in the National Register CEF by the SHPO. Of the 19 ' historic architectural properties none are listed on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") or CEF. Based upon these findings, the potential for the Project to impact any undiscovered archaeological site is low because the Project is proposed to be located at the existing Orono Substation site, and along existing transportation corridors or it is located in areas already disturbed by residential and commercial development. However, the URS archaeologist identified one area of concern at the proposed Orono Substation replacement site. The Phase Ia Report recommends that archaeological field surveys be initiated in areas previously undisturbed prior to construction at the Orono Substation replacement site. On April 13, 2011,Xcel Energy submitted a consultation letter with a copy of the Phase Ia Report to the SHPO requesting SHPO written agreement with the Phase Ia Report findings and recommendations for the Project. The SHPO responded by letter on May 12, 2011, and concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase la Report (see Appendix E). The SHPO indicated that a full field survey needs to be performed at two locations within the Project area. ' Xcel Energy will continue to work with the Minnesota SHPO to determine the appropriate next steps for the Project. Mitigative Measures As determined in the Phase Ia Report, no property listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites is located at or near the Project. However, several previously recorded cultural resource properties were located within one mile of the proposed Project area,and surveys are recommended for specific previously undisturbed Project locations. Xcel Energy implement the SHPO recommendations and will continue to work with the SHPO regarding possible impacts from the Project. If there is an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during Project construction,Xcel Energy , will stop construction activities and consult with a professional archaeologist and the Minnesota SHPO to determine the proper course of action. If a cultural item or feature is determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP,it will be avoided or mitigated before construction resumes. ' 6.5 Natural Environment 6.5.1 Air Quality Potential air quality effects related to transmission facilities include fugitive dust emissions during construction, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, and ozone generation during Orono Project June 7, 2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 52 I I transmission line operation (Jackson et al., 1994). All of these potential effects are considered to be relatively minor,and all but the ozone effects are short-term. I State and federal governments currently regulate permissible concentrations of ozone and nitrogen oxides. Ozone forms in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Air pollution from cars, trucks, power plants, and solvents I contribute to the concentration of ground-level ozone through these reactions. Currently,both state and federal governments regulate permissible concentrations of ozone and nitrogen oxides. The national standard is 0.075 parts per million ("ppm") during an 8-hour averaging period. The state standard is 0.08 ppm based upon the fourth-highest 8-hour daily maximum average in one year. The only potential air emissions from a transmission line result from corona,and such emissions are limited. Corona consists of the breakdown or ionization of air within a few centimeters immediately I surrounding conductors and can produce ozone and oxides of nitrogen in the air surrounding the conductor. This process is limited because the conductor electrical gradient of a 115 kV transmission line is usually less than that necessary for the air to break down. Typically, some Iimperfection such as a scratch on the conductor or a water droplet is necessary to cause corona. Ozone is not only produced by corona, but also forms naturally in the lower atmosphere from I lightning discharges and from reactions between solar ultraviolet radiation and air pollutants such as hydrocarbons from auto emissions. The natural production rate of ozone is directly proportional to temperature and sunlight and inversely proportional to humidity. Thus, humidity (or moisture), the same factor that increases corona discharges from transmission lines, inhibits the production of ozone. Ozone is a reactive form of oxygen and combines readily with other elements and compounds in the atmosphere. Because of its reactivity, it is relatively short-lived. There are currently no non- Iattainment areas designated in Minnesota (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,2010). During construction of the proposed transmission line, minor emissions from vehicles and other I construction equipment and fugitive dust from right-of-way clearing will occur, but will be limited. Air-quality impacts during the construction phase will also be temporary. The magnitude of construction emissions is heavily influenced by weather conditions and the I specific construction activity. Exhaust emissions, primarily from diesel equipment, will vary according to the phase of construction,but will be minimal and temporary. Adverse impacts on the surrounding environment will be minimal because of the short and intermittent nature of the Iemission and dust-producing construction phases. Mitigative Measures IXcel Energy will employ BMPs to minimize the amount of fugitive dust created by the construction process. Tracking control at access roads and wetting surfaces are examples of BMPs that will be I used to minimize fugitive dust. Based upon this,Xcel Energy anticipates no significant effects to air quality from the Project;therefore,no additional mitigative measures are proposed. 6.5.2 Water Quality IThe water resources located within the Project are identified in Appendix B-6 (see also Table 4). Although areas of the Project, such as a portion of the Orono Substation site,have a greater elevation I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 53 1 than the surrounding wetland areas, the entire Project is located within the 100-year floodplain ' (FEMA, 1994),and within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District("MCWD'). The MnDNR Public Waters Inventory ("PWI") identifies lakes, wetlands, and watercourses over ' which the MnDNR has regulatory jurisdiction. The statutory definition"public waters"and"public waters wetlands"can be found in Minn. Stat. § 103G.005,subd. 15 and 15a. A MnDNR License for utility to Cross Protected Waters is required for designated PWI crossings. Two wetland areas are crossed by the Project (see Appendix B-6) which are designated as "unnamed (27-916 W)" and "unnamed (27-917 W), and require a MnDNR license. (MnDNR, 2010d). These are discussed below in Section 6.5.3. Potential groundwater impacts associated with overhead electric transmission lines are typically associated with the construction of the lines and structure placement. Examples of potential impacts include the clearing of rights-of-way leading to erosion into nearby streams and wetlands, vibrations from construction equipment resulting in sedimentation being released into shallow aquifers and the drilling of foundations for towers into shallow aquifers: Groundwater impacts are not anticipated during the construction of the Project. Aquifers in the area of the Project are not typically considered to be shallow in nature, therefore, sedimentation as a result of construction activities is not expected to occur. Potential impacts on water quality resulting from ground disturbance (e.g., excavating, grading and traffic) are limited to the construction phase of the Project substation replacement and new transmission structures and lines,when sediment could possibly reach surface waters. ' Mitigative Measures No significant impacts to water quality are anticipated from the Project. Xcel Energy will apply erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the potential for discharge to surface waters. Implementation of BMPs to prevent water quality impacts and the construction, restoration, and maintenance of the transmission line are discussed in Sections 5.1.4, 5.1.5 and 5.1.6. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") stormwater permit will identify additional mitigation measures, if necessary. In addition, standard erosion control measures identified in the MPCA Stormwater BMP Manual will be followed. During construction, Xcel Energy will control construction activities to minimize .and prevent material discharge to surface waters and groundwater. If materials do enter surface waters or groundwater, they will be promptly removed and properly disposed of to the extent feasible. Disturbed surface soils will be stabilized at the completion of the construction process to minimize the potential for subsequent effects on surface water and groundwater quality. 6.5.3 Wetlands Large wetland complexes and small isolated wetlands are located in and around the Project site. A summary of wetlands within and near the Project is located in Table 13 and shown in Appendix B-6. Some of these wetlands are adjacent to the various lakes that lie near the proposed Project. ' For the proposed transmission line off of Xcel Energy property, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") National Wetlands Inventory ("NWI") was reviewed to assess which wetlands may be present within the requested transmission line route width for the Project (see Appendix B-6). The Orono Project June 7, 2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 54 ' NWI has not been field verified for a portion of the Proposed Route off of Xcel Energy property, and sometimes contains inaccuracies. However, it is a good tool for initial wetland identification and assessment. Xcel Energy engaged Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ("Westwood") to perform a wetland delineation of the 16 acre Orono Substation site and prepared a Wetland Delineation Report (dated ' July.2,2010). The wetland area within the 16 acre site was identified as a type 3 Palustrine Emergent ("PEM") (Shallow Marsh) wetland. Additionally this wetland is classified as seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched ("PEMCd"). The dominate vegetation within the wetland consisted of ' cattail and reed canary grass, with lesser amounts of Box Elder. The vegetation within the upland areas of the site transitioned from hydrophytic vegetation in the wetland areas to non-hydrophytic vegetation in the upland areas. Westwood prepared the Wetland Delineation Report (dated July 2, ' 2010); Xcel Energy submitted the Wetland Delineation Report to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") on August 4, 2010; the MCWD issued a Notice of Application for the delineation and requested comments on August 10, 2010; and the MCWD issued a Notice of Decision accepting the wetland delineation on September 14, 2010. The Wetland Delineation Report can be found in Appendix F along with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA'),Notice of Decision (dated September 14,2010) by the MWCD. In total, two wetlands were identified within the 400 foot wide route width for the proposed transmission line (see Appendix B-6). One additional wetland was identified just outside of the 400 foot wide route width. Overall,the 400 foot transmission line corridor extends approximately 3,136 ' feet and encompasses approximately 28.8 acres, of which approximately 13.63 acres (47%) are wetlands. Approximately 3.29 acres of the 75 foot right-of-way required for the transmission line are wetlands. Based upon preliminary structure locations and design spans nine transmission ' structures will be necessary for the proposed Project. It is estimated that five or six of these structures will fall within or on the edge of wetlands (see Appendix B-2 and B-6). ' The wetland present within the Proposed Route is classified as a Palustrine type wetland. Other wetlands near the Project site are also Palustrine type wetlands. The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,emergents,mosses or lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetation within the wetland crossed on the 16 acre Orono Substation site consists of emergent vegetation with a mixture of grasses, cattail, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (see Wetland Delineation Report in Appendix F). The wetland present on the Orono Substation site is a large ' portion of PWI unnamed (27-916 W) crossed by the Project. The other PWI unnamed (27-917 W) crossed by the Project appears to have once been connected to unnamed (27-916 W) and likely will be of similar make up. Both of these wetlands are identified as public water wetlands (MnDNR ' 2010d). However, human impact in the form of residential development has since separated these two wetlands for construction of a road within the HFA. ' The proposed Project will have minor, mostly short term effects on surface water resources and associated wetlands. Most potential effects on surface waters and wetlands will be related to construction of the proposed transmission line across the existing wetlands. The Project may ' require wetland and water resource approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"), MnDNR,Hennepin County and the MWCD. USACE administers the federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. A license from the MnDNR is required to cross public water wetlands. ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 55 1 Appendix B-6 shows wetland locations and Table 13 summarizes the wetlands located within the ' 75-foot-wide easement and 400-foot-wide corridor width associated with the Proposed Route. Table 13 1 Wetlands within the Proposed Route Township Range Section Wetland Type " Wetland Area (acres) Wetlands Within 75-foot-wide Easement 118 23 29 PEM 0.44 118 23 30 PEM 2.85 Subtotal 3.29 Wetlands Within 400-foot-wide Route Width 118 23 29 PEM 2.15 118 23 30 PEM 11.48 Subtotal 13.63 Based on the USFWS-Cowardin Classification System for wetlands. Wetland types include:PEM—(Palustrine Emergent). Approximately 3.29 acres of wetlands are located within the 75-foot wide easement area and 13.63 acres of wetlands are located within the 400 foot wide route width of the Proposed Route. Because the proposed transmission line easement will be 75 feet wide, potential permanent impacts to wetlands will be limited to the areas where structures will be located and operated,as well as removal of vegetation for construction and operation of the overhead transmission line. Therefore, permanent wetland impacts are anticipated to be much less than the wetland areas indicated in Table 13, and a minimal amount of wetland conversion is expected for the Project. Temporary impacts from construction vehicles and equipment would occur in the areas needed to access the transmission structure locations for construction. The final locations of the transmission structures has yet to be determined. Similar to the Proposed Route, the USFWS' Cowardin System classifies the majority of wetlands affected by Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 as Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded or wet meadows. Approximately 2.05 acres of wetlands are located within the 75-foot wide easement area of Alternative Route 1, approximately 1.26 acres for Alternative Route 2, approximately 2.05 acres for Alternative Route 3 and approximately 4.08 acres for Alternative Route 4. For similar reasons noted above, wetland impacts within the Alternative Routes are expected to be much less than the area of wetlands located within the easement area. Wetlands crossed by the Proposed and Alternative Routes may be jurisdictional to the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Once the route is finalized and permitting requirements determined, Xcel Energy will submit the Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects to the USACE's St.Paul District,MnDNR, and Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District ("SWCD'), if needed. Xcel Energy anticipates the Project will be authorized, if needed, under the USACE's General Permit ("GP")/Letter of Permission ("LOP") permitting program. Application materials will include information necessary for the USAGE to make its jurisdictional determination for impacted wetlands. The joint application will also be subject to MnDNR, Hennepin County SWCD and MCWD review and regulation under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 56 According to the Clean Water Act, Section 401 water quality certification is required for activities that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. On non-tribal lands in Minnesota,such as the Orono Substation site and Proposed Route, the MPCA administers Section 401 water quality ' certification. If the USAGE authorizes the Project under its GP/LOP permitting program as expected, the MPCA waives its Section 401 Water Quality Certification authority. ' Although the Orono Substation, and to a lesser degree the surrounding residential lots, have a greater elevation than the wetland areas, the entire Project is located within the 100-year floodplain (fl MA, 1994) and is designated as Zone A. The 100-year floodplain maps indicate areas with a one ' percent chance of being inundated by water in any given year. The Zone A designation for this area means that no flood base elevations have been designated. The crossing of the 100-year floodplain occurs in upland areas as well as wetland areas. Although the Orono Substation and first 410 feet of ' proposed transmission line leaving the substation site is located within the 100-year floodplain, the elevation (983) of this area is much greater than the surrounding wetlands areas (964). Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy will obtain a MnDNR License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters from the MnDNR Division of Waters because the proposed transmission line passes over, and across wetlands ' designated as state public waters (unnamed 27-916 W and 27-917 W), under Minn. Stat. § 84.415. This license will include specific requirements for the PWI crossing. In addition to implementation of storm water BMPs and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP') during construction, ' Xcel Energy will implement the requirements of the MnDNR license to cross the PWIs. In addition to the wetland delineation that was conducted at the existing Orono Substation site,Xcel Energy will conduct wetland delineation of the Proposed Route for the new transmission line. ' During construction, the most effective way to minimize impacts on wetland areas will be to span wetlands to the extent possible. In addition, crossing wetlands with equipment will be avoided except where necessary. Where wetlands must be crossed to pull in the new conductors and shield ' wires, workers may be required to walk or drive equipment across ice in the winter. These construction practices will help prevent soil erosion and ensure that construction vehicles and equipment fueling and lubricating will occur at a distance from wetlands. Xcel Energy will follow ' standard erosion control measures identified in the MPCA Stormwater BMP Manual,such as using silt fencing to minimize impacts on adjacent water resources. ' Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through appropriate construction practices. Construction crews will maintain sound water and soil conservation practices during construction and operation of the facilities to protect topsoil and adjacent water resources and minimize soil erosion. Practices ' may include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil, and stabilizing restored soil. Crews will avoid major disturbance of individual wetlands and drainage systems during construction. This will be accomplished by strategically locating new access roads and spanning wetlands and ' drainage systems where possible. The Project design will incorporate spacing of structures to span wetlands and streams to the extent ' possible. However,it is possible that some transmission structures could be placed within wetlands; any necessary permits will be obtained after final design is completed and prior to starting construction. When it is not feasible to span the wetland,construction crews will use several methods to minimize ' impacts: ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 57 1 • When possible,construction will be scheduled for when the ground is frozen; ' • Crews will attempt to take the shortest route when they access the wetland; • The structures will be assembled on upland areas before they are brought to the site for installation;and • When construction during winter is not possible, construction mats will be used where wetlands will be affected. Xcel Energy will obtain the required permits if waters of the United States, as defined by the USAGE,or wetlands,as defined under the Minnesota WCA,are affected. No impacts to the identified floodplainare anticipated from the Project. However,Xcel Energy will design the Project to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts by siting transmission structures outside of the floodplain and controlling storm water runoff from the replacement substation site,to the extent possible. 6.5.4 Flora Land use within Hennepin County varies greatly from major metropolitan centers to industrial use, rural residential use and agricultural use. Although the majority of the land within Hennepin County is used for agriculture, the land adjacent to the proposed Project is larger developed residential parcels, undeveloped association land, wetlands or undevelopable park land (see Appendices B-8 and B-9). Other land uses adjacent to or within the proposed Project include undeveloped open and herbaceous and forest land. Forest lands in the area primarily consist of deciduous forest types (e.g.,maple,oak). On February 17, 2011, Xcel Energy requested that the MnDNR provide Natural History Inventory System ("NHIS") data related to the Project site. In its March 31, 2011 letter, the MnDNR did not identify any rare flora features near the Project location.See Appendix C.1. The majority of trees within and near the Project are associated with residential areas and the Baker Park Reserve. In total the requested 400 foot corridor encompasses approximately 28.8 acres, of which trees cover occurs on approximately 2.7 acre. Removal of vegetation and trees and impacts to wetlands will be minimized to the extent possible through detailed Project design, siting of transmission structures and construction methods. Mitigative Measures , Xcel Energy has selected the Proposed Project Route and design of the proposed Orono Substation replacement within Xcel Energy property to avoid occupied residences, private land and associated trees as much as reasonably possible. In addition,where possible the new transmission line will be located during detailed design and during construction to avoid existing trees. To minimize impacts on trees,only trees located within the transmission line right-of-way,and expanded substation areas, or those trees that will affect the safe operation of the transmission line will be removed. Trees outside the right-of-way that may need to be removed will primarily include trees that are unstable and could potentially fall into the transmission facilities. Xcel Energy will work with landowners to ' Orono Project June 7,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 58 ' modify the proposed construction area such that vegetation and tree removal is avoided to the extent possible. 6.5.5 Fauna Wildlife within the area of the Project consists primarily of deer, small mammals,waterfowl,raptors, ' and perching birds (MnDNR). These species are typically observed in areas that are primarily open and agricultural,with limited opportunities for nesting and cover. Threatened species and species of concern in near the Project are discussed further in Section 6.6 below. ' The land use at and within the vicinity of the proposed Project is predominantly residential or undeveloped wetland. The primary potential impact presented to fauna by transmission lines is the potential injury and death of migratory birds such as raptors,waterfowl,and other large bird species. ' The electrocution of large birds, such as raptors, is more commonly associated with small distribution lines than large transmission lines. Electrocution occurs when birds with large wingspans come in contact with two conductors or with a conductor and a grounding device. Xcel Energy transmission and distribution line design standards provide adequate spacing to eliminate the risk of raptor electrocution and will minimize potential avian impacts of the proposed Project. ' Wildlife could also temporarily be displaced and a small area of habitat could be lost from the Project transmission line right-of-way during construction. Wildlife that inhabits trees that may be removed for the Project, along with wildlife that inhabits other undeveloped areas, will likely be ' temporarily displaced. Similar tree habitats are found on land adjacent to the Proposed Route; therefore,it is likely that these species will only be displaced a short distance. In September 2010 and January 2011, Xcel Energy requested comments from MnDNR regarding ' impacts on wildlife in the vicinity of the Project. In a letter dated March 31, 2011 the MnDNR identified two avian species near the Project location, including Trumpeter Swans and Bald Eagles. Of these species, the Trumpeter Swan has a State status of Threatened and the Bald Eagle has a ' State status of Special Concern. See Sections 6.6 and 8.1.6 and Appendix C.1 for more information regarding this correspondence. ' Mitigative Measures Displacement of fauna is anticipated to be minor and temporary in nature, and no long-term ' population-level effects are anticipated. Xcel Energy has been working with various state and federal agencies over the past 20 years to address avian issues as quickly and efficiently as possible. In 2002, Xcel Energy entered into a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the ' USFWS to work together to address avian issues throughout its service territories. This includes the development of Avian Protection Plans ("APP") for each Upper Midwest state Xcel Energy serves: Minnesota,South Dakota,and North Dakota. ' The primary methods Xcel Energy uses to address avian issues for transmission projects include: • working with resource agencies to identify any areas that may require marking ' transmission line shield wires or using alternate structures to reduce collisions (resource agencies include the MnDNR,USFWS,and the USAGE);and ' • attempting to avoid areas known as major flyways or migratory resting spots. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 59 Xcel Energy's transmission line design standards provide adequate spacing to eliminate such risks,so it is unlikely that any birds will be electrocuted as a result of the proposed Project. In addition to the mitigation Xcel Energy proposes above, the MnDNR recommends two measures ' to avoid impacts on rare features within the Project site (MnDNR) (see Appendix C.1). These recommended MnDNR measures include the following: • due to the documented presence of Trumpeter Swans, a state-listed threatened species, in close proximity to the proposed Project, use ofbird diverters on overhead lines near lakes and rivers,or other areas that may attract large concentrations of waterfowl;and ' • discuss in the Route Permit Application if the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect the Trumpeter Swan and, if so, atiy avoidance or mitigation measures that will be implemented. Avian collisions are possible in areas where agricultural fields serve as feeding areas, as well as in wetlands and on open water. However, the Project site is not located near agricultural fields but is located near many existing transportation and utility corridors,'as well as other infrastructure (e.g. residences). Therefore, these species are likely already acclimatized to human development. Xcel Energy is working with the MnDNR Regional Environmental-:Assessment Ecologist to determine appropriate and applicable mitigation measures to address these,concerns regarding the Project. Mitigation measures specific to those species identified by the MnDNR as threatened or species of ' concern are also discussed in Section 6.6. 6.6 Rare and Unique Natural Resources , A request for a MnDNR NHIS search and comments regarding rare species and natural communities for the Project was submitted to the MnDNR on February 17, 2011. The results of the MnDNR NHIS response dated March 31, 2011 are included in Appendix C.1. The following assessment is based on MnDNR response,a review of the Natural Heritage Database that is licensed to Xcel Energy by the MnDNR, and other state and federal rare species and natural community information. The MnDNR NHIS database was queried to obtain the locations of rare and unique natural resources across the Project Site. Queries to the NHIS database often display species that either do not have a status or are of special concern (referred to as "SPC" in the tables below). Species or communities that do not have a status, or are classified as special concern, have no legal protection in Minnesota. Only potential impacts on non-aquatic species with legal protection (threatened and endangered) are discussed below. Within one mile of the proposed Project routes, the NHIS database identified one rare and unique species. See Appendix C.1. The identified species included the Trumpeter Swan. The Trumpeter Swan is listed as threatened at the state level. The Trumpeter Swan is typically found in shallow marshes and lakes. Additionally, the NHIS database identified one additional species (Bald Eagle), one animal assemblage (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area), one vascular plant (American Ginseng) and two native plant communities (Undetermined Class and Red Oak-Sugar Maple-Basswood Forest Type). Although the NHIS database identified these additional resources they have a State listing status of either special concern or N/A. Due to their State status these additional resources Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 60 I I I have no legal protection in Minnesota. Table 14 summarizes the species found, their habitats, and their state status for the proposed Project. I Table 14 Rare and Unique Resources Near the Proposed Project I Common Name Scientific Number of Most Recent State r Name Occurrences Occurrence MN Statusa Rank a Habitat Trumpeter Swan Cygnus Not provided 2009 THR S2B Shallow I buccinators by NHIS Marshes,and response Lakes I Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Not provided leucocephalus by NHIS 2005 SPC S3B,S3N Near rivers, large lakes response and other areas of large I open water American Ginseng Panax Not provided 1995 SPC S3 Rich quinquefolius by NHIS hardwood __-., response forests Colonial Waterbird NA Not provided 1998 N/A SNR NA I Nesting Site by NHIS response I Native Plant NA Not provided 1995 N/A SNR NA Community, by NHIS Undetermined Class response I Red Oak Sugar NA Not provided 1988 N/A S2 NA Maple-Basswood by NHIS Forest Type response I a At the state level,"THR"refers to species listed as threatened,"SPC"refers to species of special concern,and"N/A"refers to native plant communities, geological features, and/or colonial waterbird nesting sites that have no legal status. In addition, Minnesota also assigns a rank to listed species. This rank reflects the known extent and condition of that species. Ranks range from Sl (in greatest need of conservation action in the state) to S5 (secure under present conditions), and SNR (rank not yet Iassessed). Wetlands will be avoided to the extent possible as discussed above in Section 6.5.3 and the nearest lake (Katrina Lake) is approximately 1,000 feet north from its nearest point to the Proposed Route. ITherefore, the Trumpeter Swan is unlikely to be affected. Since the Proposed Route and the Alternative Routes are all within a relatively short distance from I each other it has been assumed that the NHIS database would be similar for the Proposed and Alternative Routes. See Appendix G-4. IMitigative Measures To mitigate potential impacts on species occupying wetland communities, structures and poles will I be placed so that the conductor spans waterbodies, watercourses, and wetlands to the extent possible. Sediment will be controlled so that it does not reach aquatic and wetland habitats. I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 61 1 To prevent impacts on the Trumpeter Swan, to the extent possible and applicable, Xcel Energy , intends to adopt the mitigation measures recommended by the MnDNR (see Appendix C.1), and Xcel Energy will continue to work with the MnDNR to appropriately implement such measures. ' 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Orono Project June 7, 2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 62 7.0 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTES The extent of the area used to compare the Proposed and Alternative Routes vary depending on the ' applicable siting factors,including: i. aesthetics, cultural values, recreation, public services, tourism, electrical system ' reliability, flora and fauna were identified within the Project location; ii. rare and unique natural resources and archaeological and historic resources were identified within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project location; air quality, water quality, route specific design issues and existing infrastructure were identified within the requested 400-foot route width of the Project route centerline; ' iv. residences, noise, or public health and safety were identified within 200 feet of the Project route centerline;and ' v. wetlands, floodplains, and flora were identified within the 75-foot-wide easement width or the Proposed Route. ' For each siting factor, the potential effect of the each route is briefly summarized or it was determined there was no effect for the factor. There are no anticipated effects for several siting factors including: noise, displacement of residents, cultural values, tourism, public services, infrastructure, public health and safety, forestry, air quality, water quality, public water crossings, mining, electrical system reliability, agriculture and loss of ' prime farmland. For other siting factors, the effects for the Proposed and Alternative Routes are similar, including: archaeological resources, historic resources, floodplains, flora, fauna, rare and unique resources,and forested areas. Table G.2 in Appendix G summarizes Xcel Energy's application of the factors set forth in Minn. R. 7850.4100 for the Proposed and Alternative Routes. In general, in comparison to the Alternative ' Routes,the Proposed Route has no impacts on these factors,less impacts on these factors or similar impacts to these factors than the Alternative Routes. The primary differences between the Proposed Route and the Alternative Routes are the effects on the following siting factors: recreation, existing rights-of-way, and wetland crossings. Based on this analysis,the Proposed Route has fewer impacts compared to the Alternative Routes as follows: • The Proposed and Alternative Routes generally cross the same type of landscape in a predominantly undeveloped open setting. To minimize impacts on these land uses, the Proposed Route parallels the BNSF railroad right-of-way for 57 percent of the route,while Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 follow existing road or railroad right-of-way for 37, 43, 44, and 0 percent of their routes, respectively. Alternative Route 4 follows an existing GRE transmission right-of-way for approximately 3,130 feet(84 percent) of this route; • The Proposed Route will cross approximately 2,140 lineal feet of wetland. Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 will cross approximately 1,760, 750, 1,760 and 2,370 lineal feet of Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 63 1 1 wetland, respectively. The Proposed Route will affect approximately 2 acres more of wetlands than Alternative Route 2 assuming a 75-foot-wide route width in each route; • Except for replacing existing transmission Structure 076 which is located within existing ' right-of-way on Baker Park Reserve property, the Proposed Route is outside of the Baker Park Reserve property. Three of the four Alternative Routes enter the Baker Park Reserve Property and would require new right-of-way, creating new impacts; ' • Except for the existing Line 0831 conductors, the Proposed Route does not cross the BNSF railroad,U.S. Highway 12 or the Metropolitan Council's sewer line,however three of the four Alternative Routes cross these infrastructures;and • Xcel Energy is in discussions with two private landowners to move the portion of existing Line 0831, that is on their respective residential properties, north onto HFA land. Relocating this portion of Line 0831 is only associated with the Proposed Route. None of the Alternative Routes would relocate existing transmission facilities off residential property. i 1 Orono Project June 7,2011 I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 64 8.0 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,AND REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ' 8.1 Agency Contacts and Response ' 8.1.1 Notice to Local Government Units Xcel Energy provided a notification letter to the City of Orono, the LGU for the Project on January 10, 2011. See Appendix C.2. This letter indicated that Xcel Energy intended to apply for a Route Permit for the proposed Project from the Commission. The notification letter to the LGU complies with the notice requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 3a. Xcel Energy has not to date received response regarding the Project from the City of Orono after this notification. ' As discussed in Section 4.2.2,Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the proposed Project from the City. The City subsequently voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the ' Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(b), and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4 (see Appendix C, C.3). Xcel Energy then initiated the State permitting process for the Project. Xcel Energy has had an opportunity to meet with the City and other LGUs during meetings conducted in June and August 2010. These meetings are discussed further in Section 8.3. 8.1.2 Notice to Other Agencies and Interested Parties ' Xcel Energy also provided notice of the Project and requested comments in a letter on January 10, 2011, to several non-LGU, agencies and interested parties associated with the Project. The purpose of the letter was to provide notice of Xcel Energy's plan to obtain a Route Permit from the Commission and request for comments on the proposed Project. See Appendix C.2 for the non- LGU mailing list and a copy of this letter. ' 8.1.3 Natural Resource Conservation Service In a letter dated January 20, 2011, the NRCS Environmental Review and Justice Program indicated that since the Project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act are not applicable to the Project(see Appendix C.4) ' 8.1.4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service In an email dated February 8, 2011, the USFWS indicated that no Federally listed or proposed species and /or designated or proposed critical habitat is present within the action area of the proposed Project. The USFWS did recommend that given the proximity to the Baker Park Reserve and the crossing of the wetland between the proposed Orono Substation replacement and the BNSF ' railroad right-of-way that bird flight diverters be installed on the shield wire of the proposed transmission line crossing this wetland. Additionally, the USFWS did recommend that if any maintenance work were to take place on the existing transmission Line 0831 within the Baker Park ' Reserve that bird flight diverters also be placed on the shield wire of the transmission line for the portion that crosses the Baker Park Reserve. (See Appendix C.5). ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 65 i i 8.1.5 Minnesota Department of Transportation In a letter dated October 14, 2010, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") indicated that the proposed location of the new 115 kV transmission line would be an improvement over the existing 69 kV GRE Line BD location, which it indicated would be removed, and that MnDOT does not have any concerns with the scope of the Environmental Assessment for the Project2. (See Appendix C.6). It should be noted that MnDOT misunderstood that the existing 1 GRE 69 kV transmission line is to be disconnected from the existing Orono Substation, that it will not be connected to the replacement substation, and that GRE will re-route this line around the replacement substation. Xcel Energy will discuss this misunderstanding with MnDOT. 8.1.6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Xcel Energy submitted two formal consultations to the MnDNR in letter form requesting 1 comments on the proposed Project. The first letter was sent to the MnDNR in September of 2010 and the second letter was sent in January of 2011. At this time, no response from the MnDNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecological contact has been received for the Project. Xcel Energy also requested a review of the Minnesota NHIS on February 17, 2011, to determine if rare plants, animals, and natural communities or other significant natural features are known to occur within the Project Area (see also Section 6.6 above and Appendix C.1). On March 31, 2011, the MnDNR provided the Natural Heritage Review for the Project. The MnDNR identified one rare and unique species, within approximately one mile of the Project. (see Appendix C.1). As discussed in Section 6.6, the species includes the Trumpeter Swan. The Trumpeter Swan is typically found in shallow marshes and lakes. As discussed in Section 6.5.6, the MnDNR indicated that no rare or unique flora related resources with State protection were present within one mile of the proposed Project. Xcel Energy is currently working with the MnDNR to determine appropriate and applicable mitigation measures (see Sections 6.5.6,6.5.7,and 6.6) for the Project. 8.1.7 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office In a September 2010 letter,Xcel Energy notified the Minnesota SHPO of the Project and requested comments concerning cultural resources associated with the Project. On October 21, 2010, the SHPO responded via letter that due to the nature of the Project, it recommends that an archaeological survey be completed (see Appendix C.7). In response to the SHPO request, Xcel Energy engaged URS to complete a Phase Ia literature review and prepare a Phase Ia Report for the Project. On April 13, 2011, Xcel Energy submitted a consultation letter with a copy of the Phase Ia Report to the SHPO requesting SHPO written agreement with a Phase la Report findings for the Project, which recommended that for the majority of the proposed Project no archaeological or historic resources will be affected by construction or operation of the transmission line Project. However, the Phase Ia Report did identify one area of concern at the proposed Orono Substation replacement site. The Phase Ia 2 Note that the MnDOT response refers to the scope of the Environmental Assessment which was going to be prepared in the local review process, before the City referred the Project to the MPUC. 1 See Section 8.3. Orono Project June 7,2011 1 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 66 1 ' Report recommended that archaeological field surveys be initiated in areas previously undisturbed prior to construction at the Orono Substation replacement site. On May 12, 2011, the SHPO responded to the April 2011 request and it concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of ' the Phase Ia Report (see Appendix C.7). Xcel Energy will continue to work with the Minnesota SHPO to determine the appropriate next steps for the Project. ' 8.1.8 Metropolitan Council In a letter dated October 26,2010,Metropolitan Council indicated that the potential visual and noise ' impacts to the Baker Park Reserve should be evaluated in the EA. Additionally the Metropolitan Council indicated that the proposed transmission line will cross Council forcemain interceptor 8352 which is a 12-inch outside diameter ductile iron pipe. The Metropolitan Council requested that preliminary plans be sent to Scott Dentz for review and comment prior to construction to assess potential impacts to the interceptor pipe. (See Appendix C.8). 8.1.9 Three Rivers Park District ' The Three Rivers Park District provided three responses to request for comment regarding the Project (October 26,2010,November 12, 2010,and January 26,2011) (see Appendix C.9). In its October letter the Three Rivers Park District indicated that it appeared no new construction from the Proposed Route will affect the Park District Property. Comments in the November letter from the Three Rivers Park District related to the evaluation of the Alternative Routes. The Three Rivers Park District indicated that it had concerns with at least one of the Alternative Routes discussed at meeting between the Three Rivers Park District and Xcel Energy on November 1, 2010. Of concern, was that one of the Alternative Routes discussed was proposed to be located within the Baker Park Reserve and that under Minnesota State Statutes the Park District is charged to operate, maintain, protect, improve and preserve the park system. ' Further the November letter explained that under the State Statute, diversion of Park District property for any purpose other than those for which the lands were acquired will be strongly opposed by the Three Rivers Park District. ' In the January letter, the Three Rivers Park District thanked Xcel Energy for informing the District of the proposal to expand and upgrade the Orono Substation and construct the new 115 kV ' transmission line. 8.2 Identification of Landowners ' A list of the nine landowners surrounding the Project location is included in Appendix D.1. Addresses have been redacted from the landowner list and comment forms due to privacy concerns. 8.3 Public Participation In developing the route alternatives, Xcel Energy consulted with local, state, and federal agencies ' associated with the area with which the Project lies. As discussed in Section 8.1, Xcel Energy provided a notification letter to the Project's LGU on January 10, 2011. Xcel Energy also provided a request for comment letter to various agencies that may have interest in the Project on January 10, ' 2011. Agencies generally responded with specific environmental or other data (e.g., special status ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 67 species, land use maps) and applicable guidelines, rules, and regulations, a summary of which is ' provided in Section 8.1 above. Xcel Energy will continue to communicate with these agencies throughout the permitting process. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the Project from the City of Orono. On August 20, 2010, Xcel Energy applied for a CUP from the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(a),and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 1. On December 13,2010,the Orono City Council voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05,subd. 1(b),and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4. The following summarizes the several meetings Xcel Energy has participated in during the route development and initial permitting processes. • City of Orono Planning Commission meeting on September 20,2010; I • Meeting with Three Rivers Park District on November 1,2010; • City of Orono City Council meeting on December 13,2010; • Meetings with surrounding landowners on various dates;and ' • Meeting with BNSF on March 17,2011. Comments from the public are included in Appendix D.2. In general, public comments have been related to the following; a concern that the proposed Project will decrease property values of homes within the HFA, EMF risks, environmental issues and mosquito control. Additionally, many of the HFA home owners commented to the City of Orono on their preference that the City maintain local review of the project and not refer it back to the Commission. Xcel Energy has been working with the City, various agencies, and landowners to establish an ' acceptable route that results in the least impacts practicable on current infrastructure,residences,and future development. On several occasions last winter and spring of 2011 Xcel Energy met or corresponded with the two landowners who own residences where existing Line 0831 crosses their respective properties. The parties discussed options for routing the new proposed 115 kV transmission line that would connect to Line 0831, and the possibility of moving existing Line 0831 from their properties onto adjacent HFA land. At this time, the parties are working toward an agreement to move existing Line 0831 from these properties and re-routing Line 0831 on HFA property which parallels the BNSF railroad ' right-of-way. Xcel Energy is also working with representatives of HFA concerning this matter. Xcel Energy also met with the landowner west and adjacent to the existing substation site regarding replacement of the substation, placement of transmission structures, site grading and vegetation. Xcel Energy will continue to work with this landowner. Xcel Energy also corresponded and met with BNSF representatives concerning placement of the ' new 115 kV transmission structures and conductors at least five feet from existing BNSF railroad right-of-way. On May 9, 2011, Xcel Energy submitted to BNSF an "Application for Wireline Crossing or Longitudinal" for the proposed transmission line. On June 2, 2011, BNSF approved Orono Project June 7,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 68 ' the Permit Application for Wireline Crossing or Longitudinal to place the new structures at least five feet from the existing BNSF railroad right-of way. ' 8.4 Required Permits and Approvals The following Table 15 identifies federal, state, and local permits and approvals that could ' potentially be required for the Project. Table 15 Potential Required Permits ' Jurisdiction and Permit!! Requirement _ _ . �.. . ... ._ USAGE, Clean Water Required if dredging and filling activities will occur within jurisdictional Act, Section 404 wetlands. If the proposed activities are not eligible for coverage' under the Permit General Permit or Letter of Permission, an Individual Permit will be ( obtained from the USAGE. ....+�,v...,»... ,... .(,. ..a..sr r..`. Commission, Route Required for any transmission line of 100 kV or greater and greater than Permit 1,500 feet in length. ' MnDNR, License to Required if any work is necessary in public waters. Cross Public Lands and Waters ' MnDOT, Utility Required to place utilities on Minnesota trunk highway right-of-way. Permit MPCA, NPDES/SDS Required under the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for ' General Stormwater Construction Activity where construction activities will cause more than Permit for one acre of ground disturbance. ' Construction Activity MPCA, Section 401 Required if the USAGE requires an individual permit for wetland dredging Water Quality and filling activities. Certification 1 ' Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 69 Jurisdiction and , Permit Requirement Culvert Required if extending/connecting culverts. (Sometimes also referred to as Extension/Connectio an Entrance Permit.) n , Driveway Permit Required for any changes proposed to driveway access or driveway widening along county highways, including field driveways, residential driveways, commercial driveways and public street access. (Sometimes also referred to as an Access Permit.) Moving Permit Required whenever legal dimensions and/or axle weights are exceeded per (Hauling) county regulations. Oversize/Overweight' Required on all county highways. May be required to move over-width Vehicle Permit loads on county,township,or city roads. Utility Permit Required for work proposed in the county highway rights-of-way. Work requiring this permit includes installation and repair of telephone cables, power lines, gas lines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water mains, ditch grading,culvert installation,etc. Wetland Permit Required for activities in wetlands,if needed. Working in the Right- Requited if constructing on, across, or under the right-of-way of a county of-Way Permit highway. For the other permits listed in Table 15 above, and any additional permit requirements identified during subsequent agency consultations, Xcel Energy will acquire the necessary authorizations and develop the appropriate plans associated with any permit or authorization (e.g.,stormwater pollution prevention management plan prior to construction. ' 1 1 1 1 1 Orono Project June 7,2011 , MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 70 ' 9.0 REFERENCES ' Anfinson,S. 1990. Mn/Model:An Archaeological Predictive Model for Minnesota. Available online at http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to200/ pap151/p151.htm. Accessed July 2010. ' City of Orono. Flood Plain Map.Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPart3AMAP3A6Floodplains.pdf Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Land Use Plan 2010 Map.Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART3BMap3B62030LandUsePlanasrevised 61610.pdf Accessed February 2011. ' City of Orono. Comprehensive Trail System Plan Map. Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/Maps forCity/CMPPART4EMAP4E3Trails.pdf ' Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Parks,open Spaces,Trails and Recreational Areas Map. Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART4EMAP4E2Parks.pdf Accessed ' February 2011. Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Sanitary Sewer System Index Map. Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART4CMAP4C4SewerSystemIndexMap.p df Accessed February 2011. Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. City of Orono Zoning Map.Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART3BMAP3B8Zoning.pdf Accessed ' February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ecological Classification System. Available online at ' http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222/index.html Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Bigwoods Subsection. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Mb/index.html. Accessed February 2011. ' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. PWI Maps Download. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/download.html. Accessed February 2011. ' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Animals. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nr/index.html. Accessed March 2011. ' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated March 31,2011 from L.Joyal (Natural Heritage Review Coordinator) to D. Daniels (URS Corporation). Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office. Letter dated October 21, 2010, ' from M.A. Heidemann (Manager, Government Programs and Compliance) to J. Sedarski (Xcel Energy). ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 71 i 1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota Acoustical t Properties,Measurement,Analysis and Regulation. Available online at http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/Sound.pdf. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota River Basin Data Center. Glaciation. Available online at http://mrbdc.wrc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/glaciers.html. Accessed February 2011. Scholten,A.,S.Joosten,and J. Silney. 2005. Unipolar Cardiac Pacemakers in Electromagnetic ' Fields of High Voltage Overhead Lines. Toivoen,L.,J.Valjus,M. Hongisto,and R. Metso. 1991. The Influence of Elevated 50 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers:The,Role of the.Lead Configuration and Programming of the Sensitivity. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for City of Orono,Hennepin County,Minnesota. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_ I0_PL QTPL&prodType=table U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for City of Orono,Hennepin County,Minnesota. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US2748580&.geoC ontext=01000US%7C04000US27%7C16000US2748580& street=&_county=orono&_cityTo wn=orono&_state=04000US27&_zip=& lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=& useEV=& pctxt=fph&pgs1=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR SAFF&_ci_nb r=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=& industry=Accessed February and March 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for Hennepin County,Minnesota. Available online http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=050 ' 00US27053&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US27%7C16000US2748580&_street=&_co unty=Hennepin&_cityTown=Hennepin&_state=04000US27&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on &ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgs1=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1& ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword =&_industry= Accessed February and march 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County QuickFacts. Available online at ' http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/27053.html. Accessed February and March 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hennepin County. Available online at http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Manuscripts/MN053/0/hennepin.pdf Accessed February 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture. Available online at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Minnesota /cp27053.pdf. Accessed February 2011. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service—Soil Data Mart. 2008. , Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2011. U.S.Department of Homeland Security. FEMA. Hosted by the Minnesota DNR Data Deli. 2006. ' Available online at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/. Accessed February 2011. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Counties Designated"Nonattainment." Available online at http://epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/mapnpoll.html. Accessed October 2010. Orono Project June 7,2011 ' MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 72 1 ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 1 1 1 1 i i ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 73 10.0 DEFINITIONS Following are a list of definitions for technical terms used in this Application: ' Avian Of or relating to birds. Breaker Device for opening a circuit. ' Bus An electrical conductor that serves as a common connection for two or more electrical circuits; may be in the form of rigid bars or stranded conductors or cables. Conductor A material or object that permits an electric current to flow easily. Corona The breakdown or ionization of air in a few centimeters or less immediately surrounding conductors. Double circuit The construction of two separate circuits at the same or different voltage on the same structures to increase capacity of the line. Electric Field("EF") The field of force that is produced as a result of a voltage charge on a conductor or antenna. Electromagnetic The term describing the relationship between electricity and magnetism; a quality that combines both magnetic and electric properties. Electromagnetic Field The combination of an electric (E) field and a magnetic (H)field, such as in ("EMF") high frequency radiating fields. For the lower frequencies associated with , power lines, EMF should be separated into electric and magnetic fields. Electric and magnetic fields arise from the flow of electricity and the voltage of a line. The intensity of the electric field is related to the voltage of the line. The intensity of the magnetic field is related to the current flow through the conductors. Electromotive Force The force (voltage) that produces an electric current in a circuit. ' Excavation A cavity formed by cutting,digging,or scooping. Fauna The collective animals of any place or time that live in mutual association. Flora The collective plants of any place or time that live in mutual association. Grading To level off to a smooth horizontal or sloping surface. Grounding To connect electrically with a ground;to connect some point of an electrical circuit or some item of electrical equipment to earth or to the conducting medium used in lieu thereof. Habitat The place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows. High Voltage Overhead and underground conducting lines of either copper or aluminum Transmission Lines used to transmit electric power over relatively long distances, usually from a ("HVTL") central generating station to main substations. They are also used for electric power transmission from one central station to another for load sharing. In Minnesota, a HVTL is a conductor of electric energy and associated facilities designed for and capable of operating at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more either immediately or without significant modification (associated facilities include, but not be limited to, insulators, towers, substations,and terminals). See Minn. Rules 7850.1000,Subp. 9. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 74 ' Ionization Removal of an electron from an atom or molecule. The process of producing ions. The electrically charged particles produced by high-energy radiation, such as light or ultraviolet rays, or by the collision of particles ' during thermal agitation. Magnetic Field ("MF") The region in which the magnetic forces created by a permanent magnet or by a current-carrying conductor or coil can be detected. The field that is ' produced when current flows through a conductor or antenna. Mitigate To lessen the severity of or alleviate the effects of. Neutral to Earth The term NEV is used to describe a measurable level of voltage which may Voltage ("NEV") occur between a metal object and the adjacent floor or earth. Oxide A compound of oxygen with one other more positive element or radical. ' Ozone A form of oxygen in which the molecule is made of three atoms instead of the usual two. Raptor A member of the order Falconiformes, which contains the diurnal birds of prey, such as the hawks,harriers,eagles,and falcons. Sediment Material deposited by water,wind,or glaciers. Stray Voltage A condition that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from distribution lines, not transmission lines. More precisely, stray voltage is a voltage that exists between the neutral wire of the service entrance and grounded objects in buildings such as barns and milking parlors. ' Transmission lines do not, by themselves, create stray voltage because they do not connect to businesses or residences. Transmission lines, however, can induce stray voltage on a distribution circuit that is parallel to and immediately under the transmission line. Substation A substation is a high voltage electric system facility. It is used to switch generators, equipment, and circuits or lines in and out of a system. It also is used to change AC voltages from one level to another. Some substations are small with little more than a transformer and associated switches. Others are very large with several transformers and dozens of switches and other equipment. Ultraviolet Radiation A portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths shorter than visible light. Voltage Electric potential or potential difference expressed in volts. A unit of electrical pressure, electric potential or potential difference expressed in volts. The term used to signify electrical pressure. Voltage is a force that causes current to flow through an electrical conductor. The voltage of a circuit is the greatest effective difference of potential between any two conductors of the circuit. ' Voltage Drop The difference in voltage between two points; it is the result of the loss of electrical pressure as a current flows through a resistance. Waterfowl A bird that frequents water; especially a swimming game bird (as a duck or ' goose) as distinguished from an upland game bird or shorebird. Wetland Wetlands are areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water and support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil. ' Wetlands include swamps,marshes, bogs and similar areas. ' Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 75 11.0 ACRONYMS 1 ACSS ALUMINUM CORE STEEL SUPPORT APPLICATION MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ROUTE PERMIT APPLICATION BMPS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BNSF BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY CEF CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FINDING COMMISSION MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMPANY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY CON CERTIFICATE OF NEED CUP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DBA DECIBELS EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EFS ELECTRIC FIELDS ELF EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY EMF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS ECS ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FEMA FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. GP GENERAL PERMIT GRE GREAT RIVER ENERGY HFA HUNTINGTON FARMS ASSOCIATION HVTL HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINE ICNIRP INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON-IONIZING I RADIATION PROTECTION IEEE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS KCMIL THOUSAND CIRCULAR MIL I KV KILOVOLT KV/M KILOVOLTS PER METER L LEVEL DESCRIPTORS L10 THE DBA THAT MAY BE EXCEEDED 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME WITHIN AN HOUR L50 THE DBA THAT MAY BE EXCEEDED 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME WITHIN AN HOUR LEF LARGE ENERGY FACILITY LGU LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS LOP LEI 1'hR OF PERMISSION MA MILLIAMPERES MCWD MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT MFS MAGNETIC FIELDS Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 76 I I MG MILLIGAUSS MNDNR MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MNDOT MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPCA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MPUC MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION I NAC NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION NEMA NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION NERC NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION INESC NATIONAL ELECTRIC SAFETY CODE NEV NEUTRAL TO EARTH VOLTAGE I NHIS NIEHS NATURE HERITAGE INFORMATION SYSTEM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES I NPDES NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM NRHP NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NWI NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY IPEM PALUSTRINE EMERGENT WETLAND PEMCD PALUSTRINE EMERGENT SEASONALLY FLOODED PARTIALLY I PLS DRAINED/DITCHED WETLAND HISTORIC PUBLIC LAND SURVEY PPM PARTS PER MILLION IPPSA POWER PLANT SITING ACT PSCW PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN PWI PUBLIC WATERS INVENTORY ISHPO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SWCD SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT I SWPPP STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN USACE U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS USDA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IUSFS U.S. FOREST SERVICE USFWS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I WCA WHO MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION I I I I Orono Project June 7,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 77 1 ' APPENDIX A APPLICANT'S NOTICE LETTER TO COMMISSION OF INTENT TO USE ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING PROCESS ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TT.-11-223 I I ,0,,,„ ,..„ Xcel EClei'C'}/e 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,Minnesota 554014993 1 March 17,2011 --Via Electronic Filing-- I 1)r.Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary I Minne taPublic Utilati.esCommission. 121 Seventh Place East,.Snite 350 St. Paul,MN 55101 Re: Notification of Intent to File.Route Permit Application Under the Alternative PermittngProcess for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and Transmission Line Project Dear Dr,.,I ,: IIn accordance with Minnesota x.7850.2800, Subpart 2, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel ergy), hereby notifies the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of its intent to submit art iplication for a route permit for the Orono;Substation Expansion 1 and Transmission Line Project- (Project) pursuant: to the altexnativc pmithti,fig procedures in Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3700. I The proposed Project includes rebuilding the existing,'x °kilovolt (kV) Orono Substation to 115 kV and constructing up to on mile of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line to connect the planned substati To "Ming 115 kV transmission. Lint 083l located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County,'Minnesota. The#e I ject is needed to increase the-operating voltage frc in 69-0' to 115 kV which\.till improve local andsystem reliability,reduce the risk of overloads,and; additional load growth in the future. IXcel Energy puns to file the,application in April 2011 and will work with PUG and Office of Energy Security staff to address an► uestions and/or comments in order to expedite applicaton.acceptance and completion of the'eftvirOnmental assessment. IIf you have questions,plontact meat(612)330-635. IS cerely, se h G. Scdarski Sienior Permitting Analyst Icc: Deborah Pile,Office of Energy Security Bob Cupit, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission I 'Timothy G. Rogers,Xcel Energy Paull Lehman,Xe1Energy Christopher B. Clark,Xcel Energy I I I I I I I I I I I 1 APPENDIX B 1 Figures I I I I I I I MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I picnic Ansa sr'- T'•'$ j r, Y .J .. . y;� , 4,..j_ •.. - – .r te t d 1 I lit• • ••'4 •.• , f .. -ir ` •e. {i .,, ».. � G..-,,k ;- t ..3 fir. ,b, V . S Ad. • ::/o44/..,y P ; .ate E 1 .... ..,. ,....�: : =—w,- otic Ie iJ -� - S _ ~ It C t /�� ,�i Yom` € T.� 744:-..4,- .A !~ * t s — yy X44•,_ 4 _, - Iv ioC j., k''' ".." " .. -. / � g _ AEN-R. +1►. - .wi�' ��' rC` -, f `,'� , • .k - j$'}y St ,` Y.t .rw.^, '. ,� v r ,�c RMI' '• ;." I f r" .);11 e "'#,,, it .,i • �'IN 1 4. •► — - • .. I I . . ,,,, • „, - .....:•,-,_,..-.... : , ...,,k ,a I �� Proposed Route a1 .,_ ' e, ." . .-g.---i y''' �C Existing XceI Energy 115 kV Line 0831 1,.• a , ` r I T_. a .,-„ pip Existing GRE 69kV Line BD - ,k.,_, / )� GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed - " • — »x +-y, 4i �•'•.- V'o ... Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD �' ,- _.r> I x7772 Existing Orono Substation Property "%•• '. • i!' • Existing Substation ', .: --^� -` FIGURE B-1 I e �/ X;e,Eergy. _ ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT GENERAL VICINITY MAP z000 Topographic Map Source: ORONO, MINNESOTA USGS Excelsior,Minn. DRN BY: TS DATE 2/17/11 MPUC Docket No. I Feet Quad dated 1997 CHKD BY- DD DATE 217/11 E002/TL-11-223 I Ii I '-.1:-7,1-4 . Y ` y E L. I ‘• --I.' 41' . 4 3 1t; , I / 04 ial •L N ` / t 1 1 .ti 1 / .e fr AL rw„a, 7. y i`- Y r6G k ii �, o .: Y '' •4 *,1 L* 1 /'' it ,� ii m A 0 iL .4 F 4':4. 1 J ~i.,!:: c m r; - "'•a Y-,'• .-� .. ,. lie, 7. J I 9 'r •+ 4.'::- ''.....;:-'''''E'',. i - .-`: , 2 • ' .._fi " t_ I , om .+ J , !J - ``1M.'-'pip'... { - t_ {+ �� n; : ! a �. �/ �& Y . I _ i - { 1 r i A"r•i �r te`,. ,. _- �• - f !Y; Vii. -; .h ,, , i ..f.41,-.4.,.1-,7,:k74....-,;,.:- , . ,,,.. ...--.,.,-..f. i . i L• Z O Z ✓L O Z Z_ � m 8 Isaaf 1 -- g b 1 1=f°O i i � g al g` > e a I ,'Rd. :i t 22 5 E o m ry �p�i qq �qq y C _ 2 I-. I 1 < I \ \\\ - _ t $a 8 .w I t C` //� W W;Q::\*':„ \ � \ i\\\ __. j: i\;// 'Milli .,.....,,, L , .. „.. /,,,,. _ _ ,,,, _ . , ,4• . .„, . NV,. \\\, / 11 ,4 8 I \ \* m r Li ,-'' 'I / * ,,: \\\4,\ , e / ,.\\\N ,,, , . s ,„ xx,wx ;\ . _ .,---i ' -7-11:.;; .4 .\\, , \\\\\\ N \ - -44st,,&- :t..1 ii ----1.--' •\\4\\\ i 1 / r PI V . , _ i ANI 4,,,- -- \ _ 17 Ail _ i \ _ \ \ '5 r M ov z7§1, . . :::1--41:: \I . L'-':'':---'....--.2. ,----.: m � ,,s ,, \ It \r._____I - : a I S m m -- 4 P aM. L_____21 tV. i of �_ N`sk L 4---__ _I <- 7. � _ ■ l ' --\---_—_,, ,. _... ... i I _ -\\ ,_____,_ I7----\ 1 a I _, L. --- i ., / : ata, , 17471 › ilaVis a, --/r ---________.,..____ ! L2-A, . I \ flUd$ LL go Em § w` R I 2 W I QO \ .,_,,, ,:i,;:., '''',zi.(:':::::'-!,-.., . ''',1-'' s W W Q om, . ;Mil U j b I ` a Q W 1\\ *., .\ ,L; so z 2 ,,,r'::::-...;:,,/' ..mom ' -�: i i O1 NO \\ n \\\\14 1&.N.X.. /446/: /10,,..,x..‘,.. -`*--. ..,,'-_ . . .i 0:x -:, — I \s\ \\N'''N , .,:_ , , '- ,. „1 2a . . . \ .., 1.•. . \ -• \‘ ,it ii '. I \ \ , E I \ • ,:/: .4 I \ ,,,.'.,: ie ' _ S��. .Baa-,. L 1 / .1 _i' - .,-:,37,,,,-,:;:11.,. .:::::' CD, '_' 7 R J C c I .T13 TS„T- ., $ c c 6 5 - d o -o . O $' m c o o p 5 m =C „ cc d' T J t— C T O N m ..t 4„ C N N m Y m 22 CD 0 C - Z iir 1:1- ..?,..',44,71,4,;=,,,i -,`r 1 m m v X 0 s m X X O �;. .. o ll lL mp C m o rn rn m (r S ', c N u, G W _ _ m i o C_ C -C -_C O: I t.: O City of Orono Mayor and City Council ' December 10,2010 Page 5 ' Melissa Fogelberg (melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com) Michael Kuruvilla(Michael.lcuruvilla@att.net) Paul Fraser(pwfraser@gmail.com) Peter Schoon (Peter systemssupport.com) {138559.DOC- 12/10/2010} 1 P*01 Oft Seclarskl Joseph G From: Melanie Curtis [MCurtis@cl.orono.mn.usj , Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:17 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G; Rogers, Christopher C Subject: FW: Row of ten-story power poles, highline wires alt+rllarge electrical sub-station expansion FYI—This was sent over the weekend. Meltude Curtis I 952,249.4627 I nicurrisT ei.oronoann.us From: Peter Schoon [mailto:Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:53 PM To: Lili McMillan; Doug Franchot (doug@franchotassociates.corn); Jessica Loftus; Jessica Loftus; Mike Gaffron; Lin Vee; Melanie Curtis; Jim White; Cynthia Bremer; Jim Murphy (jmurphy@goldengate.net); Doug Franchot; lili4mayor@gmail.com; Cynthia Bremer (cynthia.bremer@ogletreedeakins.com) Cc: melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com; michael.kuruvilla@att.net; pwfraser@gmaiLcom; 'Bruce D. Malkerson'; 'Howard A. Roston'; 'Peter Schoon' Subject: Row of ten-story power poles, highline wires and large electrical sub-station expansion ' Dear Concerned Orono Residents and Leaders, Just ran across this... , The below fink is of interest as it is a good example of a City(City of South St. Paul) granting a conditional use permit to Xcel Energy for a comparable 115KVA power line while requiring mitigation to human and environmental concerns.In this case, Xcel was issued the CUP on condition of the expenditure of$4,610,000 dollars additional($5,000,000 vs. $390,000). In our case, mitigation could virtually be a wash if the project is just moved a few hundred feet North. htt12_/lam='ivw.powerlinefacts.corn/South%20St%20Pau l%20Resolution.htln But, to havethe ability to affect the outcome, Orono,1ikOrono,like South St.Paul,would have to"bite the bullet', stay in the loop; nd not abdicate authority to the PUC. It is really not an overly complex set of criteria to consider as you will see from the above'referenced decision, and I submit it does fall within the City of Orono's normal authority domain. Please don't relinquish your opportunity to defendyour cit, its environment, and its citizens. This project will Pp Y �'� project not only affect each and every one of us, but our children,grand childten,,and children's grand children for years, and years,and years to come, Very truly, .etLA it &hoot ' 994 Hunt Farm Road' Orono, MN USA 55356 ' 952 745-1111 x115(desk,cell) 1/02011 Resolution of South St. Paul Page 1 of 5 ICity of South St. Paul Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO.2001-152 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION BY ' NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY d/b/a XCEL ENERGY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UPGRADE OF A 115kV TRANSMISSION LINE. BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of South St. Paul,Minnesota,as follows: ' SECTION ONE Recitals I1.01 Northern States Power Company,doing business as Xcel Energy("NSP")filed an application for a conditional use permit to upgrade its existing 115kV transmission line within the City of South St. Paul by adding a second 115kV circuit and rebuilding the transmission line on monopole structures(the"Application"). I1.02 A public hawing on the Application was held before the Planning Commission on June 6,2001,following published and mailed notice as required by law. On June 13, 2001,the Planning Commission adopted its I findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation with respect to the Application("Planning Commission Recommendation"),which was forwarded to the City Council. I 1.03 By resolution adopted June 18,2001,the City Council extended the time to complete processing the Application to August 7,2001,for the reasons stated in the resolution.A certified copy of the resolution was sent by certified mail to NSP on June 20,2001,and a receipt therefore was signed by a representative of NSP. I1.04 The following documents and materials were provided to the Mayor and each Council member and constitute part of the record on the Application: ' • Application; • Supplement to Application,including aerial photo of transmission line route,southeast Metro transmission system diagram, structure drawing, H-frame photograph, computer generated monopole ' in South St. Paul residential area,Van Hoven reroute, • EQB FIS negative declaration; • Commonwealth Associates Inc. ('EAI")executive summary report for the Transmission Line Steering Committee; • City Planner's report and recommendation to the Planning Commission; • Power Line Task Force May 30,2001, communication to the Planning Commission; ' NSP slides presented to the Planning Commission On June 6,2001; • Power Line Task Force slides presented to the Planning Commission on June 6,2001; • Minutes of June 6,2001,Planning Commission meeting; • Power Line Task Force June 13,2001 communication; . Minutes of June 13,2001,Planning Commission meeting;and • Planning Commission resolution 2001-01 adopted June 13,2001. I 1.05 At its regular meeting on July 23,2001,the City Council considered and discussed the Application and the record and heard Pat Cline, Dave Callahan,arid Harold Bagley,Applicant representatives,who presented facts http://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 i Resolution of South St. Paul Page 2 of 5 and arguments in favor of the application and Roger Conant,Power Line Task Force,Joseph Turene, Sophie , Voigt,and Edward Chapdelaine who presented facts and arguments in opposition to the Application. 1.06 At a special meeting on July 30,2001,the City Council considered and discussed the Application,and the record. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence contained in the record related to the Application, and the arguments of proponents and opponents of the Application,the City Council makes the following findings of fact,conclusions and decision. , SECTION TWO Findings of Fact ' 2.01 Northern States Power Company,doing business as Xcel Energy("NSP")filed an application for a conditional use permit to upgrade its existing 115kV transmission line within the City of South St. Paul by adding a second 115kV circuit and rebuilding the transmission line on monopole structures(the "Application"). 2.62 A public bearing on the Application was held before the Planning Commission on June 6,2001,following published and mailed notice as required by law. On June 13,2001,the Planning Commission adopted its findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation with respect to the Application("Planning Commission Recommendation"). 2.03 By resolution adopted June 18,2001,the City Council extended the time to complete processing the Application to August 7,2001, for the reasons stated in the resolution. A certified copy of the resolution was sent by certified mail to NSP on June 20,2001, and a receipt therefore was signed by a representative of NSP. , 2.04 The existing transmission line is located on a 40-foot wide right-of-way(owned in fee by NSP)for about 3,000 feet within a built-up residential area within the City of South St.Paul. In the rest of the City the right-of- way is 50 feet wide. The right-of-way widths will not be expanded as part of the proposed project. 2.05 The present transmission line was originally constructed in the early 1920's,and modified in later years. Most, if not all, of the houses adjacent to the transmission line were constructed after the transmission line existed and subsequent owners purchased with knowledge of the existence of the line. 2.06 NSP Proposes to construct the existing transmission line and a new 115kV transmission line as a double circuit transmission line,which is required to provide continuous reliable electrical power to customers in the southeast suburban Minneapolis-St. Paul area,including the City of South St.Paul. The project will establish two independent circuits between the Red Rock substation and the Rogers Lake substation,which will prevent loss of electric service in the event of a line failure. CAI concurred in the need for the project. Opponents of the Application questioned the need for the project and its benefit to consumers in the City of South St Paul. However;the Weight of the evidence supports the need for the double circuit line. 2.07 The proposal is to construct the double circuit transmission line on monopoles which will be about 25 feet taller than the existing transmission line structures. The conductors of the existing line are about 25 feet above ground and the nearest are 7 feet from the edge of the 40-foot wide right-of-way. The lowest conductors of the proposed line would be about 25 feet above ground and about 10 feet from the edge of the 40-foot wide right- of-way 2.08 The noise level of the existing line at the edge of the 40-foot wide right-of-way is 20.9 dB(a); it is calculated to be 24.8 dB(a)for the double circuit lines.If the proposed double circuit line was constructed underground there would be no noise. 2.09 Electric and magnetic field strengths(EMF)were measured and calculated for the existing line and the double circuit line on the 40 foot wide right-of-way. The magnetic field for the existing line at the right-of-way edge is 101.3 milligrams(mG); for the double circuit line it will be 25.1 mG. If the double circuit line was constructed underground the magnetic field at the right-of0way edge would be 2.4 mG. http://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 ' ' Resolution of South St. Paul Page 3 of 5 I2.10 Opponents expressed concern that the new transmission line will result in devaluing property adjacent to the line and make the property unusable or difficult to sell.The FHA will not finance houses adjacent to I transmission lines.NSP stated that FHA has financed house sales adjacent to transmission lines upon receiving advice from NSP that the line was constructed according to all applicable codes and requirements. I 2.11 A study by Colliers Towle,Inc. of sale price comparisons among houses adjacent to transmission lines and those not adjacent to transmission lines average. Those adjacent to a line sold on the average for 0.5 percent less and took an average of 5.5 days longer to sell. I 2.12 Some of the opponents were concerned about adverse health effects to persons living adjacent to the transmission line that may be caused by the electric and magnetic fields of the transmission line. They are fearful of the levels of these fields even though double circuiting will reduce these levels by about fifty percent. I2.13 NSP, on the other hand, refers to the decision of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board concerning this project in which it determined that the proposed project does not have the potential for significant Ienvironmental effects and issued a negative declaration on the need for an environmental impact statement. 2.14 It appears that the scientific community has not conclusively demonstrated a lack of causal relationship I between EMF and adverse health effects and that research about this issue continues. The research to date is inconclusive with regard to the issue of transmission lines and adverse health effects. 2.15 The estimated cost of construction of the double-circuit overhead 115kv transmission line through the I residential portion in the City of South St. Paul is $390,000;the estimated cost to underground the same segment is $5,000,000. I 2.16 The Proposed construction schedule for the Red Rock to Rogers Lake segment of the project is fall 2001- winter 2002 Red Rock substation construction,winter 2002-spring 2003 Rogers Lake substation line foundations and structures construction I I SECTION THREE Conclusions 3.01 This matter is properly before the City Council pursuant to Subsection 1500.29, Subd. 4,of the South St. I Paul City Code of 1992. 3.02 All persons who desired to be heard in favor or in opposition to the Application have been given an Iopportunity to present evidence and argument. 3.03 There is credible evidence of the need for the project. 1 3.04 The general characteristics of the residential neighborhood will not change because the configuration of an existing transmission line will only change. The monopoles will be approximately 25 feet higher than the I existing H-frame structures and will be the same number.However, the monopoles will be significantly more visible in the local community and will have a greater impact on the landscape than the existing structures. If the proposed double circuit line was constructed underground,the visual impact would be eliminated. I 3.05 There will be diminution or impairment of property values and FHA insured loans may not be available because of the presence of the transmission line I 3.06 Noise levels will increase by approximately five decibels because of the proposed transmission line. Noise levels will not be a concern if the double circuit line is constructed underground. Ihttp://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 I Resolution of South St. Paul Page 4 of 5 3.07 Because of the uncertaintyand inconclusiveness of the effects of EMF on health and welfare, the sensible action in the interest of public health,safety and welfare is to reduce exposure to EMF. While overhead construction of the double circuit line will reduce the magnetic field to 25.1 mG at the edge of the 40 foot right- 1 of-way,undergrounding the double circuit line will reduce the magnetic field to a more acceptable level of 2.4 mG at the right-of-way edge. 3.08 An overhead transmission line would be more susceptible to damage from severe weather conditions and thus a greater threat to public safety than an underground transmission line 3.09 The proposed overhead double circuit transmission tine would be detrimental to the health,safety and ' general welfare of the community and would seriously depreciate surrounding property values because of the cumulative effects of noise,visibility, EMF and susceptibility to adverse weather conditions. These effects would be either eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level if the double circuit line was constructed underground.In such case there would not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the community nor a serious depreciation of surrounding property values. 3.10 The proposed double circuit line will benefit the southeast metro area as well as the entire NSP system. Costs necessary to protect the public health,safety and general welfare should be a system-wide cost. The excess cost to bury the double circuit line are for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare and should be borne by the entire NSP system and not by just by the City of South St. Paul or the NSP customers within the City who did not create the circumstances necessitating the construction of the transmission lines underground. , SECTION FOUR Decision The City Council grants a conditional use permit to Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy to construct a double circuit 115kV electric transmission line composed of the existing circuit and a new circuit, (the"transmission line")subject to the condition that the transmission line be constructed underground; provided,however, that the excess cost of underground construction be paid on a NSP system-wide basis,and if allocated to the City or to its NSP customers by order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") or other state agency having jurisdiction,this conditional use permit is denied, shall be null and void,and of no force or effect and the transmission line may not be constructed;provided further that construction of the transmission line may not commence until NSP has agreed to a system-wide allocation of the excess undergrounding cost,or the PUC has denied allocation of the excess cost to the City or its NSP customers,and such action has not been appealed. The conditional use permit is also subject to the following conditions: ' (1)Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy will offer free of charge a lawn arid garden easement that is consistent with its utility usage to landowners adjacent to its fee right-of-way strip,that will be appurtenant to their property in perpetuity as long as its terms are complied with. (2) In the event that the State of Minnesota or the Federal Government establishes standards for electric Or magnetic fields that are applicable to the proposed transmission line,Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy shall comply with the standards and shall provide the City with sufficient information to ascertain compliance with the standards , (3) Should Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy, after the issuance of this conditional use permit be issued,granted, obtain, consent to or otherwise receive a permit or authorization for the double circuit of the existing 115kV transmission line from the City of Inver Grove Heights,the City of Mendota Heights,the City of Sunfish Lake,or the City of Bloomington on a term or terms more favorable to the city than those http://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 , Resolution of South St. Paul Page 5 of 5 I contained in this conditional use permit,the City of South St. Paul shall have the right to require Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy to agree to a modification of this conditional use permit to incorporate the same or substantially similar more favorable terms, and Northern States Power Company d/b/a ' Xcel Energy by the acceptance of this conditional use permit agrees to promptly agree to the incorporation of such term(s). I Passed: August 6,2001 Mayor Approved: August 7,2001 /s/Kathleen A. Gaylord i Ihttp://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 1 Page 1 of 2 Sedarski, Joseph G ' From: Melanie Curtis[MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us) Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:21 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G; Rogers, Christopher C Subject: FW:Xcel Orono High Voltage Substation and Transmission Importance: High One more. Melanie Curtis I 2 952.249.4627 I l mcurtist ci.orono.rnn.us From: melissafogelberg@weilsfargo,cam [mailto:mel issafogelberg@wellsfargo.com] 111 Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010.11:38 AM To: Lili McMillan; Doug Franchot(doug@francho ciates.corn), Jessica Loftus; Jessica Loftus; Mike Gaffron; Lin Vee; Melanie Curtis; Jim White; Cynthia Bremer; Jim M'lPIly:(jrnurphy@goldengate.net), Doug Franchot; liii4mayor@GMAIL.COM; Cynthia Bremer(cynthia.bremer@ogletreedeakins.com) Cc: michael.kuruvilla@att.net; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com; pwfraser@GMAIL.COM; pfogelberg@GMAIL.COM Subject: Xcel Orono High Voltage Substation and Transmission Importance: High Ladjnd Gentlemen: I have great concern about the proposed Xcetbrono substation and am, therefore, writing to request that the city accept jurisdiction over Xcel's application for a conditional use permit. It appears to me that the pivotal consideration in approving or denying the application is whether the conditional use would be consistent With the City of Orono Community Management Plan. The Plan includes important considerations such as whether theproposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area as it is presently used,would be oonslstent with the character of the surrounding area, would be consistent with buildings and site improvement in the surrotding area, would impair use and enjoyment of surrounding property or have a material adverse impact on property values in the area,would take into account tti atural and scenic features of the area and minimize environmental impact and would not be detrimental to the general welfare.The factors included in the Plan express the values and priorities Of the residents of the community. ' Who is better suited that than the city itself to determine whether the application is consistent with the Community Management Plan?Certainly the Public Utilities Commission does not have the familiarity with the above factors that the city does, Nor does the PUC have a stake in the impact of the substation on the Orono community. As it has been explained to me, the substation is being built for the benefit and convenience of Xcel and communities west of Orono, No one in Orono gains any benefit from the substation and power lines. It's not just adjacent homeowners who would be negatively affected by the substation--all residents have an interest in insuring that the Plan is respected so that the quality of life in the community is not harmed. Furthermore, to the extent the substation depresses property values, it also diminishes the tax base of the city. All of these things should be of substantial concern to the community and, therefore, to the City Council. In my judgment, the City Council has a responsibility to its citizens not to relinquish control to the PUC. instead, the council owes it to its citizens to retain control in order to ensure that their interests are carefully considered in the application review%proces I, unfortunately, will be unable to attend tonight's Meeting. I am committed to participate in a Wills for Heroes clinic in Hopkins, which I cannot change'. This is a program administered by the state bar association under which volunteer attorneys write wills and other estate planning documents for first responders. The fact that I am not at tonight's council meeting does not mean the issue on the agenda is not of tremendous importance. Thank you for your consideration. ' Melissa Fogelberg 1/4/2011 ' ' Page 2 of 2 Melissa R.Fogelberg 1870 Hunt Farm Rd{Orono,MN 55356 1484-252-1248 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,you must not use,copy,disclose,or take any action based on this message or any information herein.If you have received this message in error,please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. I 1 1 1 1/4/2011 Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday,December 13,2010, 7:00 P.M. ' Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps -952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance ' Consent Agenda 1. Consent agenda items, including(*)asterisk items,are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member,staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet-located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of November 22, 2010 * 3. Council Work Session of November 23, 2010 * 4. Regular Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 Sale of Bonds ' 5. Consider the Award of the Sale of General Obligation Street Reconstruction, State-Aid and Capital Improvement Bonds—Resolution Budget Adoption 6. Continuation of 2011 Budget Hearing—Adoption of 2011 Budget and Tax Levy a. Adopt Final 2010 Levy Collectible in 2011 —Resolution b. Adopt 2011 General Fund Budget—Resolution c. Adopt the 2011 Special Revenue Funds Budgets—Resolution Presentation 7. Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Plan Update—Bonestroo LMCD Report—Andrew McDermott, Representative Planning Commission Comments—Kim Kang, Representative ' Public Comments—(Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report 8. #10-3454 City of Orono—Zoning Text Amendment—Conditional Uses in the Residential Zoning Districts—Ordinance , 9. #10-3467 Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Street—Variance—Denial Resolution 10. #10-3468 Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Shoreline Drive—Preliminary Subdivision and Commercial Site Plan—Denial Resolution 11. #10-3471 Terry Schneider with Klingelhutz Development on behalf of Woodhill Senior Cottages of Navarre, 2525 Shadywood Road—Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan/Preliminary Plat—Resolution I I Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday,December 13,2010,7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us 12. #10-3486 Xcel Energy, 3960 Sixth Avenue North—CUP Substation Routing Permit 13. #10-3489 Susan and Justin Kelley and Claudia and Scott Weisberg, 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road I —Lot Line Rearrangement/Vacation of Easement—Public Hearing—Resolution 14. #10-3493 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive—Conditional Use Permit for Columbarium—Resolution ICity Engineer's Report 15. Request For Payment No. 1,North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Project I 16. Request For Payment No. 1, Lift Station No. 12 Improvements 17. Request for Payment No. 2 and Final, Willow Drive South Mill and Overlay Project IMayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report I 18. Purchase of Property Room and Evidence Management Software 19. Planning Commissioner Appointments 20. 2011 Fee Schedule—Ordinance I 21. 2011 Official Calendar 22. Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2011 23. Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received I 24. Non-Waiver of Tort Limits 25. Approve Annual Transfers 26. 2011 Non-Union Employee Compensation Adjustments—Resolution I 27. Amend Orono Health Reimbursement Arrangement(HRA)—Resolution 28. Amend Orono Flexible Spending Plan—Resolution 29. Municipal State Aid Bond Resolution I 30. City Engineer Rate Schedule 31. Amendment 1 to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement 32. Wayzata Fire Service Agreement I 33. Recognition of Officer William "Bill"Persell 34. Recognition of Officer Erick Dyer 35. Recognition of Officer Matt Siltala I36. Recognition of Adrienne Madson City Attorney's's ReP ort I 37. Hazardous Building Action at 200 Hollander Road—Resolution 38. Licenses & Permits I Liquor License Renewals * 39. Bills 1 Adjournment Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday,December 13,2010, 7:00 P.M. ' Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps -952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 12/13 —Council Meeting,Monday, 7:00 p.m. 12/14—Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. - Cancelled 12/24—HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas,Friday 12/31 —HOLIDAY, Observance of New Year's Day, Friday 2011 01/05 —Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 01/10—Council Work Session,Monday, 6:00 p.m. 01/10—Council Meeting,Monday, 7:00 p.m. , 01/17—HOLIDAY,Monday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 01/18—Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison—Doug Franchot) 01/24—Council Meeting,Monday, 7:00 p.m. , 1 I I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,December 13,2010 I 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL IThe Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White,Council Members James Murphy,Cynthia Bremer,Lili McMillan, and Doug Franchot. I Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus,City Attorney Soren Mattick,Finance Director Ron Olson,City Clerk Lin Vee,Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie I Young. Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ICONSENT AGENDA I Item Nos. 10, 15-18,20-25,and 27-37 were added to the Consent Agenda and Item No. 9 was deleted from the agenda. Murphy moved,Franchot seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, I Nays 0. I APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22,2010 I Murphy moved,Franchot seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of November 22,2010,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. I *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF NOVEMBER 23,2010 Murphy moved,Franchot seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council Work I Session of November 23,2010,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6,2010 I Murphy moved,Franchot seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of December 6,2010,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ISALE OF BONDS 5. CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET I RECONSTRCTION,STATE-AID AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS—RESOLUTION NO. 5997 ' Carolyn Drude, Ehlers,reported on the sale of$4,460,000 general obligation street reconstruction,state- aid,and capital improvement bonds. The high bid was 3.1698 percent and the low bid was submitted by Morgan,Keegan&Company at 2.8571 percent. Drude stated overall the City received six bids, which I Page 1 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,December 13,2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. ' (10. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF IRFAN HABIB,3421-3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Batty stated if they withdraw their application,the property will likely remain as is and not be improved. Given the issue with the variances,the property likely will need to change dramatically and that they will be withdrawing their application. VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ' Mattick recommended the applicant be required to submit his withdrawal in writing and to submit that to the City no later than Wednesday,December 15th,otherwise the original motion of denial would stand. Bremer moved,McMillan seconded,Application#10-3468,Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Concordia Street,to require that the applicant submit his request for withdrawal of his application by Wednesday,December 15,2010. If the written request is not received by that date, the original motion denying the application will stand. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE,2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT—RESOLUTION NO. 6001 AND 6002 Terry Schneider,Applicant,was present. McMillan stated she had a concern with the area by the wetland in the southwest corner and asked whether that area should be disturbed during construction and replanted. Curtis asked whether McMillan is referring to the buffer area. McMillan indicated it would be the buffer area and the area adjacent to that. McMillan stated she is unsure exactly what the applicant is proposing Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to improve the area up to the buffer. The applicant has worked with the neighborhood on the landscape plan and a landscape professional has designed the plan. The noxious weeks and invasive weeds should be removed and brought up to the City's standards. McMillan asked if the area of native grass planting is a requirement of the City. Curtis indicated that is not a requirement of the City. ' McMillan stated she knows the neighbors would like to retain as much of the screening as possible,and pointed out that native grass can create a bigger open area and eliminate some of the screening. McMillan stated she would like to make sure that the City is not forcing the applicant to re-vegetate and replant that area. McMillan noted the City's Code requires removal of buckthorn in buffer areas, and that she personally , has an issue with that since it tends to disturb the area. McMillan stated she is not sure what is proposed to be removed and what currently exists as it relates to the trees in the area. McMillan indicated she would like to ensure that large,mature trees are not eliminated and replaced with 6-inch trees. , Page 11of27 111 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,December 13,2010 ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. (11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF ' OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OFNAVARRE,2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Curtis stated the City does not have a tree protection requirement outside the 0-75 foot zone and buffer areas. Franchot asked whether the applicant has met with the neighbors and had this plan approved by them. ISchneider indicated the neighbors have reviewed the plan and are in favor of it. Schneider stated they have two buffer areas that will remain. One is along Kelly Avenue,which will remain as is,and the other buffer area is next to the wetlands. Some of the trees are actually located in the buffer zone and will be ' maintained. The buckthorn and other invasive weeds will be removed. The neighbors have agreed to some landscaping outside of the buffer area,which will leave a fairly dense area of screening. McMillan stated she did not want to require the removal of existing hardwoods in order to replant other smaller trees. Schneider stated under the buffer ordinance,they are able to plant certain new trees in the buffer zone. If ' they exist in the buffer and are not considered a noxious tree,they can stay. McMillan noted there is reduced parking proposed due to the usage. McMillan asked whether future use of the property would be constrained by the limited parking and what would happen if the building is used for something else. Curtis indicated the use would be contained due to the limited parking. There is a provision in the resolution that states this site is approved for the use proposed and that if someone else occupies the building,they would need to come back to have the conditional use permit amended. Gaffron noted Item 6 of the resolution approving the conditional use permit states the following: "This ' conditional use permit approval is specifically for an assisted living facility, and future conversion to some other permitted or conditional use within the B-4 Zoning District is not guaranteed based on the ' parking limitations and possible other factors inherent within the approved site plan." Gaffron stated that language places the owners on notice that if the parking cannot handle a different use,they may not be granted a conditional use permit for that new use. ' McMillan stated technically they may be required to add additional parking if the use changes. Gaffron noted retail parking requirements would be significantly more and they would have to find a way to add additional parking. McMillan asked whether there is something in the resolution governing the maintenance of the filtration ' system. Gaffron indicated there is and that the Watershed District will also have a covenant concerning the maintenance. ' Franchot moved,Murphy seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6001,a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Easements for Properties Located at 2525,2535,and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 12 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,December 13,2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. ' (11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE,2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Franchot moved,Murphy seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6002,a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Properties Located at 2525,2535,and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY,3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH—CUP SUBSTATION ROUTING PERMIT Joe Sedarski, Chris Rogers and Gene Cox were present on behalf of Xcel Energy. Curtis stated in August Xcel Energy began the process of making an application to expand and upgrade their existing substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North. This project includes a complete rebuild of the existing substation and an increase in operating voltage from 69 kilovolts to 115 kilovolts. A new transmission line is also proposed. The final route for the new,overhead transmission line has not yet been determined but will be subject to review and approval. This type of project is typically reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Commission(PUC). ' However, Xcel may seek local review and approval because their project meets the exemption set out in the Statute. The exemption applies to projects involving transmission lines between 100 and 200 kV,and substations with a voltage designed for and operating at 100 kV or more. Both are being proposed on this site. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216.E.05 and MN Rule 7850.5300,Xcel may seek local review and approval from the City via our conditional use permit process for their substation expansion and new transmission line route. Pursuant to MN Statute 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b)and MN Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4,the City has 60 days in which to refer review and permitting back to the PUC. As the application is not yet complete,that 60-day clock has not begun. City Zoning Code lists public service structures as an allowed conditional use within all districts in the ' City. Specifically, Section 78-393(6) applies to the RR-1A District where this property is located. Staff initially understood the local review sought by Xcel was only the CUP for the substation expansion. Staff now better understands that accepting Xcel's request for local review includes the substation and approval of the routing for the new transmissions line route. Because the review process cannot be split between the City and the PUC,the City must review either both aspects of this proposal or neither. In the opinion of Staff,the City does not have the appropriate level of expertise needed to fully review the routing of the new transmission lines. Based on the City Attorney's discussions with the PUC, we believe the City's comments and recommendations on the application,specifically related to land use,screening,setbacks, etc.,will be implemented in the PUC's review and approval of the project. The City does not have a history of reviewing this type of application and Staff would recommend the City defer the review of this application to the PUC pursuant to 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b),and Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Michael Kuruvilla,760 Hunt Farm Road,stated he is president of the Hunt Farm Road Homeowners Association. Kuruvilla stated an application is being put forward but that the homeowners association has concerns since this is located at their back door. Page 13 of 27 I Item#12-CC Agenda-12/13/2010 File#10-3486[Total Pages 8 OUnCII IXcelEnergyM Exhibit A I PROPOSED ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE I FACT SHEET PROJECT NEED: Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, plans to I expand and upgrade its Orono Substation and build a new 115 kilovolt ("kV") overhead transmission line connecting the planned substation to an existing 115kV transmission line. The substation upgrade to 115kV and new transmission line will increase electric system reliability, I reduce the risk of overloads, and will allow for additional load growth in the future. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:I T 1 • The existing Orono Substation operates at 69kV and will be `` at ., removed and replaced by a 115kV located 4 ,� , ' ` T ' -A adjacent to thecurenlocationall within propertyowned I by Xcel Energy. ' .' • Once the new 115kV substation and associated I transmission line work is completed, the 69kV substation t components will be removed. • Approximately 1/4 mile of new double circuit 115kV I transmission line will be routed out of the new substation •,:,.:.,;_,,IL ,?t lt' north over Xcel Energy property, and then approximately '/ mile northwesterly over privately owned land to connect tor.':;:-,.-4:-:" , ��'Cp . Ian existing 115kV transmission line. y • Proposed structures for the new transmission line will be I 80-100 feet tall single steel poles with davit arms placed on Iconcrete foundations. • New easements will need to be obtained for the Typical Double Circuit transmission line portion crossing over private property. Steel Single Pole • Xcel Energy is seeking local review and approval of the project from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the City of Orono has agreed to take local jurisdiction for permitting I the project. • Xcel Energy has applied for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") with the City of Orono as required for the project. I • Once the CUP is approved by the City and State permitting requirements are met, construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2011 with completion of the new substation Iand transmission line by late 2012. CONTACTS: IJoe Sedarski, Sr. Permitting Analyst, Xcel Energy Tel: (612) 330-6435 e-mail: joseph.g.sedarski(c�xcelenergy.com Chris Rogers, Sr. Land Rights Agent, Xcel Energy 1 Tel: (612) 330-6078 e-mail: christopher.c.rogers(xcelenergy.com September 1, 2010 7i•-•-•-.44:: . ''': . ........ El '' •••'. .11 "'"• :••:'''''••••,'•'•7-i97:•.7:•1.1i-17;;••••;:"""11-:•;,--:•.:-rret.r.-1-77'''-'7:"..11:1=-77.4177::-...,•-•'-''..---11•••'1.-:;:=•••••17.111...t7t1:i:rt.1.1..c.”.•'-?...1:•:,,s.:*-1.irf•agti4. ":!..•:-::-.7:'•.. ••‘'..:Fr;‘..,-:"7-'7111_,.."1.•.•::•4...7.7.i.,'•-•fr..•4ge'..'4:i.,:;:7••.;-..-1.;:e:•9.•',..414•-?...m._14'3,:i..-2,..... .i....site........„.....'7.411:-.7••Atr.•'r•e.,.....7..•7E•r..-,,rii:r-;'7:::1-'11:}ii...;.471..,-4' Lae-Writ-4•4:',7:.7.Ft r•'OE 7:a., ,. . ••:-- •••..:''2'14.:,::::.•14-,:V:=•'a -.:,:r..-.. .".74.:i.-,..... .,..-7....,.. .,,.::.,.-_i1,4v;;7-,.!..,:.,:.... ..i.....„,31...;:.; '-!..':i•':''''.-1';24.ts•i;:;: -.if:53.241,4 li•-"-i--Sni""AZINt.T1 L:-L.4.;.e."-..w...--,..,-',-14;giriiimo- :-.4-2--!-Kt.E-,•-•.-.•. ,-,.. 1:i-i-&-q.-; :..,,....-,„,•- ,, ...,, iryiKt,,,,..-: -:'•'..--:=-E-::--•*- ::ti:::.;......:-::Y.::le::.,.::::_,-.,:i.::,,,,,f..t.,,,-....-3-.7, :,*--- --.,•,:ki .....i.-:T...;1...z,±7;17,.,... ...,...-.;1..,....i......t,:,,, ,.t.ti ...,.1!,.,....s...,,_ea., ............ -LT-•::.--: ' --.;••• •:j--1•1::-.`::::4,,a,. '0••'-•.'':,44"•-:7-41:ri117::11.4.:::••:•?'-77 - ::t:,=•••.,1-.1.441..::.:: --•••••• -•1••':tilri:1-.3T.:2T"-r 4-1/..7•'','•:71,:' Xilig:ii;Wlia ET:::iir•Zri,1,itrii.,. 17V . '.••j-•''''•••.W..7-4t:17•'e'.:•••--- - lif.FP.re :::!..',.. .t•:,i74:7&H..-4.1 •LIF:::i7t.r•--- .41(•::".14. •_:;pre.':::ijtviirt•:-.!...":7..,r.,.:p.s.!;!imnSE-.0-4...4 , ig,tr-,•E.. ..-- ±_1. .:. .7--V7aTi!Ti!i.-:; ,• ,-•,,...-i:i.....1.Ati.: .;.7:45 4[:1-tii,:i:2?.. .....,Fil,..:41e7,2-..:k,„4:t•54:-,-,.,4,..,;„,........:,-7_,2!...,,:.-. 7. ::,:i i •tff....,_...":Si:::..-1477 ,.f:,w4tr,_.4,,i1...e..7 ?,::•:. -!i---4.:...1-,.E -...",..:.,----- .-.7--- ,T-.-.4:. . ::1.:4",.:: zi.ftv-iii,-;t:::::*.,7315:.::,4.::: :::_-,,::::.:,:.,1......::::4;.,.: _t-4451:./za.::.:.•:'.0A-T ';',,ii-;,:-F"..,5-74 -7.4:--*.L.,...,•.7,.e:.::17tri,MtimiEl::.:f.,i:::‘,. ..-;,2,,i*L---fm..., 4., :'ilak..7477-7.,,.,.:77 •.,12:-4,-_-57---.;-i;Akee,2, --.Z.;!':=7 ......._.,:ti!.LF!iY-..!::t,.!;•.;''.'.:'!''..L•vii,:•,.F....i:...:i!:.:.'::,5'.'qi....re.:'.. _!..:-417?-1:1•,•,..:-:,'..-.....01'71'.'_A..1'.77.77.•••••-'::7:-•-1' 'c.";u•-T-r:':•7•,.:':,•::....E!:.4,:'.Att •''••-. •t-t:,•••• ,-ZYNarx:17- 1--2z.- :;:r.: 4:.....,•-.L.,s4',........:.,.3--.-.,..:1,:... .......,.i••,,,..:.:Lv....w..... ..--.7.7',..;.-41.744.:',..!...,-.•.:_..::::._.-.••••.:IT: ,:...,,...,,........_-„L•.....„•:...51.4::!t-..T....4.4i..7.. . ...m,,,,..,,,,.. -iti:. 'L=77...t.T..-÷s-LT:-.a- ii:eini;:----:.-tlx-'..---.5.:',:g7A-7,--1,..4..-:'' -- -:r:ti•:-::-:.A..--- #.41.4: .147P7'.-7.-7:•. 7.77.-*.A.";•1••••.-7--:;:zi-__=.--c.4-ilri*...........-*":775-.7,i4..4,-pr-._, _ ....5.'.1::-5,,,42--...,......k.,,,,....?-:,:i7',,,,1-' a_.: -,,,:-„..:9'.:::4;i:71:-__'---1 -----_,-:..,„=" 71.4i,',e...-6.7._IMEam.:::-7i:-:,,-: - :::i.-.i...L-..- .1. i:,.:il.:3, :..,_..aNTI#rs.,4",....F.,:e.*11-..,:iiii7k,......,..71...,5:1:-;_•,... .:.;:etii:AL:... ....1 : -17.4-,,,,.."“-•.4...-"..---=--1:7',-"7.:..n4.,...7tH,!:..i.,...,:::'.:7.-"':: .,-..1;21:4•T?.....-- --7=" :-''',.:.- -... ..7vf.•:'!".t..,•.....1.,... 4'.4i;.4%1'7-'-...!E_ _ _PrE:i'..:..:,,,,,,i0..:.,...z.-,-,....... ..fr.....,c7;:::::.,,,,,- . :, k-k.iii.;::c*&.:-.."1-Ltj.M17 .., ;.-1-7.el.,,..*:7;4'7:: ''::.a.::,F....417--. V:,;;i:.:Ai-AgSt‘3.r.1.**-7:7;.24.-.:-. ..i.i. . ..-i.. .-.L--7....:.'p..-2....'".7.-41...-tl-L':, ..:•.•:.::':-:;;W•44%• .2115.- 4'i-. , 37 44 11-.7it_i ._..,,,itf--..R' -' -"7"-.p4, .:' ..:1'.-_.___=----'2.';e:'•••:'•:"."' '''.:,.••..._':-&•.=_____t-7,`--":-."-.-: •..-•'•"4.-.1`7'..14-;=&.A:711 -7.Ft•TFTE•41:-4' -='grA....."'-'1V4,„-.. .....-,•... -•.-:-*--'-''........- 7:.:P5OFM• „ z14:422ef..,, ... -.-':••2-*F-47 •--:r2--....., :fr.--47-•••1•---'7? ::17-4••''.*i4-47•• •!_'71-_ __!,-:,•-itr'.1'q7'''W:Fi-.1.k1Pk,iffitf.4.'".- -:7"r4:17,.:;;-W:...T•:.,••e% 4.., :.. :,- -44 ,i4..-ffilf,.if.F:..;i,;::,p-..E..4.-,-;.:!.:-.;,_...5_-.... -E.-31:...-.4 --,;.....ve-F • 7714-it. •. •••,.:i-: ....ii.4:47z.-::, -- 1.-..'... .. .7.4-9,N;;•a_.6..-Ilt.k. ::: .:::,770_77: :-. ::,7:72;.!:i :::*.. i.,;m2i.,r4vt...4: - :',.:' -.: :7- :.' :V":;;;..is...-:7--fzw-.:,- 77'4._,--1.:* , ....fs•---t;7 7.f.';-,,,,,-::! ,..1.,.,:,!..,•••_. --_.... .-iitft:-..!!...i.!-..:1„--::::T-_-:,.;i...7.,-*,,,,,..*.t.,..;..iiskix.0,,..4- :•,,, '-'---:,:-4i,- ''''"::'1: ..712.11177g440_,t.,..._.. 7. ....,i,:.•.......- --:..::"._',.. ,,tiT ..p.i.:',-.. if:'..::f4!t:::t-,-,Imii, -V.r., •:-,--- -..::. .'..k:•f:* '::••:'ill•ii;g341:2•1:77N45iStill.:f.;........• ..: F••-i•••.::4:1•';'•;:;.',7,r1.7.2.71''''.'grilejRf2E.ViiiPiitiZ:: -4' -':•'''-'•-.,,-e_.....- _-_.-t. -,!,;.-±.4::. :4.1,-pir.--7-10. . ;,,'-•-.. -..-: '-'4;I:Q•, . -, - -- -;;TLika.-• -7.---1,;t7- 9fr...•,,:i.- -....:,-;.::,,:,,..11-7).'..-.F. f.:,:r..•.F.,,,,41-'.::•. 7.7.!*.:-.V-.-'•ii-7.•• -lifr-R-!';,:5,...,-.41:v ‘...:-..,::::... -.'---.;..:•:,7:4: ::,:•.;,*•:'l71. ;•*;"'5•7..':".-.74727:1:i_..-c,;1. -HA: 4'17,-.&.;T:W;ilt..:_i'_!-:-::4%.*::thi-1.1.hr9gY:Fi. *.era.. :-rfiTy-r.k.iiiii,'.27. ., .,-f--`:1.7r.ir':i-7:•:'t*. .. .•:.•......'.......'-,,...,;:-..1.......,..,.: •-..''...t...t...._''...;.. ..7."1..., . '- t•••7'7: -'"'''.- •• •71:;:1-•:r....,-. .74:Z.7',_.•41...T.4..• 4 i . .;•,.rf.,4 „::El!:•:17.''rail:::,-.:-.;_- -:. . ..._,:.,E..,.. _ !:::..:„_:....... • .-7:' .---'''''' ,--• '''' 4q:-:-. • -..e_.- ...,- -'•''.::-'. 4 •"7':?i:.'. 7,-7E'-L'4.. ,.-•••- xi-10:4:4E..":';F::'•cfi,i' ='.-'`'.:.'"'..7-.' ..-- -:::'.7-1M:--7-...:::..43TW HT474:-:.=ii:7,77:E.:* ••.'''.- . .• .• ...:':',•:.-- • '- .:. -.2-.• . '•--:'7•=,:gg,"•••••••,,....',A"li.4i-.•-•:"-ccL4'..„..:... ,,..7l '..i-3 ..;p.' _., i.....,,,i,,31:35!T''.".--ii4:::,H5,-.,:•:i-.i.i..:Fe.:.:t_ ..1--,..:_:,.,t,...-T.•=-7.,:•,;441.14,.2,..::,,z.„-ti,„t„.::,::..:.:,4..,..::2::..„.__.... .,--- • ., • -_ ' ,••:...:r:_:.'"r•._.,t''. -. --F•••••-• . --..•.' ...ree,•• :...-Z--=-••••?-i.:V-,,,,..,_7: f.:.•'..-0,4::--,..ir--.:•;:4-1'..:::" :::.-....,-4'.L''..,..u-....:..:E.:ar...m.".7- • ..,-.: •..---.F.W...._i_ ..m7=--.!-gy!•-- " '''',-' ,:•:'• -'''''•• ••• ....---'::-.-'7 __,:-.'''•."*-'‘,E.,,•:'••-• '.:. ..it9-,T--`'''.4i.'7-''•&''''!•:.•4-.47•17°-"'•: -.4 44':'''----..if,P!•_..51:2F75,ft.tfillLIt...zi •.:..•' "••••••i• -"" ' -• -• -••• ..:4*?-:•'::-•: '''•,1.•... -•'•:::;•gi•il7 7....'ff.i'',7.4 .77-4-... ..E.g----'7'.4-4-..::.:*-11-:.:iiif:r::!7.1•711: 17.4'''''''.t!.- -...-:"T.:94:::t•liVf.f.f...tVik..itliE3.7:iiiiff............... -- - • - - -.:;-.7-,.....,-::..,-....'7."'i,L•, .''''--V•f: ':-.4:•!7.1-F'7':* -''.:1"--li 'i.i.jni.::4.7.41•gt,'':!!'4.!'.;t:-.*?77-7-tf- ifiqi4.: :Wr9..t.tfittiii;••••:,.••••:I:trik7.70-1.-- . ":.:''.'.....- "..:" • ...W..'4:- •....:.-."•:._....:.. .....:-. .J'E:...-::..•::--- ':••'•!4'4;-...r"..'7.........:,,L-.:r:•:7`.'4!',''-;:,:f'.-..-2.7.1.tP.It.qr.r:41.g.i.. .,-•;,,-,.. ...,..-:...7....4.24... -,: ::-.T.ia± ............................. • ' ....: ::•::;'••i'•.:41:,:. ::-.'''•'..9-49.4.;;;J:'•,-..:-,...'..":':.':::::''-'..,.:".:.:.•.--.::::.i.i. • ••;==..."'''''•-:' '• :i17'-.7=7.rLi4'.•=---'."-''''''',.....:-..4-'1•41-i-'t.::17-1-Y-'e:2'.--..k.:. ..-- ..:-.,,Z•:-.:4•111,A-:F:':i:71;1:',..`...F.::-..:..7-r.,7 . : .'.:-.......AL: •:.:7,::.:.:.'":7 .s, •• -..•-•••: •-• •..,--75, - .4-e:*1,- ..'"•''...:...•- :-.. •'•'.',..'...'-.1°7::•'1:4::4••••-":" !t_ r......7 "•:7•4 .1.---. -.14•JRNFilr.P:.+4:'...•• ••:41:Priiii•i'•%::17:4.;77:•41. 7 / 4.--. •-•-• •••••• •,.. T,.....‘•••4-11' •••: 7.11:-.- 71.:- .''''•11.:•44',.,.-•-'4.4:-.:.1:.:17.---;.-.:-•.•,•:•".--•* •...:;-...1;24:- •:.•%.-11-T;LMV:.....E14.i•i::',;;;4i:ie.:Ye.....1741ilyi ,: fi.":-:".s...,..4,77.7.•• . 4.:...' ".•:•-• 4111": '..'7'... :r ... .•- : ::: e.. ." .:' . -:.e',4.1f44,'•..,'"'"•:-:.:1:;,':-:t-y: ..f.?.. - -,...,..::: ..:. - ,...-'''- ';- "!..- -,-...,,,-,•-•tir. -..1.,.....,_,. .:.;...„........._....,:;„.; ..,......._‘1.....:.........i...._ '7a•••••:.. -...-":1•41r ,f . 7-'-• •••: r . - i•:-':4-.:-.'=:754;,,ea: '.., -71:4:::•:---!'.....: "'tee. .:7•.....':P1-74.,,-77"', ZEE':„E.,e.'-::::-7".;,,,,.-•--...-.-:.:.--,......"..7.siTEL.,17.......,:iii-..t.-r.,..,...,,,,.„.q..., . :.e.4e„.,,.. ..... ' . ' ' • -• '• • ••• •-••. • • •:•••-•••-•4":•-'. ''''..• r.: '''.- .:: :-''• ..•'..---•'•-' 'FE--rff:..• ,-2:1,7'4-7.•‘-r•-...,,,1.4,Ve..----7',Fi.-Hi:.:1'-',.:1,i-1:::.4..... -4,.-:,..,,,,... ..t..vf:.....e.c.,12.e:_,L,...,,7a:..... -0..•.1 :... ' 1•".- ••••';:-*'. . '17;74::• •*!•r:• ''''''4'.1 .-'4"-•";':'•‘4.:.'''''''''''':•:----441t.::--•:i- .rir'''.''!F''-'1,ii.::::;r.::•,;i ii-:- .'.:1-±.--4VAT:Tr!•!:,'''''..'IT.-•F`,.F::: :- .7ili747.7•F,:'F.i.':;:sAit:::-..i.si.;.e.7.4 ior ,...,„_. .• ..•::„;•. . •.". ....:_•:.. .. :.,......,,•,_ :.,..........:::: •:„......,:.,,....,... ...._:„.........,. ...•,::::„ ...,,,:,...„.2„,..„...,........,:„..,„..:::::::.„,.....„:74:;,,i,R::::„.....,,.,... ..7,..,Fm.:,,i,...:.,,. "-4'.. .s•. • -.. . . .,:. - 77:1:-..Miri,."*...ir..•%:'7• ••••:LH,:•4,41.:• :•:.•• •4:-•:H.-.''.•',:•4-4.",,1,1•445:•.4.:, -.4:.,.ae7.4:44,-,... ..ge4e.r.,,l',.“::,,, :::e.;;.-4;.::„...,-.:.:,-th4,*::.7..F...,...,....,..,..........-Ei.7..k.7-,;;.:..f. ..i..t..• .-- - 3-' . a •..' "....;''i::'i'W.r:....F.:4T4i74,:':''''i'." :'.7-.:':','.:i:':!' 'N;:.:: •'.?-itli•-.1% :%,_:_,_:',.:' ,-,:-...----.., -4-1. --• •'-'-'•• 4:,-.:*- -4:••••••• .• ••• •.....''' --•T.::''.....:': .: 'il,"71::1 '•'' ''...•".' •:..- 15fac'..:71:11,13.F.1:1.115.41:1::•...i:::]:..:::...,_.:-....!.,K;:, ..4,.:.:.,. .:-.4,.; IT....e.:::,,...-...:41.,-. I.e-kalki...w::.R.:,..erz...e.3„,;er,a,...nre...:7,41,?...epe..47eet_r,i7.:,„: ...t.t...t1.:11.1:t;selI. ' • . ;.':"; 4:::•- .. •-'• •.4 . ;•••• .•!•::::...4'.:44I-4..0:7--11.T.14.3444.•...7.ii:',i• i 4..„:•:,• ...ft:::••.' "iiiii:::....-...,.,::•::.,,e.,--.11,:.7..„-,..:.,eaw:7-,a7.4.Ti:i.,:24.1.:47:1;ti...ti...1.t.T7..,,-J±2.3:51....7,,,..ri::.....,_;....„1,,.a.a.,..,a,....„. . . '..-•;'J::::-... ••••••••••••••'':i•••;'•..: : ::.....1••:;;••7.;:•.'••••••••.•7• -•;;;;V:it".:-:;7ii.r.:1::'1.',sir::......::, 4.•L .!":::iii;•er,.:...:•'.14........:,..-•••..17 7!..e!.4:51•14.4..!---11.t.....17...:7:127'N'74:: :1,01.;::.1.711.1t4, _511lE....1-1;:::.,4:.1;4:.-:.4.:.it.; -. ;':--"..•:''• •• .'1/2•'!' • ••• :::• •j1-;li7.,•4"'...C.-:;;r:i-C4H47.4:r...:i'':!fi..1.,.-..1•11,•1•• °:::"4'..*•41/4.:;.. '•••:'.N. -•-lq•iiee.:7:-"..;" ,:a•,".7.7..,:-::::Lfilitli4,147 e,"!=a4.1.:,..'.2..,f1....t...rtin.*.ti-fi.er"!: •. ..e:4'eel:.14e;;;•••,-.4:ei*:. . • • ' •••.•::•• ••••77.'.::"•:::',117::11*!:::;:c.17.3!:1?-7...... • 1:.•'.::;..;:-'.:j7.,:-...-'..:...'2N:,:::,. -.',..::...:.:-..:: .,....!..L: ,•47:4. ..INZ,..=:0:'.r;:i4••i•::.it•:....er.:!. : g4 . •:....... ..7.::: -. - ' ,:j4?-.,•:4.•::r::rki:a'!-::iim,':1,..if'.-.4.' ::!Fi'..•.,...::.. :si....:1.-.:1 ..1.''',::•.,.::Fr-. . , :..''.. ' :;,„,•:.'.•FE.'-'--:„.'.-.!•.... .w...ui';',..iut•-;".- -.:..i':.41:47: • -..-...;•H.7 : '. • :-"'•'17•:"..:'..'''irrgii:!'.'i.P.M.4,1:71•••:•41q:Ttr.- :::,. :.1:.31;::..a;'',:.• :. ii:'..',i•:' --7-.* • -:- -...,-''..4ti".."..t.-M-2.. - -77:;,•..::_i-:.....,... •.=kii.-..i....:.,... . ..": ••..‘•."... ' '.. 2:.••• .:-•;;17t•-• :.:''•' *7'!: ..‘•••••‘ 'ri- r-: .-: ..V.i-A....,..7: . .t77..._1,:e.:7: :..4, _.:.Ati,.... .-'''-";w•"'n.:'. '... -.4..-.- • !*•:J..:;:t:-.i?",",,--'4'iil•44-7-+-177::"F.'Z'....!":7",‘ _.. _ _ • .'..-. :7.*---.-:--.-...:'. .:.''''..' '.".`^....- .•%.. /.-'7-ZL.;.1:;'.,;::..:;:i4...?;51•777#;:titit.; ..''.'' .. '' :' ••• .• •••'7::..1::. l''••147;*31•43r:A-a. - i..-1..LE:c.4,4'i4 qi 44 i4i.r ''.:', '.i.z;.T...,:..f. .. ...:. .,.....• s.4..,..,.. . . :"• ' • • • 1. 'F.'- : " !..m",-..•':" ''77f4-P57------: '''''''''' 'T: . ••...i,•••• • .----,...--,I.:1,w ,E:rirA ih:',i•r3 F--4-1, •7--:--• --.e-:. • ..c-.-. -,.---_-.--. ---!.W..aM24,:.t1::!gi::-.Agil!::;rifir:4iz :i .•.::: ., 5.. ,.....;.„, ..-•..,,,,....,E-. --... ..7-.... 11.,A& :i:111H.1-1r ....tt. .• • ... • .•• •e IT .•' 7;•:.•rflkiii•: • ,i•-•,..4-7-4-.. -..--;-• .:1..,V`,. ...4•,:..- •:•'-,4":,••:.E-..'••:--:•••'i.:i.7:.!sa"• .......:,77...2reps,_...-, .,-.,.?„,..,,p:„. _.-...,;.:-.....,,,.........:,„ ..,,,,.„.-,. r.. ' . ' . '' • ••••.. :..t.;:?•..1.:•-'1.-ft.i77----.''''' ''':-. ''''..--••-•:''..i'-''''-'..''''-• ' -'''',-- •'•.• 4.•:.:: - .F:=7 L4 •••••••':f••-•••3:7-• L,.'4,11:.: r.:. -•••••:-...•- -±`.tirk-..-..---...:111:;_.,....._. . ..,, ;:: .... . O..'. •-1‘.'....-:,..ri.1:14....iit''.... -:::=••••J-7.e.=_;T:41•11:t1;,.. , .;.-. ,.• ...kr,...,L.:.z:-.:.,,,......:i.,..., •„:;....:::.....:.K:,:..:_,.......„: .,qa,...,....„.... .. ..,„,,..„.„......:._.F„,:_,................... • ' •...,. .•• :-.• • -%:'.-''. .. .' -'.7:4=iFi.."±7:::- ..F':":..' •-:,':'.....i::....:ri.li:.-Fif,i:....r..,;:.:;,•.1.=-- ..;-;...:...,:k4.1.-7E.1,... '."-.7,..••,,,-..,H.:.,.,...7-t,,,, t.f,.-F.7..., ,t,...:.. ... .'....-:•.. •....:• r::-.,:-...---- -..:::::•;j":-;....•..:......;.!. ...;c71-17::-.i. j'i:4'.::.:...": ...:'..:.',..!...•...:':.".:titre gir..e...,e.. ..e;r,.: '.....:: ...,.:„... ;.';-.....-- s:...-74',.... -- . .. .. . . . . ....... . ..:. .. . ..... : •• • ' .. -- ..."..:°' "..:. - - .... : :,:.:.:::: .,.. :----7..:::-...,,---17..:.:v.11 ..L.,,,,, ....-..::.::,::::..........::::.•;.-..„-1/4,...„............,....„7„:..,...„ .,.....,:,..,=t....,....,:.,,,.,....,„.,,,,,..,,,„.4.,. .,,...„..... ......s_ - .. . . .'° . ,-,, - ..---:.--:::':: .."-:.• :::-.,-•...-• ..14--4• •":"..'..*:"1:i•F•.;•,-1:::"r...4::!.?..r.:'•71:-.:.•''','-tit.iE::•7::::..1 r ....,........-1-,...T.Kt,:,,-..,.1.4,,,,,Lyt,,...__. -:,.......,,,:7.:110,,,,-..., -..,:-. - .-......,,-."...T.,:.:,......trz.,.t:::,...:.:,... • . ..• - .•::.;.....•: .i.- -. ' . i -::•4:t'.1.--,-.. : •i; '':'....'• :•:,:.:••'''''-••.:4:47::1.7•;;:i... .: :.::•:::••'4.' F.•.. .1:••:.'"VH.-:!4:•L7-' 1:.'...•7..7::•F::', ---.:Its.,4. ,::,,_•:.:. '4',•:::.•,,,,-•••1.•:::'.:..i....ir.;.:a .: ..... • • .i1 al':;•.::: . ' • • ' -7:•::Ei.. ' .• • •'=7.•':-, • : r: '•' :'••• -.'. • •••• ""-•..":-:. • •". ' -":". '. : ...--:::••'14". 2 "4.•• •- .-'-i.: *::.ir 7.1'1'•-•:.•:•::: .•'--',:.:---: ''''7,i. .-, •'-.. ','2•'.--..: '''''Prit'"4-.,i, 'se'.• ,•..• .• . '..:"::::•::''::';',,-,;,:.., .. KT.. .:.::•• • .• ".'•: ''ATL-Fi7.i!-.• • ,'••:i-::::,:.i.1,-,27,:I•'• :•• ;,±7.,:,;t:.t1.1:1.•1:;.fe7.!:...:':.•.-,:.i:e:•:';:•,• ::i:':-:::....-T:::'.••:-.2.1gi..,-•• • ::e.::.• ::• '• : ..-..-77"7'. ':. . F..7g.e.4-‘:::err•-1.4••-",,ea'•, .., • •" . • :•':1••4r:•:-'441.1T1::•.::••-':'.!..!:.Li.L:::••1:,'',..r.-.1; --z.:..!...,.:::.!E7.,..;....•.: ...J..:.:...... .. ......:.:.,.+,.;;;!:..,;.., .:.,,.:,.:7.,..,4:.....,,.. ...: '' .''•'''''''''''''..-"'"-.''''.....' '• . ...sr' .." ' -'--'" •-'-• •-: .7.r_4.."i...',:!;..'''::s•:.z. ..... .. -.:'•-.' '...i-.7!i•Ei:i'ip';:,. ..... :',....F-s,:•:-••-,.. •••"4-.-‘,(,.; •••:•' ":7 ir.•::.*:'"•:. :••'''7.••'' . ::.i. ••'.-i':-••x.:::E:::e.c.:4. .••• i ...: .:-.-. i::•::: :.... •.'•7•:--ti-4W4-4.,!'!....' :..::::'•;•,::.ihk..:7 ::'.: .:".-. .. .-'/I E•'l'" . ::.:t7..::::1 io...,,,i::"..-.E4•7::::::',:.."--•••• ...,:;•;•.:'.r:-.. - "::-.7...A..,.. • - . • • '.' .;''''''',..1'.!i•:‘'''.: '-."':'-'',i..r...:'-:':''.•::' :.:i. =.1,-.:.7.:.••'''r :::-.. ' Ei. ..-411"iittti .:.4:.1;.1t,:".: 2,....i.-.?:7.7.0....;•.:•.•.• i..-...,,:,,.iir!::! ':'.'ip",.... . • :.:.:',..'..ti•'t•-t.'..,-;;,•-: ' : • • . -..:..••“....:..+I'' .. .0...."7"----.•!!:.::...•*•;,..''.•.: -.,•:•:.=-- '..., • ':- - .; •1:4-i' -.-.- -.'...ri.....:.. .-........ ..i...r...,... ...,... . ..- .;iri'•'• ' ; ,:•'.;.- .• • . ,;..'. . '''.:7- LAt.:‘.."'•1=.'•.e..4. .• ......i . S• ' • i :: • . • ,.............. •,.. .7'1":•-•••••::::- •.'i.'":1•:. •••*:••••.'_- ..: • .• .I : ••.1::..t:ff.fe4.,:7::=::,::•....::•:..;.. . rfyiVrii, -.-. •, •... .. .. : . • "I ': '..:.:.. 7 ..: •,._.a. - ?.. •....,..:..,,.... ..--:- .....iri-itiF:474P.14.1.471i•-•;-.A1:.:7•1 .. • . • .. Ii 4.....1.: ...i• .,:-..' 4 .' •.. •. .. • : .11-' 6:•••••••'-gTh'ii'.'.../ .77r.L.W:7-•71.:•••::••IRP::".it"i 31."...."1'..•.• :•.1.:1:.:2'..4.7.11.!_,._.,:;:ei:',,,•••. -.':11.''..:4 i.:-....="'''• --' ' - : •• ' • •.•:. . -.:•,-- -. _-- ... ... .3, •.:4:::•:..:'.11:-:.L1H-14.411::: '....•::-:-•77. •74::::.--• r: •,•:•••117'1'.4''4.:4•-:.:•'...'•'•:t-•-.41iF.:-.7::7.4 174.,:z.''.?:f-j'!it:Lat.''...Ati, IS-i..;:.!,:i7i .... -":-..:*i!:',.-i.-.-,-':*...:TA•A'.:.''• :•'.:::. • ' Y.'I"is:'-'---'5}..i,.::7- • ••• •• ••' .:'' " . . . : •--'. '••. f -._..... ..NOMMT., T.2's•-t-.Z.f.-....................... '.7..1.-7-j:#7:1;;E.,-.14.1.,'.- .::::- :'-i.:4',i..-- . ... • :.-.-.: .,,•:i.,7- - -::.i, --.-.. . ....• . .•. •- '•r:.:'.--:.:,-. °.--..; ----..' -44:•;,5- ---P,"7"---" -',-..': --,...4,7:•".-•::-41' :••':•• F•i"-7• -1.:::. ...•-,••••r. •:.4.• .;:•••:: ..1..il-- -.......:...,,..- •••• e, .-=.t•:%•. •,• r• .1" .-t- -.'----7,....,..:•.....:•4:••••.::0 4i..:',•.•..,.;..,.:4.T.:...-- --,17..,:.:::••*4.••••-•••:....,..:.,-p-..,,,,,,,,,,:_,--7•,.: • - • ... . . -:.',..-: f..;.77:7:;',....",••••••ilit•: ..:,.I.ref.1.7.....::.:..,.7:: ........ : Li::::::.... it-:•4••• • ;•.:74.. ... ::•::“...-rr:4'x___. ._ -71::.4,,,•. :'.7.7'..,t4 ".... -- • ...-..; .:.-.J.Zq. . " • ';e 4.7- -..-.7..1- .. •• ••7 r, • •• :7-• :r-1-44t7";;•; 11:".• -5- :':-..".*-• • .;, ,,,,,,,,,,-,p g..k ...i• -:,.:-.. .2;:w...L;,-,•,-,-7 ,5, ,kl,-.,• .- --.T,,.‘&41:.. ..:.-.: . - ' ...,L_,.. .. . . ,•- .: 7..--i4::':.":"::- '....:- ...1....4•!...0!*.4:'::.:*,.:..ft.T.„.7-ff. ..:.:!...:.. • :::-;•.i.:!it.. .:.::;...;;..7'. ..;... ....:".r.t. :.,:•:,. -•. ..'' ••• .: 441".' •- -' - ..'''':'" 7: .:::---.....•--,.....;- --- • .. - • -.-. .--:.'."..E.: ....--st.-.*':-+-ii.:i: •..:‘.;:z....it...:,:‘,...:-...,.i, • - . ..'..: -...,-f_,..7.4 '...,..,,,4,,e.'":. -.-.-1: ......1 Legend .: ..-:,..•Hii ale.1.47-..,:,4e, - •T'''.. :•4::--4:•-':.-..4.:........ . . . --- .-- .: .....i:-'-,,-;•': .. '••.--:;:4,--;.....i.::44. ...••-...-.C..-. . '.E.I.•. ...• ...-':,,=,.?-77.••1:..•-_.:,....„1,- .-:.::,.•.:-. ...:.i.± . ..i' '.•.... •: •.::::i.. - • *:'!.:. • ._,.. ..•:-:--.1.-. .-..iic••••,:ii..- -_:..-,iizh:r.i.... :•.:-' • .... :;.,'::2.-1,LEI;.if:t lEr.,477„1.J1- 1•••F.1 44):174:11; • - . i.':--- '•-::;.N'4,4.7.,: ' .:-''''' • •:-.'.f.'..:...-.•,-- ---- ...„Fr.• ... '. . -n'L ...i•-.-r.".: .:,, .,....•.. .... _. .? '.-• "4 ..:.• '•. • ..:?!..:47=::: ..."-:"..H;••.r.:7,.!:-...,'•••••e7':; 1-i'YX,IF!:::::1-. t••le: •••... .. „tram-.er;:i„:4:11E,,,ipi..:17.........-E...1.1,t,,..e.!,.!..1.1.-•in,IIE,k,.".q .,-.'•• :'-•-. : ..17:"...F.t7.i.",...,'-.7: .7.ift.-......e. r. . ••• ". tjr,j • iffir. - FINTWil,P:M..: ...q.P.t ,t`Pmr.1•0 "'''' •F"ii I I i•i".%Cia..e.!ii-4.. H H ai!v-ItitiIrEftriltaiiirilii3 t r....-Inat-2.4i:fti '1/2-....lii itl.;_mr rmIarnwsli .i. itii ',-.. l:ii dii:iijit..14- i 11 ' R44;134424 C•.Cif..4:?...,, 3. .:,...i.mm..1...:.ii.E.til...4..r•;,1•::.1'.7...4:4;:•1...‘krseli 1 ti.x!..y4..,:i. Ni.-Exp tifizilitlitkith in LI ifiq • gi-=•rilliiit...:Viiiitt-t..4.2. ' . • •-•«HT:Hi 4 171.,),„ eingr:112-414' :. 07E:: 17;::;por:•;511fr,...t.r.,...;77.:35:147.....Ali 11 0 D.411- A .:...,.,...,............::c:,..4, ..._._. ............... P. .4041i$ 4 5Etiat....4Arint•2iLL-4:73111:1, 4.1 _....._............_...-...--- ......._.........____............._... :*•.0.111g4'4-.,.,4;14:=1.,. I Item#12-CC Agendfifl0 File#10-3486[Totakfifi f j B 1 I I MINNESOTA STATUTES 2010 t 216E.05 I216E.05 LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS. Subdivision 1. Local review.(a)Notwithstanding the requirements of sections 216E.03 I and 2I6E.04, an applicant who seeks a site or route permit for one of the projects identified in this section shall have the option of applying to those local units of government that have jurisdiction over the site or route for approval to build the project. If local approval is granted, a ' site or route permit is not required from the commission. If the applicant files an application with the commission, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived its right to seek local approval of the project. I (b)A local unit of government with jurisdiction over a project identified in this section to whom an applicant has applied for approval to build the project may request the commission to assume jurisdiction and make a decision on a site or route permit under the applicable provisions of this chapter.A local unit of government must file the request with the commission within 60 Idays after an application for the project has been filed with any one local unit of government. If one of the local units of government with jurisdiction over the project requests the commission to assume jurisdiction,jurisdiction over the project transfers to the commission. If the local units of government maintain jurisdiction over the project,the commission shall select the appropriate I local unit of government to be the responsible governmental unit to conduct environmental review of the project. I ,Subd.2.Applicable projects. Applicants may seek approval from local units of government to construct the following projects: I (1) large electric power generating plants with a capacity of less than 80 megawatts; (2)large electric power generating plants of any size that burn natural gas and are intended to be a peaking plant; I (3) high-voltage transmission lines of between 100 and 200 kilovolts; i(4) substations with a voltage designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more; I (5)a high-voltage transmission line service extension to a single customer between 200 and 300 kilovolts and less than ten miles in length; and I (6) a high-voltage transmission line rerouting to serve the demand of a single customer when the rerouted line will be located at least 80 percent on property owned or controlled by the customer or the owner of the transmission line. I Subd. 3. Notice of application. Within ten days of submission of an application to a local unit of government for approval of an eligible project,the applicant shall notify the commission that the applicant has elected to seek local approval of the proposed project. IHistory: 2001 c 212 art 7 s 15; 2005 c 97 art 3 s 19 I I ICopyright®2010 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota,All Rights Reserved. Item#12-CC Agenda-12/13/2010 5 File#10-3486[Total Pages 8] 1 REVISOR 7850.5300 7850.5300 LOCAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED FACILITIES. Subpart 1. Local review. An applicant who seeks a site or route permit for one of the projects identified in subpart 2 has the option of applying to those local units of government that have jurisdiction over the site or route for approval to build the project. If local approval is granted, a site or route permit is not required from the commission. If the applicant files an application with the PUC, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived its right to seek local approval of the project. Subp. 2. Eligible projects. An applicant may seek approval from a local unit of government to construct the following projects: A. a large electric power generating plant with a capacity of less than 80 megawatts; B. a large electric power generating plant of any size that burns natural gas and is intended to be a peaking plant; C. a high voltage transmission line of between 100 and 200 kilovolts; D. a substation with a voltage designed for and capable of operation at a ' nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more; E. a high voltage transmission line service extension to a single customer between 200 and 300 kilovolts and less than ten miles in length; and F. a high voltage transmission line rerouting to serve the demand of a single customer when at least 80 percent of the rerouted line will be located on property owned or controlled by the customer or the owner of the transmission line. Subp. 3. Notice to PUC. Within ten days of submission of an application to a local unit of government for approval of an eligible project, the applicant shall notify the commission in writing that the applicant has elected to seek local approval of the proposed project. Within the same ten-day period, the applicant shall mail notice to those persons ' on the general notification list that a permit has been applied for from the local unit of government for the project and shall provide a description of the project and the name of a person with the local unit of government to contact for more information. Subp. 4. Referral to PUC. A local unit of government with jurisdiction over a project identified in this section to whom an applicant has applied for approval to build the project may request the PUC to assume jurisdiction and make a decision on a site or route permit. A local unit of government shall file the request with the commission within 60 days after an application for the project has been filed with any one local unit of government. If one of the local units of government with jurisdiction over the project requests the commission to assume jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the project transfers evisor of Statutes State of Minnesota. All Rights Copyright©2009 by the R Reserved. 1 Item#12-CC Agenda-12/13/2010 File#10-3486[Total Pages 81 2 REVISOR 7850.5300 1 to the commission and the applicant shall file under the applicable provisions of parts 7850.1000 to 7850.5600 for a permit from the commission. I Subp. 5. Environmental review. A local unit of government that maintains jurisdiction over a qualifying project shall prepare an environmental assessment on the project. The local unit of government shall afford the public an opportunity to participate Iin the development of the scope of the environmental assessment before it is prepared. Upon completion of the environmental assessment, the local unit of government shall publish notice in the EQB Monitor that the environmental assessment is available for Ireview, how a copy of the document may be reviewed, that the public may comment on the document, and the procedure for submitting comments to the local unit of government. I The local unit of government shall provide a copy of the environmental assessment to the PUC upon completion of the document. The local unit of government shall not make a final decision on the permit until at least ten days after the notice appears in the EQB I Monitor. If more than one local unit of government has jurisdiction over a project, and the local units of government cannot agree on which unit will prepare the environmental assessment, any local unit of government or the applicant may request the commission to I select the appropriate local unit of government to be the responsible governmental unit to conduct an environmental review of the project. I Subp. 6. No local authority. In the event a local unit of government that might otherwise have jurisdiction over a proposed large electric power generating plant or high voltage transmission line determines that it has no ordinances or other provisions I for reviewing and authorizing the construction of such project or has no capability of preparing an environmental assessment on the project, the local unit of government shall refer the matter to the PUC for review. ISubp. 7. Matters excluded. When the Public Utilities Commission has issued a Certificate of Need for a large electric power generating plant or high voltage transmission I line or placed a high voltage transmission line on the certified HVTL list maintained by the commission, the local unit of government shall not address questions of need, including size, type, and timing; questions of alternative system configurations; or Iquestions of voltage. Statutory Authority: MS s 116C.66; 216E.16 IHistory: 27 SR 1295; L 2005 c 97 art 3 s 19 Posted: September 18, 2009 I I t Copyright 02009 the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. bySh 1 I 1 Item#12-CC Agenda-12/13/2010 y� File#10-3486[Total Pages 8] ORONO City Code Reference ' Sec. 78-393. Conditional uses. Within any RR-1A one-family rural residential district,no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: 1 (6) Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings, such as telephone exchange stations,booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations,provided no building shall be located within 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is ' compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures that have been approved by the city at required public hearings for public improvements projects shall not require a conditional use permit, but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the city to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the council.Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. ' 1 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX E ' PHASE Ia LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE RESPONSE ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I I REDACTED I I I Phase Ia Literature Review for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and I New 115 kV Transmission Line Project I Hennepin County, Minnesota I SHPO Number: 2010-4976 I MPUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 (Formerly E002/LR-10-957) I I I I I I I April, 2011 1 ' Report Title: Phase Ia Literature Review for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project,Hennepin County,Minnesota Report Prepared by: URS Corporation 100 South Fifth Street,Suite 1500 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 612.370.0700 Report Author: Scott M. Buskey 11 Report Date: April 2011 Submitted to: Joseph Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy,Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall,MP8 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 612.330.6435 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 I 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Jurisdiction 4 I 1.3 Project Location 4 1.4 Cultural Resource Study Area Background 7 2.0 Methods 8 I 3.0 Literature Review Results 9 3.1 National Register of Historic Places 9 4.0 Minnesota State Site Files 10 I 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 10 4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Structures 13 4.3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys 13 I 5.0 Other Resources 14 5.1 General Land Office Maps 14 5.2 George B.Wright 14 5.3 J. William Trygg Composite Maps 14 I 5.4 Historic Aerial Maps 14 5.5 Historic Topographic Quadrangles 15 6.0 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected 16 I 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 19 8.0 References 21 List of Tables I Table 1 Previously Identified Cultural Resource Properties Near the Project 12 I List of Figures Figure 1 General Vicinity Map 3 I Figure 2 Proposed Route Location 5 Figure 3 Proposed Expansion to Orono Substation 6 Figure 4 Archaeological&Historical Sites 11 I Figure 5 Alternative Routes 18 List of Appendices I Appendix A SHPO and Xcel Energy Correspondence I I Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 I MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 ii 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description ' Xcel Energy, Inc. ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company") proposes to expand and upgrade the existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation, construct approximately 0.4 miles of new double circuit 115 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and construct approximately 0.2 miles of single circuit 115 kV transmission ' line within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono located west of the Twin Cities metropolitan area,Hennepin County,Minnesota. The project is referred to as the Orono Substation ' Expansion Project (the "Project"). Figure 1 shows the general vicinity of the proposed Project. The Project involves expanding and upgrading the existing 69-13.8 kV Orono Substation (a distribution substation) to a 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and constructing approximately 0.19 miles of single circuit and approximately 0.4 miles of double circuit 115 kV overhead transmission line. The Proposed Route for the transmission line associated with the Project will ' originate at the proposed Orono Substation expansion, and initially remain on Xcel Energy property. See Figure 2. At the point the Proposed Route exits the proposed substation expansion area and extends approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16-acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of-way approximately 1,795 feet before turning southwest for an additional 475 feet where it will connect to existing Structure 78 ' that supports transmission line 0831. The Project is needed to increase the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation to the ' transmission system 115 kV voltage, which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads,and allow for additional load growth in the future. ' Xcel Energy will file a Route Permit Application (the "Application") with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") for a Route Permit for the Project (see MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223). For new construction of structures and transmission line,Xcel Energy proposes ' a 400-foot route width, 200 feet on either side of the centerline of the proposed new line. Ground disturbance associated with the Project would generally be limited to excavation of foundations to secure the 115kV line structures and construction of the planned expansion of the substation within ' existing Xcel Energy property. The height of the structures will range from 70 to 105 feet. The spans between structures typically range from 300 to 500. The overall spacing of the structures will be comparable to other Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line structures, which can vary based on soil conditions, engineering requirements and land use constraints. Depending upon the final route location, the Project may cross over a small waterbody, wetlands and transportation corridors (e.g. railroad and highway). The proposed Orono Substation expansion ' and a portion of the proposed new transmission line will be located within the 16-acre Xcel Energy owned property where the existing Orono Substation is located. The 16-acre Orono Substation site is locate in the southwest corner of the U.S. Highway 12 and 6th Avenue North intersection within ' the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono. Although utilizing Company property for Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 1 placement of the proposed new transmission line and expansion of the existing substation is important to Xcel Energy,some new easement acquisition for the proposed new transmission line is anticipated. As part of preparation of the Application for the proposed Project, and on behalf of Xcel Energy, URS Corporation ("URS") is assessing the potential Project related impacts on cultural resources. This Phase Ia Review Report ("the Report") presents the methods and findings of a cultural resources literature review for the Project. The purpose of this literature review is to identify all previously recorded archaeological sites and historic properties within one-mile of the Project area. The Project area is defined as the 400-foot-route width of the Proposed Route for the planned new transmission line and the expansion area of the planned Orono Substation facility and is considered ' the area of potential effect (APE) for potential impacts on cultural resources. In addition, this review serves to provide a brief cultural history for the Project area as well as assess the potential for the presence of previously unidentified cultural sites. Scott Buskey of URS conducted the research and wrote the literature review report. URS's GIS Department prepared the Project graphics. 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 , MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 2 I r�r 'rt+ r a Ttt 5 r Yy_ • _ 66 1 c°.',. _ . # T. 1 k '•,'- : '+. 4 ...'4'�.. ` J: 1 r----.c `A _,'�" '„ >. - .• "'^t e• a5 -.Ir.._. :.r.. Nom. .;. = _.:7.?,r''Ll f, r, ”7 • ri "' r'dl is .. = �," v. - _ — ,. J _+ ,. `" _ AC — '' ».... `j . Q K[19t1fQ #rrj- � r 444..' F {lAC Gao- • 1 j " i -. roof, " Pr 7.4.- I 1e: .'� r 't r - ,�. II Sar t-'1 :-. f; a _ � I J 1 _ n " 'i�..y.. — 1� - wr J , a'`"= /r mss. s ' cil, fJ 7t" IS FitRk' ratt.,!41 1 ?kith 1 • p_,ar+ tip .-' i Existing Xcel Energy �. �f." r ' - 4 Orono Substation Site111 %' — -_ _� _ -- Lai' I f@ r ,�,•' 'ar # ? . .. • � ..a a> 's y.:^ .fir ••r,• I •D .s q 1 1. �_. I - - - — ; _ _ . .--.-. if:plil / , .., 1 , - ,t. ; #� / ,*' "r 'fie`j }r• . n. _. , • ;�+,• Y \v- e_ fir• ^ - ,1 wr 1111164 • lYa Qp° t, [l I 1 . ,.....,,,,,-. ... .i. . • t . ,` .,ry-�^ ti II e (= Xceaf6iergY FIGURE 1 ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT I ' n GENERAL VICINITY MAP I 2000 Topographic Map Source: ° ORONO, MINNESOTA USGS Excelsior,Minn. DRN BY: TS DATE: 7J17/11 II PROJECT NO. I FIG.NO. 1 Feet I Quad dated 1997 CHKD BY: DD DATE 2117/11 31810889 1 1.2 Jurisdiction At this time, there are no federal regulatory triggers that require compliance with federal historic preservation laws, specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ("NHPA"), as amended. Environmental review of the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the MPUC. Xcel Energy will provide in the Application to the MPUC a description of the effects of the Proposed Route and Orono Substation expansion on archaeological and historic resources to assist ' in the preparation of an environmental impact statement under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850.1900, Subp. 3(D). Also, Minnesota state historic preservation laws protect human burials of all types (see Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act [Minn. Stat. § 307]), and archaeological sites and historic properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") or the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites (see Minnesota Historic Sites Act [Minn. Stat. § 138.661-138.6691]). 1.3 Project Location The proposed Project is located within Hennepin County, Minnesota. Figure 1 shows an overview ' of the general vicinity of the Project and the Proposed Route is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the planned expansion of the existin Orono Substation facili . The Project is wholl located within the municipal boundaries of in Hennepin County,Minnesota. The Project consists of a new linear transmission line that generally will run north and west for an approximate 3,136 feet and the expansion of the existing substation site. The fenced area of the existing Orono Substation is approximately 0.1 acres. The proposed 115 kV Orono Substation encompasses an area of approximately 1.2 acres within the existing Xcel Energy 16-acre site, and includes the existing 0.1 acre site. The proposed transmission line will originate at the proposed expanded Orono Substation, and initially remain on Xcel Energy property. At the point the Proposed Route exits the proposed substation expansion area,it extends approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16- acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF") railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly across adjacent Huntington Farm Association ("HFA") property paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of-way approximately 1,795 feet before turning southwest for an additional 475 feet where it will connect to existing transmission Structure 078 that supports Xcel Energy transmission Line 0831. Xcel Energy is currently in the process of evaluating siting/routing information and collecting comments and input from the Local Government Unit("LGU"), regulatory officials, the public, and other interested parties. The Proposed Route location shown in Figure 2 is preliminary and subject to change through this process. In order to study the cultural background of the Project location and better understand the potential for impacts to cultural resources, a 1-mile buffer around the Project location was used to gather information. The Project area plus the 1-mile buffer is called the Cultural Resources Study Area (or "Study Area"). Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 4 I ID Existing Structure V Proposed Stricture . \It' - ..z.®Proposed Route ... I .+mow Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 - Existing GRE 69kV Line BD k Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Requested Route Width(400'Total) E` - " Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Substation Site '-- Park Boundary , Proposed 75 Ft Right-of-Way "' fp. K v =- -- Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels ., I .� NgFR 077 New '+ r' t I (New) r .4' �� - �� O76(Line 0831) ,.. 4r- •• r- eserve '•078(Line 0831),: �� `, `_ .To be replaced To belreplaced d 076-1 (New)`-` `\ •i *'a To replace existing structure „� ---7-=-. 4. ' 077(Line 0831 y '4 .14iF '' ,; `. To be replaced wi h=4 w structure,076-1 1 6 (Nev:)).-- <4 N4 �sw : .! `mar ' '�` N 'g , ,s- t, 0,76-3 New) 4 il ,-- . -c-sa,..„ - -‘.. 4 ..,,,...„....,4 , _. „.,,z.,-. ; , . .....,!„,.. .,. . ... ..., ' „1-..,.1- y r, ..,..,:i.. , til, y ...7....04.,. ...!..+? 'Y4 _�SR(l7`Ri� 4"l\" T£ : t .,' "4 TAT 7.w ON It 111 , ,,.,„, . .:,, .4. .. v .::,.. .4.. .. K d ,Ii''.',,. ' i,,...47.2.`;',,.��ia ♦ ¥ ,i�pL la -, ` €' � ' 1 '`4 ff tri i �.-.�---^ �►-”_ .�. ,� _ 4' „ I ��'• I �. ' l'.d t .per.. ' �RW ��' i • ri . r y E.n ai � Azo 4.s��br �,.� � �� ! , ., so a jr '` f'.' L . ; fid• i ' - ' rx $ I FIGURE 2 O XcelEneigy' ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT _ PROPOSED ROUTE LOCATION I ee Aerial Image Source: ORONO MINNESOTA I Aerial Express ECW Image DRN BY: TS DATE. 3/7/11 PROJECT NO. HG.NO. Feet dated Sept.15,2009 CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 37/11 31810889 2 I 1 I ! / / I 1 I ! _ I 1 z I 1 z„ 1 =�a Z'u�'+10 acute, 1 O_d Oa g II zoo w h=OO ! �aJCW O I � 6 OI I �WGOz ff F� ! OZN2 1 a2220 I mezzo 2 7 I ! y�j W Y a m I ! =on a 'r w ! Z"L F w col i m I I Ii O 1 8 o I 0 .E `o_ m .."I'. ) . 03 0 F 1 z Y at r ;�w y krr A 1 ia d 1 ��I `� 9r .i - -,,y, -* I I 0it 1i1 I II ® --- ♦ i 5 4n. / // �iJt®�iO: I I�j�i I 1 a/ / �_�_ 1__ i _ —-- —� 30113�3NN333tl' 1 .1 ' T-R�OS'NIMOA 1 I I I„ I' _�/_ _.4._ i 7` _ ' ; _ asapd_ /// z�—2A I I-- �6 r , abVHaaO I g6 g I `c z 1 (----t Iil S',9 m I I 8i Z I i r w o $ ! J o LUI CC o z i II ' 1.4 Cultural Resources Study Area Background The proposed Study Area is located in western Hennepin County to the northwest of the Lake Minnetonka Area and is part of the Central Lakes Deciduous South Archaeological Region (Anfinson 1990). The physical relief in this region was formed by the retreat of the vast ice sheets at the end of the Wisconsin glaciation. It is assigned to the Pine City Moraine Association relating to ' the Grantsburg sub-lobe of the Des Moines lobe and is a gently undulating landscape comprised of glacial till. Till from the earlier St. Croix moraine of the Superior lobe underlies the Pine City Moraine contributing to a uniquely lacustrine landscape and the soils which subsequently formed in ' the area consist of loamy and clayey tills. Presently, the climate of the Study Area is continental with wide seasonal variations in temperature. 1 Annual precipitation in the region is sufficient to support a variety of agricultural crops as well as lands suitable for pastoral use. At the time of Euro-American arrival, the vegetation in the region was part of the Big Woods environment. Big Woods environments can be described as forests of ' elm, sugar maple, basswood and oak that once covered much of south-central Minnesota. The modern vegetation assemblage near the Study Area consists of parcels of land in agricultural use,and mixed deciduous hardwoods. Human occupation in the region dates back to the beginning of the Holocene period 12,000 years ago. The earliest inhabitants were Paleoindians (10,000 — 6,000/5,000 B.C.), who were highly mobile, widely scattered, hunting and gathering bands. Archaeological evidence representing the Paleoindian period in Minnesota is scarce, largely represented by the isolated finds of large, finely crafted chipped-stone projectile points. The Archaic period (6,000/5,000 — 400/200 B.C.) in Minnesota follows the Paleoindian period and is typified by a shift in subsistence strategies to a more diversified hunting-and-gathering. Excavated Archaic sites demonstrate greater sedentism and ' population growth, as well as the development of more advanced lithic technologies and a diverse tool kit. The Woodland period (400/200 B.C. — A.D. 1650) is characterized by several important adaptations, including adoption of pottery, use of the bow and arrow, and the widespread ' construction of earthen mounds. The Mississippian/Oneota tradition (ca. A.D. 1000 — 1700) in the upper Midwest and Minnesota is largely represented by local expression of cultural manifestations by Woodland peoples. ' The Historic period in Minnesota began in the late seventeenth century with the arrival of Euro- American fur traders, explorers, missionaries, and soldiers. The American Indian population ' inhabiting the region at the time of contact was the Dakota. Subsequent treaties with the Tribes in the region opened the land for Euro-American settlement in the mid-1800s. The westward migration of people from the East Coast as well as new immigrants, primarily from northern Europe, follows a pattern of settlement common throughout Minnesota and the Midwest. It is common in the historic record to find settlements of groups along ethnic lines in the region, and in the Study Area,people from Sweden and Germany were the most populous. ' Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 7 1 2.0 METHODS The purpose of performing a cultural resources literature review is to identify previously recorded cultural properties and assess the potential for additional properties needing field survey within the APE prior to construction. ' On September 23,2010,Xcel Energy sent the SHPO a letter with Project information and requested comments from the SHPO concerning the Project (see Appendix A). In an October 21,2010,letter to the Company, the SHPO indicated that it reviewed the Project (see Appendix A). Due to the nature of the Project, the SHPO recommended that an archeological survey be conducted that meets the requirements of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, ' and an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. The SHPO also indicated that if the Project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, the SHPO will re-evaluate the need for the survey. URS personnel followed the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") guidelines for conducting cultural resources literature reviews in Minnesota. (Anfinson 2005). A site file search was requested for both archaeological sites and historic properties from the SHPO database coordinator Tom Cinadr prior to visiting the SHPO office on March 8,2011. Several visual resources were used in the process of evaluating both the current and historic land uses of the study area. Topographic and Quaternary maps were used to examine the Study Area in terms of landscape evolution and how it relates to settlement and land use patterns. Modern and historic aerial photographs were used to evaluate historic properties in the Study Area. Additionally, General Land Survey ("GLO") maps,Trygg maps, and county plat maps were examined as a part of better understanding the historic development of the Study Area. Online resources documenting the history of Hennepin County, and the townships of Independence, Medina, and Orono were used to gather information pertaining to the Study Area. 1 Orono Project Phase Ia literature Review April,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 8 1 1 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS 3.1 National Register of Historic Places A search of the NRHP website and the records at the SHPO revealed that there are 1,582 properties in Hennepin County listed on the NRHP. None of the properties listed are located within the cultural resources Study Area for the proposed Project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 9 1 1 1 4.0 MINNESOTA STATE SITE FILES 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 1 A total of 15 archaeological sites have been previously recorded within one mile of the alignment of the Study Area (see Figure 4). Of the 15 archaeological sites, thirteen are pre-contact and consist of: six lithic scatters, two artifact scatters, three single artifact finds, and two American Indian earthworks. The remaining two sites consist of post-contact historic structural ruins with associated artifact scatters. None of the previously recorded sites are listed in the Nation Register Considered Eligible Findings ("CEF") by the SHPO. A total of 19 previously recorded historic architectural properties were identified within the Study Area (see Figure 4). Of the 19 historic architectural 1 properties none are listed on the NRHP or CEF. A summary of the inventoried archaeological and architectural sites is provided in Table 1. Because the Project is located in close proximity to Lake Minnetonka which is a highly sensitive archaeological area, and within one mile of documented Native American earthworks, it has the potential to contain additional pre-contact cultural resources. However, much of the proposed Project and transmission line route lies near or within wetland areas making traditional survey methods nearly impossible in these locations. Under these circumstances, where traditional survey methods prior to the start of construction are difficult to undertake, URS recommends that Xcel Energy has an unanticipated discovery plan in place prior to the start of construction. The unanticipated discovery plan should outline procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered prior or during construction. The two American Indian earthworks (21HE0184, and 21HEam) located within the cultural resources study area warrant special discussion as they are protected under Minn. Stat. Section 307.08 of Minnesota's "Private Cemeteries" Act. While it is known that not all earthworks contain human burials, they are protected as such until authenticated by the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). Neither of the earthworks located in the cultural resources Study Area have been authenticated. Of the two sites, one is located approximately- away from its nearest point to the Proposed Route width and the other is approximately _ away from its nearest point to the Proposed Route. Given the distance between these sites and the proposed construction activities, no impacts are anticipated. Based on recent aerial photographs, it appears that an existing transmission line passes along the 1 northern boundary of site 21HE0184, and a portion of site 21HEam may have been destroyed by residential development. 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 1 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 10 i 1 I I I ' FIGURE 4 ' Figure 4 has been eliminated from Appendix E of the Route Permit Application due to the sensitive nature of information included within the figure. This information is not readily available for use in a public document. I I 1 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I I TABLE 1 1 Previously Identified Cultural Resource Properties near the Project Type of Historic Inventory Description NRHP Status Property Number I Archaeological 21HE0155 not eligible .Archaeological 21HE0158 Unevaluated Archaeological 21HE0159 Unevaluated Archaeological 21HE0161 Unevaluated I Archaeological 21HE0162 not eligible Archaeological 21 HE0163 not eligible Archaeological 21HE0165 not eligible I Archaeological 21HE0166 not eligible Unevaluated Archaeological 21 HE0167 Archaeological 21HE0177 Unevaluated Archaeological 21HE0178 not eligible Archaeological 21HE0184 Unevaluated structures moved Archaeological 21 HE028 8 Archaeological 21HEh not eligible Archaeological 21 HEam Unevaluated Architectural HE-INC-033 Unevaluated I Architectural HE-ORC-006 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-007 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-008 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-013 structure moved I Architectural HE-ORC-014 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-015 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-016 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-035 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-042 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-043 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-044 Unevaluated I Architectural HE-ORC-045 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-046 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-047 Unevaluated I Architectural HE-ORC-052 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-055 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-058 Unevaluated I Architectural HE-MAC-036 not eligible Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 I MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 12 I 1 1 4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Structures Nineteen historic properties have been inventoried within the Study Area as part of various cultural ' resources inventories. Several rural properties within the Study Area were recommended for further evaluation during the previous resource studies but have not been subjected to such studies as of the completion of this literature review. None of the historic properties are located within the 400 foot Proposed Route width, with the nearest being approximately away, and will not be impacted by construction activities. 4.3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys The reports for eight cultural resources inventories in the Study Area were reviewed. Another ' report submitted in 2003 was unable to be located during the March 2011 visits to the SHPO. A 1988 Reconnaissance NRHP Survey of 26 Municipalities in Hennepin County for the SHPO covered portions of the cultural resources Study Area documenting several standing structures. Several structures were recorded as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP;however,none of the properties recorded for the 1988 report relating to this Project will be adversely impacted. Two reports document the Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Studies of 1993 and 1994. The Project location was covered within one of 8 segments where a 500 foot wide survey corridor was implemented. None of the sites recorded within these reports and relating to this Project are listed as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The 106 Group conducted Phase II evaluations of two structures relating to reconstruction of County State Aid Highway ("CSAH") 6 in 1994. Both of the previously identified properties were found to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In 1995,a final report was submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society as part of the Trunk Highway Cultural Resource Program (Mather et. al. 1995) summarizing the results of surveys for several alternatives relating to improvements to U.S. Highway 12. Several archaeological sites were recorded as part of this survey,including 21HE0162,which falls within one of the Alternate Routes for this Project but outside of the 400 foot Proposed Route width. ' In 1997, the 106 Group submitted a Phase I report for the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 6 from Townline Road to U.S. Highway 12. The extreme southern extent of the 16 acre substation parcel was covered as part of this survey with a result of no findings. ' Phase II evaluations were conducted prior to improvements to U.S. Highway 12 in 1998 on two sites outside of the proposed 400 foot route width and existing substation site for the Project,but within the one mile cultural resources Study Area. BRW,Inc. found both sites to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP;however,a reported undocumented Euro-American burial at site 21HE0288 was recommended for monitoring during construction activities. Site 21HE0288 is approximately ' -away from the proposed Project. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 13 1 5.0 OTHER RESOURCES Historical documents, detailed below, were reviewed in order to identify possible previously undocumented historic sites that might be impacted by the proposed Project. 5.1 GLO Maps , Minnesota's Original Public Land Survey Maps were viewed online through the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office ("MnGeo") website. The Project location was surveyed in 1854 and 1855 under the jurisdiction of the Surveyor General of Iowa and Wisconsin as a means of dividing the western lands into grid-shaped townships and sections. None of the GLO maps representing the Project location show any cultural features within the proposed Project's 400 foot route width or existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation 16-acre site. In addition, the description of environmental and topographic conditions indicates that much of the area was swamp or marshland at the time of Euro American arrival. 5.2 George B. Wright In the late nineteenth century, George B. Wright published an atlas of Hennepin County which is available for viewing online through the University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. The Medina page presents the Project location in detail, showing the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad as the only cultural feature,which is currently the BNSF Railroad. 5.3 J.William Trygg Composite Maps , The Trygg maps were created in 1950 and combine information from the GLO Survey plats and field notes and miscellaneous other early sources into a series of 46 sheets covering Minnesota and portions of Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa. Aside from a road and trail to the south of the Project location,no cultural features are identified in the area. 5.4 Historic Aerial Photographs URS reviewed aerial photographs of the cultural resources Study Area online from the University of I Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library (U.S. Department of Agriculture). The 1937 aerial shows the rural landscape with agricultural fields and farmsteads as well as small,scattered stands of woods. Subsequent aerials (1940, 1951, 1960, and 1971) showed little change from the 1937 photo. Several of the farmsteads visible on the aerial photos correspond with current residences depicted on modern aerials. In addition, structures relating to previously identified historic properties are able to be compared to existing structures on modern aerial photographs. Of note is the location Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 14 5.5 Historic Topographic Quadrangles URS reviewed historic topographic 15 minute quadrangles available online from the Historical Map Archive at http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/us states/minnesota/topo/index.html. The ' Minnetonka quadrangle (1907) and the Rockford quadrangle (1909, 1950) show no unidentified cultural features in the Project location while illustrating the changing landscape. I 1 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 15 I 1 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED Xcel Energy identified and analyzed four Alternative Routes for the Project, which are identified as ' "Alternative Route 1", "Alternative Route 2", "Alternative Route 3" and "Alternative Route 4" (collectively,"Alternative Routes"),and are further described below. See Figure 5. In evaluating the Alternative Routes,Xcel Energy focused predominantly on the use of Xcel Energy property and on the location of existing transportation corridors and alignment of the existing distribution and transmission lines because they best satisfy the routing criteria. The Alternative Routes follow I existing rights-of-way and property lines to the extent feasible. All of the Alternative Routes were rejected due to various routing and siting issues specific to each Alternative. Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the Proposed Route (see Figure 5). At this point,Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more westerly course for approximately 550 feet,where it connects to an existing Structure. ' Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure 5). At this point Alternative Route 2 continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here I Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831. Alternative Route 2 would traverse the previously identified site 21HE0162. Evaluation of site 21HE0162, a pre-contact lithic scatter,was undertaken in 1994 as part of a cultural resources inventory for proposed improvements to U.S. Highway 12 (Mather et. al. 1995). The report authors determined that the site did not possess integrity or research potential due to extensive disturbance and no further work was recommended if the proposed highway project was constructed using the preferred alternative. Alternative Route 3 and the Proposed Route share the same route from the point the routes leave t the proposed substation expansion to approximately 1,000 feet west of the point both routes turn westerly along the BNSF right-of-way (see Figure 5). At this location Alternative Route 3 extends both to the north and to the west to make connections with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831. The northerly connection includes a 329 foot span across the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, and enters into Baker Park Reserve property making the northern connection to transmission Line 0831 at existing Structure 76. The westerly connection of Alternative Route 3, south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, spans across HFA land, and for an additional approximate 384 feet to connect to Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission I Line 0831 at Structure 77. Alternative Route 4 exits the proposed substation upgrade northwesterly for approximately 100 feet over Xcel Energy property before turning southeasterly for an additional approximate 160 feet. Alternative Route 4 then parallels the GRE Line BD for the remainder of the route. Alternative Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 1 MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 16 i I Route 4 would continue east for approximately 607 feet prior to turning north. Upon turning north Alternative Route 4 would continue north for approximately 2,873 feet leaving Xcel Energy's property and crossing over the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12 and entering Barker Park Reserve. ' The majority of Alternative Route 4 would be constructed along an existing transmission line corridor. However, a 350 foot span requiring new right-of-way through Baker Park Reserve would be required where the existing transmission line and the Alternative Route 4 deviate. I ' Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 17 I Alternative Route 1 t� t ry Alternative Route 2 -, -. '� .. .. 7 T� • r 'o a Alternative Route 3 { � ' Alternative Route 4 t ',7'''':'-',„•.‘'`Z-• 1" t :r_ �� z ::' 'r Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 " :'•,. , 4 '• �` 4 '�; ^ .F I � *°Existing GRE 69kV Line BD / i i' „", e c;,,�+ ' Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line 't,' 4 f""„tit' # tr r rr Jrt ExistingXcelOronoSubstation is_a� ` � s'�' '� '- S I yrs". j.''!RY''11-f r_ C+'�g` t 'x Existing Orono Substation Site r r .1 Park d -: a S Q Proposed Substation Expansion a ° :_ ti ' . 1 Existing Structure 077(Line 0831) .. r " \r4 •••-r-,0„,.• a % ' �; OExisting Structure 076(Line 0831) f < is• 1 .t �'"} Q, t.f a r f 4 ..a r, " fit of'1 �5 }e Ii' • } r(s �<w I itt rbY.e ' : . ` ' ' f. 'd� g' ".�,r: hF ts lr ` K ht . ' '' r'450.* Z.',I * 'Ittirkl/rN.k:',. -4;41 a7 44If ''-;.7''' y 4,.-1-2.- II /-� - `« 'fir �" t ' ' ';..--i.,ki ". ?w i r - ' re' a= . J c .$ y...T N; # `E .;.• .'> 1 II ` YI ' i'f" pi's ; .• II II 441114Sk,.. ' a r t ,i,`-. XI' 4' Hun ✓ `` -/ yy1�1�� i `-'arm,Rd - - ip it, r t e ti Y ,.„0., .. .4.�iu.....— _, (% 2 ' N. ,// /,/ /ry ., .,,,, -..,:,,:::.::..,,,•,,t.- lii, .4 ,,, 1. . , _.0 4,-: .. ,,.._.,,,, __°.° / /,,POZ/.." ,,r ». til° .k { �jGli � h , 6 4'4": -r: 1. 46 xAA, _ y�- r a" i r ` 1. r S . FIGURE 5 e /r 10Ene . ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW I C� - - 1011 I.�Y �, 115 ICV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 400 Aeriat Image Source: �'' .. ORONO, MINNESOTA II Aerial Express ECW Image DRN BY: TS DATE 3(7/11 PROJECT NO. FIG.NO. I Feetdated Sept.15,2009 CHK'D BY: DD } DATE 317/11 I 31810889I 5 ' 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no historic landmarks, historic properties, districts, or landscapes within the Project ' location that are listed on the NRHP, or determined or recommended for listing on the NRHP. Because the Project's Proposed Route is adjacent to existing transportation and utility corridors for the majority of the route, the potential affect to historic structures is considered to be minimal. One of the rejected Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route crosses a single archaeological site ' Based upon the findings of this Report and current plans for the proposed Project, URS recommends field survey at two locations for the Proposed Route. The first survey area is a portion of the 16 acre parcel where the expansion to the Orono Substation is proposed. The area is a small ' portion of the parcel that has not been surveyed and is adjacent to a structure viewed on historic aerial photographs. This survey area is recommended for previously undisturbed areas. The second survey area is a landform that previously identified site 21HE0162 occupies The second survey area will only be necessary if the landform previously identified is considered for placement of new transmission structures. ' URS believes that field survey at previously undisturbed areas within these two locations is warranted because the proposed Project is situated in an area that is considered to have high potential to contain archaeological sites, combined with the fact that there are several previously ' identified cultural resources in the cultural resource Study Area. The remainder of the Proposed Route would be constructed along existing transportation and utility corridors, tying in to an existing transmission line and associated structures. These areas are considered to be previously disturbed and no field survey is warranted. To summarize the literature review findings, no previously identified property listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites is located within the Project location. One previously identified archaeological site, 21HE0162, is located The site was evaluated in 1994 and received a not eligible determination. The potential for impacting unrecorded archaeological resources within the Project ' location is considered to be high due to number of previously recorded sites and the Project's proximity to the archaeologically sensitive Lake Minnetonka. To assure that any undiscovered cultural resources are recognized and protected during ground disturbance associated with the Project, URS further recommends that Xcel Energy have an unanticipated discovery plan in place. This plan would provide guidance to Xcel Energy Project Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 19 1 personnel in the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction activities. ' URS understands that Xcel Energy will file for a Route Permit from the MPUC for the Project, and that cultural resource matters will be taken into consideration in this permitting process. The I recommendations provided here are based on standard predictability models for discovery of archaeological resources in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and in accordance with relevant MPUC regulations, the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act, and the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act. In the event that there is federal involvement in the Project, such as federal permitting, licensing or funding, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,must be followed. I Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 ' MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 20 I ' 8.0 REFERENCES Anfinson, Scott 2005 SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota State Historic ' Preservation Office. Ketz,Dr.Ann ' 1994 Phase II Evaluations of Two Barns CSAH 6 Reconstruction From Townline Road to T.H. 12, Orono and Independence,Hennepin County,Minnesota. ' Ketz,Dr.Ann 1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey for CSAH 6 Reconstruction From Townline Road to T.H. 12,Orono and Independence,Hennepin County,Minnesota. 106 Group for the ' Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Malmquist, Chandra,Scott O'Mack and Jackie Sluss ' 1998 Phase II Cultural Resources Investigation Along Trunk Highway 12,Hennepin County,Minnesota. Mather,David,Patrick Nunnally and Shawna Kruger 111 1994 Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report MnDOT S.P. 2713- 64 For Channelization and Turn Lanes Along TT 12 Between Orono and Long Lake, Hennepin County,Minnesota. ' Mather,David and Patrick Nunnally 1995 Final Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Trunk Highway Cultural ' Resource Program. Peterson,Leslie D.,Kent A. Skaar and Wanda Watson Radford (editors) 1994 Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Study,Annual Report 1993. Minnesota Historical Society, St.Paul. Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. ' Roberts,Dr.Norene A. 1988 Reconnaissance National Register of Historic Places Survey of 26 Municipalities in Hennepin County. For the State Historic Preservation Office. Trygg,J.W. 1964 Composite Map of United States Land Surveyors' Original Plats and Field Notes. ' Sheet 7.J.W.Trygg,Ely,Minnesota. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),Farm Service Agency ' 1937, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1971 Aerial Phtotgraphs for Agricultural Stability and Conservation. Available online from the John R. Borchert Map Library University of Minnesota,http://map.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/index.html. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 21 United States General Land Office (US GLO) 1855 General Land Office Survey Maps. Originally produced in 1855 by the United States Land Office,Dubuque Iowa. Viewed Online at http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/index.html 1 Wiltberger,Christine,Bruce Penner,Garneth Peterson,Evelyn Tidlow and Mike Justin 2003 Phase I Archaeological Investigation and Phase I and II Architectural History Investigations of the Proposed Reconstruction of TH 7 and TH 15 in Hutchinson,McLeod County,Minnesota Wright,George B. , 1873 Long Lake, St. Paul&Pacific RR. In Atlas of Hennepin County 1873. Published by George B.Wright&GJ. Rice.Viewed Online at http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/478462/Long+Lake++St+Paul+++Pacific+ 1 RR/Hennepin+County+1873/Minnesota/ Wright,H. E.,Jr. 1972 Physiography of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota:A Centennial Volume,edited by P. K. Sims and G. B. Morey,pp. 561-580. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul. • 1 1 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April,2011 1 MPUC Docket No.E002/TL-11-223 22 I I I I I APPENDIX A I SHPO and Xcel Energy Correspondence I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 14 Minnesota Historical Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE October 21, 2010 Xcel Energy Attn: Joe Sedarski,Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Orono Substation Expansion and New 115kV Transmission Line Project T118 R23 S29 SVV, 830 SE,S32 NW Orono, Hennepin County PUC Docket Number: E002/LR-10-957 SHPO Number:2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Due to the nature of the proposed project,we recommend that an archaeological survey be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation,and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information,we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed,we will re- evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring post-glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary standards, Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the NntionM Historic Preservation Act of'1966 and 36CFR800,procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. if this project is considered for federal assistance,or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project,please contact me at(651)259-3456. Sincerely, Mary Ann Heidernann Manager,Government Programs and Compliance Enclosure: List of Consultants Minnesota historical Society,345 Keno%)Boulevard West,Seed Paul,henneseta 55102 01-2S9-3000.1388-727,8386•www.mnhs.org Xcel Energy' Yt41U MSIDtr YY NAiIl Nf' 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 66401-1993 ' September 23, 2010 [Name] (Address] RE: Request for Comments of Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and ' New 115kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono Zoning Application#10-3486 PUC Docket No.E002/LR-10-957 ' Dear [Name]: Northern States Power Company,a Minnesota corporation(Xcel Energy), is requesting a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) from the City of Orono to expand the existing Orono Substation and construct a new 115 kilovolt(kV)transmission tine to connect the expanded substation to an existing Xcel Energy 115kV transmission Line 0831 (see Figure 1). The expansion and upgrade will include a complete rebuild of the existing substation,an increase in operating voltage from 691cV to 115kV, and a new 115kV transmission line(Project). Attached is a fact sheet with additional Project information. ' The purpose of this letter is to request your comments on the Project and on the scope of the Environmental Assessment(EA)that will be prepared for the Project. The EA is required as part of the ' approval process for the Project. A draft of the table of contents of the EA is attached for your reference. The EA will address items listed in the attachment. Should you have other questions,comments or suggestions regarding the contents of the EA,please provide those to me at the address indicated below. ' The following provides further information regarding the Project. Orono Substation The Orono Substation is located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County,MN 55356. The Project site consists of approximately 16 acres and is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 29 and the NW 1/4 of the NW '/ of Section 32,Township 118 North,Range 23 West. The Project area is ' bounded by State Highway 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the north, County Road 6(6th Avenue North)to the south and east,with a residential property boundary to the west. The property contains an existing substation in the southwest corner of the property that is ' surrounded by open meadow with scattered trees. The remainder of the property is comprised of wetland.Adjacent land use consists of large-lot,single-family homes to thewest and south,wetland to the north,and a highway interchange to the east. ' Project Need The Project is needed to increase system reliability and reduce the risk of overloads. The increase in ' voltage from 69kV to 115kV is needed to improve local reliability and to allow for additional load growth in the future. Enamel September 23,2010 Page 2 of 2 Project Description The existing Orono Substation has been in service since 1990 and is situated on land owned in fee by Xcel Energy. All proposed substation upgrade components will he located within existing Xcel Energy ' property. Xcel Energy also proposes to build a new transmission line to connect the Orono Substation to the existing 115kV Line 0831 located approximately 1/2 mile northwest of the Orono Substation. The new 115kV transmission line route will run north from the Orono Substation across Xcel.Energy , property for approximately 1/4 mile and then cross an additional'/mile of private property as shown on the attached map(see Figure 1). Local Governmental Unit The City of Orono(City)is the local governmental unit(LGU)for the Project. While the Project is required to be approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(PUC),the Project qualifies for local review. Xcel Energy is requesting local review and approval from the City via the CUP process. City staff has indicated they are willing to review and grant a CUP for the Project. ' On August 20,2010,Xcel Energy submitted a CUP application to the City for review and approval of the Project. On September 20,2010,the City Planning Commission met to discuss the Project,review EA requirements,and request public comment on the scope of the EA. The EA will be prepared over the next month and will be available for public review and comment in November. Should you have comments on the Project or scope of the EA, please provide them to me within 30 days at(612)330-6435,email at noseoh,a,sedarski(a7xcelenergy.com or the following address: Xcel Energy ATTN: Joe Sedarski,Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicol let Mall—MPS Minneapolis,MN 55401 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, XCEL ENERGY Joseph Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst cc: Melanie Curtis, Planning&Zoning Coordinator,City of Orono-w/enc, Enc: Figure Fact Sheet Draft Table of Contents for Project Environmental Assessment I - 144,"t. -- . • -----7-• ' 4::- —4 ,4 a,,, , ,,.) . • ,....p, -..,'-,,,,110,r`6 - .. . . ., f 4 • . I . . 41:, ' 4 , 4, , , -.., ,•:,-,,,,,t, 44.4n '4.' ...“ ' ' -71 *-.--.)0 '' i ., ,„, ,,,, .,-, ,,,,. .. . , ,, .... - ...,4 , ,ii ,,.„_, „ • , ... . .,......., in." *,4•,:i.:. 7%4--iii .4 ,' '. .,r . ' ' .4,1,'":',.,0%--•A.-t-:.''',1,,,,,... .,,„,, ..,„pi. lts. .,...,, ,, , 4. ;, . ,- . •,;1"4 -,,,,- -•-•--, e -1;:„ ,.01.3,t,--,-.1-* .•: , . . .. - ., . .4.'1, ., . „IA,,,..•,,,a, .. -., • . - ., of - 4'',-•., . 1, , .1 ... NN. - - 111 ' • . ,, -- ,' --,4,_ t"..., L. . -'s., ' .. ,-- A. . i .l. .. ...,,,, rA. . , , ' I • I ce:11.,'`T, ,4,, ' * '' r. . *44.*4., 44-4"" .„4; . - s‘v., El . , , " • ". . . . II - , ..\_ . ''-'k4k.' _, ..,',,,,,.,, , ... . I ; ,' '''' '4'',14''''-e" ''', i .' '4''' 'S'' ''''.:Nik : ' ' "?' . ' ' 4 •-,..,_ -.. _ , : glfrn Rivers Park,District . - r. I -.4.... . '"1•14,1/4.,..4.,, . ,. . ., „et • . . „, - ,,,,,.,4 t:c,:: , ,,,, ,_ ,,,,, , .13_..a. ke,r,?ark Reserve s 7 ', -- - 1 .7 .. -- 4 . • -, ,' , I , ,, —. 1 I , i ,,, 'ft_ --.„2-----„_,,, ',..., : . I-- - ' ' ' 4 , , . . .....t., . . , . 4,.- .. . . I • ,i, i... ' . 7.c., Nsiktiliikt.„ . . .. . , „41:11044411111e • . , , . _, . ... , .,,,. . , ,-,,,, -' Proposed In&Out „dr4.'iAt* •-'„ , 115 W Transmission Line . ., , , - „. --- • ll I i ' • 4-•-4- , ----._ „, , at i:,, A's ,i -„, .• . 4- ----- \.`„ ,, • `, '.4. ', --.-- ',-.. .' NORTHERNSTATESA , I •s. ,:,''' . ... - - , r741. . . I _.., ''''-•-•- ,----- di - Proposed - 4 .: ' *''' '''- "'' / ' -.1. '''' ''''. — ' ' ' Orono t , ,, , .,, 1 , . . '',.' . - , / it- • ti ,. • ,s • . • . , ' - $ , ' ... Substation Aip 115bsktvation . Existing , • „ Orono .••:* ,4 ` ' .t., ,?..,—.,..',... . . 4-', 0' ..- -,-;. -I , .. 4- ' -et-iv-011r siii it a • it'. 2' iii-•a a il • "t•...., i.,, ''..-• ::-'..,-Ii a •I .r,se , - ' a 11 ,, : Substation 1 • •.ii e _ II 69kV ' •,i'...-' •-: '4h1. ..-1 .., . - ,• • • - -,-- - ''4,10* .., • 4r. I .. t . if i- 1: * r --' • 41 L.,- Pr 60.1 Nve Nc'rt,g_tt __vli Iii:. — sainia..... • .. _ , s s atot. • ' . - • • .. It , , Legend Existing Xcel Energy Line#0831 .. ..- rmai dfS/ ORO-MED--115kV Ifl Northern States Power Land _..... ...e4m Existing GRE Line BD--69kV I oltIllia m .1.-.,..# (to be disconnected) Hennepin County Parcel ,1 ° 100 200 400 Figure 1 Feel • NSP-MN Transmission Structure IA Proposed Orono Proposed In&Out Tap 115 kV Transmission Line N (2 circuits) Proposed Orono Substation Projec OTE: Proposed transmission line I nd substation expansion locations Substation(115 kV) Existing Orono Approximate Wetland Boundary XCeiEnefgr aaa 4•iiiiei•aa a It Ms norrivi mSubstation(69 kV) *Os Mgt Is ' rp a att. r ppm ald k Mt Minlinftirat Xcel EnergysM PROPOSED ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE FACT SHEET PROJECT NEED: Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, plans to expand and upgrade its Orono Substation and build a new 115 kilovolt ("kV") overhead transmission line connecting the planned substation to an existing 115kV transmission line. The substation upgrade to 115kV and new transmission line will increase electric system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and willaIlow for additional load growth in the future. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • The existing Orono Substation operates at 69kV and will be removed and replaced by a 115kV substation located adjacent to the current location, all within property owned by Xcel Energy. l • Once the new 115kV substation and associated transmission line work is completed, the 69kV substation r y components will be removed. ?r r n Approximately 1/4 mile of new double circuit 115kV _ 1 transmission line will be routed out of the new substation t 1 north over Xcel Energy property, and then approximately 1/4 mile northwesterly over privately owned land to connect to an existing 115kV transmission line. • Proposed structures for the new transmission line will be 80-100 feet tall single steel poles with davit arms placed on concrete foundations. ® New easements will need to be obtained for the Typical Double Circuit transmission line portion crossing over private property. Steel Single Pole ' • Xcel Energy is seeking local review and approval of the project from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the City of Orono has agreed to take local jurisdiction for permitting the project. ■ Xcel Energy has applied for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") with the City of Orono as required for the project. , • Once the CUP is approved by the City and State permitting requirements are met, construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2011 with completion of the new substation and transmission line by late 2012. CONTACTS: Joe Sedarski, Sr. Permitting Analyst,st, Xcel Ener 9Y Tel: (612) 330-6435 e-mail: Joseph.q.sedarski( xcelenergy.com Chris Rogers, Sr. Land Rights Agent, Xcel Energy , Tel: (612) 330-6078 e-mail: christopher.c.rogersAxcelenergy.com September 1, 2010 1 Environmental Assessment ' for the Proposed Orono Substation Upgrade and New 115kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota MPUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957 1 I I I I City of Orono 1 1 1 1 September 2010 1 Table of Contents List of Acronyms within this document 1.0 Introduction 11 Proposed Project and Project Need 1.2 Project Location, Description and Schedule 1.3 Project Cost Estimate 2,0 Regulatory Framework 2.1 Permit Requirement 2.2 Environmental Assessment Requirement 2.3 Public Participation/Scoping of Environmental Assessment 2.4 Zoning Permit 3.0 Engineering Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition & Construction ' 3.1 Engineering Design 3.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition 3.3 Construction and Maintenance Procedures 3.3.1 Construction 3.3.2 Maintenance 4.0 Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ... 4.1 Description of Environmental Setting 4.2 Effects on Human Settlement 4.2.1 Displacement 4.2.2 Noise 4.2.3 Aesthetics 4.2.4 Cultural Values 4.2.5 Recreation 4.2.6 Public Services 4.2.7 Transportation 4.2.8 Socioeconomics 4.3 Effects on Public Health and Safety 4.3.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) 4.3.2 Electric Fields 4.3.3 Magnetic Fields 4.3.4 Stray Voltage 4.4 Effects on Land-based Economics 4.4.1 Agriculture 4.4.2 Mining and Forestry 4.4.3 Tourism ii 4.5 Effects on Archaeological and Historic Resources 4.6 Effects on the Natural Environment 4.6,1 Air Quality 4.6.2 Water Quality 4.6.3 Flora and Fauna 4.6.4 Rare and Unique Natural Resources 5.0 Required Regulatory Permits and Approvals Figures Figure 1 General Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Map Figure 3 Proposed Structure Diagram Figure 4 Proposed Structure Photo ' Figure 5 Construction Access Route Map Figure 6 City of Orono Zoning Map Figure 7 DNR Public Land and Waters Map ' Figure 8 Wetland Map Tables ' Table 1 Common Noise Sources and Levels Table 2 Calculated Electric Fields (kV/m) for Proposed 115 kV 1 Table 3 Transmission Line Design Calculated Magnetic Fields (Milligauss) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Design ' Table 4 Required Regulatory Permits and Approvals Appendices ' Appendix A Notice Lists Appendix B EA Scoping Letter and Public Comments Appendix C Agency Correspondence 1 Ifi List of Acronyms Used in this Document ACRONYMS BMPs Best Management Practices Commission Minnesota Public Utilities Commission dB Decibel dB(A) Decibel, A-weighted DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessment EMF Electromagnetic fields EQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board kV Kilovolt kV/m Kilovolts per meter MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NAC Noise Area Classification NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service I I 1 ' APPENDIX F WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT AND MINNEHAHA CREEK WATER DISTRICT RESPONSE 1 I 1 1 MPUC Docket No. 8002/TL-11-223 I 1 1 I 1 ,i, Atli 1/1 IWETLAND DELINEATION REPORT HI Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono Substation Expansion Project IOrono, Minnesota µ- - July 2, 2010 1 ul, R y J +4 r ` "¢ >> 5 �'. it x � a ye.1 l1� M .i r:' 9 rx itt, I ', I o(, 1,-( I . ' , -1 , „k• . •., ‘ '..",,,' A .,.,•,- .'is:1 ' ' , ... ,„:,, - t $ t> , ,,.....• of# s'), . t,-C' -. r_- , , . • _ . , ... = %t. 4 : : 1-4',,.c,. ..,v ' • 1;4. Ilt.14, ' M 14 ,vi ..' t-I‘i( . r V ? : t ,,i ' .''t 1. i's t,C, i ,'' #9,* . ,,-; ,,..,, _,, , Prepared For: Prepared By: W I Xcel Energy, Inc. _ XCelEnergy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 el a • . . . . . . . . . Westwood 1 1 Wetland Delineation Report Orono Substation Expansion Project Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota t Prepared for: Xcel Energy, Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall, MP 8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 I Prepared by: ' Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937-5150 ' Project Number: 20101134.00 1 July 2, 2010 1 I 1 Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 CONTENTS 1 List of Exhibits ii List of Appendices ii 1.0 PURPOSE 1 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY 1 4.0 RESULTS 2 4.1 Mapping 2 4.2 Delineated Wetland Descriptions 3 1 4.3 Wetland Buffers 3 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 4 6.0 LITERATURE CITED 5 7.0 CERTIFICATION 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2,2010 I EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Site Location and USGS I Exhibit 2: National Wetlands Inventory Exhibit 3: Soils I Exhibit 4: Public Waters Inventory Exhibit 5: Delineated Wetland Boundary Map I APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Sheets I Appendix B: Wetland Classification Systems I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 ii I I Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project June 24, 2010 1.0 PURPOSE This delineation report,the attached exhibits, and data forms constitute the wetland delineation report for the existing Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono substation site located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota 55356(heretofore referred to as the Site). The ' wetland delineation was conducted to assist Xcel Energy, Inc. with planning expansion of the existing Orono substation facility. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU)that administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). This delineation report provides the required documentation for wetland boundary determinations in conformance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region(US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2008). On behalf of Xcel Energy, Inc., Westwood respectfully requests that the MCWD, as the LGU, ' provide written confirmation that the delineated wetland boundary shown on the attached Delineated Wetland Boundary map (Exhibit 5) is acceptable for local administration of the WCA. Please consider this report a formal Wetland Boundary and Type Determination request pursuant to Minn. Rules 8420.0405. Westwood also requests that the USACE provide written confirmation that the delineated wetland boundary(Exhibit 5) is acceptable for Clean Water Act permitting purposes. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Site is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 29 and the NW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West,City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Exhibit 1). The property is bounded by State Highway 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the north, County Road 6 (6th Avenue North)to the south and east, with a residential property boundary to the west. The approximately 16-acre Site consists of an existing substation in the southwest corner of the property that is surrounded by ' open meadow with scattered trees. The remainder of the Site is comprised of wetland. Adjacent land use consists of large-lot, single-family homes to the west and south, wetland to the north, and a highway interchange to the east. ' 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Prior to delineating wetland boundaries in the field, Westwood reviewed National Wetland ' Inventory(NWI) mapping (Exhibit 2),the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) for Hennepin County(2007) (Exhibit 3),the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(MnDNR) Public Waters and Wetlands Inventory(PWI) for Hennepin County(Exhibit 4), and aerial photography for the site location. On June 10, 2010, Westwood delineated the wetland using the level two routine determination , method set forth in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the supplemental methods set forth in the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region(US Army 1 ' Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 ' Engineer Research and Development Center, 2008). Methods included establishment of sampling transects in a representative transition zone of the identified wetland. Each transect consisted of one sampling point in upland and one point in wetland. Soils, vegetation, and ' hydrology data were recorded on data forms and are included in Appendix A of this report. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius of the sample point location for the tree and vine layers, a 15- '1 foot radius for the shrub layer, and a five-foot radius for the herbaceous layer. Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine; 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the ' United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al. 1979) (see the Classification Systems Table in Appendix B). Common names and scientific names for vegetation identified in this report and on the attached data forms generally correspond with the nomenclature used in ' the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central(Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1988). ' Wetland boundaries were located using a Trimble GeoXT sub-meter accuracy global positioning unit (GPS). Wetland boundary points were then post processed using Trimble Pathfinder Office software to ensure sub-meter accurate GPS coordinates. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Mapping NWI mapping (Exhibit 2) depicts one Type 3 (PEMCd) wetland on the northern and ' eastern portions of the Site and is consistent with the delineated wetland boundary. The NRCS SSURGO for Hennepin County indicates that the soils listed below are mapped within the Site (Exhibit 3). Klossner soils (depressional), Hougton and Muskego soils (depressional), and Hamel-Glencoe (depressional) complex soils are listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of Minnesota, revised December 1995. All others are indicative of uplands. ' The distribution of hydric soils in NRCS mapping is consistent with the delineated wetland boundary. ' Soil Map Unit Name Hydric? Klossner soils, depressional, 0 to 1% slopes (L49A) Yes Houghton and Muskego soils, depressional, 0 to 1% slopes (L50A) Yes ' Hamel-Glencoe, depressional, complex, 0 to 3% slopes (L132A) Yes Lerdal loam, 1 to 3% slopes (L35A) No Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 12%slopes, eroded(L41C2) No ' Hamel overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4% slopes (L36A) No Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6% slopes (L40B) No Angus loam, morainic, 2 to 5% slopes (L37B) No The MnDNR PWI (Exhibit 4) for Hennepin County depicts the north part of Public Water Wetland(27-916W) covering most of the Site, with a second part off of the Site to the ' 2 I Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 south, south of County Road 6. The MnDNR PWI apparently overstates the area covered by wetland 27-916W within the Site as it is depicted in areas designated as upland during the field review. E-mail correspondence with MnDNR Area Hydrologist John Gleason on June 23, 2010 found that an Ordinary High Water Level(OHW) was established for wetland 27-916W in September, 1998. The OHW for the north part of 27-916W(within ' the Site) is 963.1 mean sea level(msl) and 963.9 msl for the south part. 4.2 Delineated Wetland Descriptions ' Westwood completed a wetland delineation on the Site and identified one Type 3 (PEMCd) shallow marsh(Wetland A), approximately 13.5 acres of which lies within the property boundary(Exhibit 5). The wetland extends west of the subject property and is part of a larger wetland complex from which it was historically severed by Wayzata Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad grade to the north and County Road 6 to the south. Two transects were completed along the southern wetland boundary. Dominant wetland vegetation included reed canary grass, common reed grass and cattail with lesser amounts of box elder, spotted touch-me-not, stinging nettle, black willow, red- osier dogwood, quaking aspen, river-bank grape, Virginia creeper, and sedge. Upland vegetation was dominated by Canada goldenrod, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, box elder, and prickly ash with lesser amounts of common buckthorn,tatarian honeysuckle, leafy spurge, smooth sumac, bird's-foot trefoil, Canada thistle, and scattered spruce and pine trees. Soils at the wetland sample point locations were generally 10YR 2/1with approximately 5% 10YR 4/4 concentrations. Soils met the A4 field indicator for hydric soils (Hydrogen Sulfide). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology included a high water table and saturation observed within 12 inches of the soil surface. Soils at upland sample locations were without redoximorphic features and no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Detailed data collected for this wetland are provided on the attached data forms in Appendix A. 4.3 Wetland Buffers ' According to current MCWD Rule D, wetlands greater than five acres in size require a 35- foot buffer. MCWD Rules for wetland protection are currently being revised. Assuming 111the proposed draft Wetland Protection Rule is adopted and implemented, the buffer width will be determined based on the functions and values of the wetland using the MCWD's Functional Assessment of Wetlands (MCRAM) or the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology(MnRAM). According to Becky Houdek with MCWD, Wetland A was classified as a Manage 2 wetland in 2001 using the MCRAM. As a Manage 2 wetland, base buffer widths would be 30-feet with a minimum applied buffer width of 24-feet should a permit application be submitted after the Wetland Protection Rule is implemented. 3 I Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2,2010 ' 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Westwood delineated and flagged one Type 3 (PEMCd) wetland within the Site totaling ' approximately 13.5 acres. The delineated wetland corresponded to an NWI-mapped PEMCd wetland and areas of mapped hydric soil(Klossner, Houghton and Muskego, and Hamel-Glencoe). The PWI mapping of DNR Public Waters Wetland 27-916W indicated Wetland 27-916W extending into areas that were determined to be upland as a result of the field delineation. Westwood recommends that the MnDNR be requested to verify that the OHW of 27-916W does not extend beyond the delineated boundary. This can be done as part of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) review of the delineation. ' Westwood requests that MCWD, as the LGU, provide written confirmation to Xcel Energy, Inc. that the delineated wetland boundaries shown on the attached Wetland Boundaries map (Exhibit 5) are acceptable for local administration of the WCA and MCWD Rules. A completed WCA Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form accompanies this request to facilitate the WCA wetland boundary and type determination request. ' Westwood also requests that the USACE provide a preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD) and formal wetland boundary determination for Wetland A. A completed Request for ' Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Review form accompanies this request to facilitate the wetland boundary and preliminary jurisdiction determination request. 1 I ' 4 I Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ' Cowardin, L.M. , V.M. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe . 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological ' Services Program, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp. ' Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1971. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 67 pp. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-27. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. http://www.usace.army.mil/CEC W/Documents/cecwo/reg/plants/196_intro.pdf ' U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F. (eds.). USDA, NRCS, Fort. Worth, TX. 1 I 5 , 1 I ' Wetland Delineation Report—Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2,2010 ' 7.0 CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the wetland delineation completed for this Site is consistent with current wetland delineation practices and guidelines. I have the specific qualifications, education, training, and experience to complete wetland delineations and determinations in accordance with federal and state requirements. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Kelly S. Kunst, WDC, PWS Environmental Scientist MN Certified Wetland Delineator 1114 6 Exhibits 1 Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono Substation Expansion Project Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota ' 1 I ' ©2010 Westwood Professional Servres,Inc 140 - . J $ ,1.,--.f.,C' S k w. .. . rr .. ^Perkinsville Rd >~ ,., - '4. ,, " .. ,. _ �►1` I ..-.. •. ,Sycamore Tr ,' "' 0; �,�� 4�� s� 4 r. /- mo i• ••.- w 3.'"/( r ill 1. • • 'I —. , w _ '� _ ' ',` 11. ` i4 li I '" 'N..J 2..- ar r♦ . 1 a��l r •6 '°- .- ' link ",gipl'''':' . 1-4 , to ,et, - It s, f �-- I n ato. JIB[ 4111414C- s ; ;► 14:00.1 J ) C.V. • ` + , r4% f� ' l!11! 5301 - ' -_ -'♦ ti:'� ,s .. , :e 11!, ..fa. L " ' ._ r t,t r �'.. ti: , I,:,z,..... � ":1&i...371-y,,Qr ,-../' /"`4. .� \- L I I J• ir' r t r-" A i' :k T & t & ; :J !IA ,. tilr i J114 rrf A- 0. �� • t • iY iii � a` -, 7.-- ,7� . .. ' , - ':l- e - (L:f4P 1• �.,• ) t$; 'd .. iki G r. Oc - -.�!��[ or. 1 ..7 ') _ i J'r'-� i r ..•var) , ti'1''h se.7 I �' s, •1 ' .i.., •tar •t ^ .Z r v...,,,,i,..1,-,� fV ,,i.;:',. �.. • - _ `i f. ,_-.7, .' X11 • /��G ` V • (''.:T•ti`f ) m i ,�LS'_ _ —'1 I f « : ohve�o `per �` � 1117:/. . f • i -'1' ,, i nor !■ t �,' - I z�/ J • --„�-- • �� `I .2—:::, 1 �,, t � dry rlei -5.:,,".. .. /, '- { o!{• '•1, wg 1P. '1'I .. �e1 „ , q ) RdI _. rir_. • �T ' �,f r.3.sa High La -r- o 'T' ;} f�•�4 J n �_O ,, 7r-15::„..4 - " — Christine Dr ' +1 '1� o�}. 'q #fll. l si tr�r 1 ... _ d _� e. �: _ r It,. � r \ i ._ ,ti`.n. .. - �', «-'tis_'3 EFleen St '` L �`� � '$+;,1 '�� I -- • r�tw �_ 1ti r }•• _ t , ala, •- te 44. •�`,a.fr ti` ,/`� • 1: f lLf ,� �f •� ` . +a` •., ' r}M,: Q 'e ''i =`�<W i1+ '.' I Legend • - _ 1 • °r -' `••;10. CjQv = , ) ,, ✓tip '' Q Site Location ct moi - Zr 'Y 3 ~ '�, • , 3, tr N _ ,d a, sse Data Source(s):USGS DRG Mosaic,24K 2002,MaDOT BaseMap-Roads(2004),Westwood 2010. Orono Substation Expansion I W Westwood Professional Services,IncOrono, Minnesota 7699 Anagram Drive -SIEden Prairie,MN 55344 I i Feet PHONE 952-937-5750 N o 2,000 Site Location/USGS Topography FAX 1-88837-7 51 A I m o TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 l' Westwood www.wes:woodps.com Scale Bar EXHIBIT 1 3a RECEIVED Xcel Energy JUN 2 0 2 0�, RESPONSIBLE BY NATURE" Cfn/OFQROA,O TRANSMITTAL FORM Date: June 17,2011 To: Melanie Curtis Orono City Hall Planning and Zoning Department 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55365 From: Joseph Sedarski Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall MP-8A Minneapolis,MN 55401 Subject: Route Permit Application available for public review Item Sent: Copy of Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project Dear Ms. Curtis: Please make the enclosed document available for public review. We are mailing and publishing a notice that states that this document will be available at the City of Orono, which is also enclosed. Sincerely, /74 1°. '-'14./".44 oseph Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy 612 330-6435 Enc.