Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Notice of Xcel Energy Filing Permit Appl
Xcel Energy° 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,MN 55401 June 16, 2011 To: Persons Interested in the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project,the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Energy Facilities General List,Local Officials, and Property Owners Re: Notice of Xcel Energy Filing of Route Permit Application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223) Northern States Power Company,a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy") filed a Route Permit application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") on June 7,2011, for the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kilovolt ("kV") Transmission Line Project ("Project"). This letter provides information on the Project and the routing process as well as how to register your name with the Commission on the Project contact list to ensure that you receive future notices. Project Description Xcel Energy proposes to replace the existing Orono Substation and construct new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to connect the planned substation to existing Xcel Energy 115kV transmission Line 0831 located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A map of the general area of the proposed Project is enclosed. The existing Orono Substation is located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, Orono, MN 55356. The existing Xcel Energy property consists of approximately 16 acres and is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW '/a of Section 29 and the NW '/a of the NW 1/4 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 the west and south,wetland to the north, and a highway interchange to the east. The Project will include replacement of the existing 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 115kV transmission line. The Project is needed to improve local and system reliability,reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. 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; t • 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 and pilot relaying, installing fiber optic lines for relaying and transfer trip, installing 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. While not part of the requested Route Permit for this Project, 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 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 be located within existing Xcel Energy property. Xcel Energy also proposes to build a new double circuit 115 kV transmission line to connect the Orono Substation to the existing 115 kV Line 0831 located approximately 1/a mile northwest of the 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 circuit poles will range from 75 to 115 feet, with the spans between poles ranging from 300 to 500 feet. 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. 2 The Project will require modifying Xcel Energy's existing transmission Line 0831 to make this connection. The new double circuit 115 kV transmission line route is proposed to run north from the Orono Substation across Xcel Energy property for approximately '/a mile and then cross an additional 1/4 mile of private property as shown on the attached map. Depending upon the final selected route, the Project may cross over adjacent wetlands or railroad/roads. A portion of the proposed Project may be located within existing easements maintained by Xcel Energy or other road authorities and utilities. However, some new easement acquisition is anticipated. For new construction of structures and transmission line, Xcel Energy typically proposes a 400-foot-wide route corridor, 200 feet on either side of the proposed new line location. If the Commission approves Xcel Energy's proposal, the Company will work with landowners to purchase property rights, known as an easement, in order to construct this segment of transmission line. Xcel Energy typically requires a right-of-way of 75 feet (37'6" from centerline of structure) for new 115 kV transmission line construction. In locations with existing rights-of-way or other engineering or site considerations, the Project may be designed to fit within smaller right-of-way. There may be circumstances where Xcel Energy will be required to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire easements for the Project in accordance with its authority under state law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117. Route Permit Process A Route Permit from the Commission is required before the Project can be constructed. The Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216E) and implementing rules in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850 establish the requirements for submitting and processing a Route Permit application. The statutes and rules also establish notice requirements for various stages of the process. Xcel Energy has requested the Commission that the Route Permit application be considered under the alternative permitting process in Minnesota Statutes § 216E.04 and Minnesota Rules parts 7850.2900 to 7850.3900. The Commission has up to six months from the time the application is accepted as complete to process and make a decision on the route permit according to Minnesota Statute § 216E.04, subd. 7 and Minnesota Rule 7850.3900, subp. 1. Within 60 days after the Commission accepts the application as complete, the Department of Commerce, Energy Facilities Permitting (EFP) staff, will hold a public meeting to provide information and seek comments from the public. At this meeting, members of the public may propose additional route alternatives for consideration in the Environmental Assessment that the EFP staff will prepare. Notice of the meeting, including information on the date, time, and location of the meeting, and deadline for public comments will be published in the newspaper and sent directly to persons on the Commission's Project contact list maintained for this Project. After the Environmental Assessment has been completed, a public hearing (conducted by an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings) will be held on the Project. Any person may speak at the public hearing, present documentary evidence, ask questions of Xcel Energy and EFP staff,and submit comments. 3 Certificate of Need A Certificate of Need 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 High Voltage Transmission Line 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. Project Contact List and State Staff Contacts If you have questions about the Project siting process or wish to receive written notices of the Project milestones regarding the environmental review process and meetings,including notice of the availability of the Environmental Assessment, please sign up for the Project contact list at http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082/ or by contacting Ms. Suzanne Steinhauer at the Department of Commerce who is the State Permitting Manager for this Project: Suzanne Steinhauer Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Facilities Permitting 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul,MN 55101 suzanne.steinhauer@state.mn.us (651) 296-2888 / 1-800-657-3794 (651) 297-7891 (fax) 1-800-627-3529 or 711 (TYY: Minnesota Relay Service) If you have questions about the Commission review process, contact Mike Kaluzniak at the Commission: Mike Kaluzniak 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2147 mike.kaluzniak@state.mn.us (651) 201-2257 The Route Permit Application and Project information are available online at: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082. Project information and copies of the Route Permit Application may also be obtained by contacting Joe Sedarski at Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall (MP8), Minneapolis, MN 55401, (612) 330-6435, joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com. A copy of the Route Permit Application is also available at the following public locations: Orono City Hall Maple Plain Library Long Lake Library Planning and Zoning Department 5184 Main Street East 1865 Wayzata Boulevard West 2750 Kelley Parkway Maple Plain,MN 55359 Long Lake,MN 55365 Orono,MN 55356 4 •,,"' ,:',..4,i :, kms ,,,,,N;;•••-•4,:;.4.- " ft K y,• ,4 -,(..`,, •'-" ,44,4-• y.' XI ir • x 4H : z i 8 Q u° oo - w -om -o --oN CON O N h4. !C NN CO CO ( CO(.0 CO D COa"O X X X < < n O mq 0 2-., n a o — o m 0 o N 0 O m m o N f• Z N C o N t ,,,,,„,-,,r., t,... It..., s 0 p f0 f0 ED R. 8 s' 0 T N co W N vN "4,•;',4 ,4 <`• aTkr *, a „< O ° O ' TCn n O7 a n � 4a_ �"I ° m g a) R- o o Z 7 e , t k . ti 1mtX- • ` t � � r ' v'Z it o o gm tr., x,,, V: 4', -,;-ss, `:c r aNc 0 4 x ` ��m . o ,ft x°r z f+ = k 1_'•)t '1�- 'fi;u ,$V �/ .^� ?k•py+d' a" *ti;i T Y.F /" , C ' k 0` a m ra' sr s 1i*"`h 1V....•':, ,,- to ,/", ' * f M Z a 44 ...i',4,,!•1,'-- 1 2 � ` • '''-'44.M11' 'N',$' Z m o0 ti"'r �*F. / . 4. �c11 o o ..',..,,TL ti � Ix, ,a ' '. '•&' f`i 2P'; yty4 I$ i VAi °i k•,. w t�+ ��r ��.,V� I s ` 415 a swZ ♦ "� • 5 a ,w rw �o#o i� s4"., itt•�' ":-.... �„ .7''''''-'-`• , y'.ft` _ "�r .c.y ..+' '�1 :K`- 17_1712 ...„.v . .,. . , 01, Qi, s ` ,E b •"•'*''-- -` A '^ " '+ r"Ya ,„„,....e,,,- ye�}fa ')y'' ,+ N . . 3 r«,, ..0 ., r • ilYt^r• a • 1 ,� "F -''' „�" 1' _3•r. ,t �' `G�'. 4'o,,. ).;•/•.i.--y a •4 +fin t y�Y4,t+z t^ iSl"r ,Tq), ,y� i 1. p 0 .ZJ rte1/4 , ,_ •�SO'4,tcro / .�y� N ''' sr. "` 44, 'iia �. �4Nifit . iw. ,� yS"�*M - .,:,14.1'' a, '�e. '• s J 0 hw r„..Al `g' ,(`... �iL I, 1s'” 1 4t .1 •. Q IQ.. ,:, . . .... .,.. 14,1, ... CI 1k Mk. a. "rti ' � �° r y ^„. .Ail may' rA , 33 1. � Ec- 1j m jam"'y. �'� D .4 :44.11 t ,i i, 4 X ;` l / 9_, n (ZD iYP i fi -' 1•*/ _ 3 -w i� '- ' •K0"A k:, '4u <3 7 140. 7 x /V `', sem. : , 0 .E » ./b i 11.•,,,,,., o —m' / y�, . r r ,"fi ) ,C' ca,— c m r _ - b: jj / / - .. ,' >1� 4 a" ‘•„s r* ❑' �" . . w� o _ ' A / Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 June 7, 2011 --Via Electronic Filing-- Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7`s Place East Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR A ROUTE PERMIT ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PERMI r11NG PROCESS DOCKET No. E002/TL-11-223 Dear Dr. Haar: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy") is electronically filing its application for a route permit for the Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project ("Project") pursuant to the alternative permitting procedures in Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. The proposed Project includes replacing Xcel Energy's existing Orono Substation with a new 115 kV substation, constructing approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and constructing 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. This filing consists of the body of the Application and associated appendices, 8 files in total, as follows: Cover Letter and Application— 1 file Appendix A-1 file Appendix B-1 file Appendix C-1 file Appendix D-1 file Appendix E-1. file Appendix F-1 file Appendix G-1 file Enclosed are two paper copies and 1 CD copy of the route permit application. The initial application fee payment and additional copies of the application are being sent to the Department of Commerce under separate cover. Please call me at (612) 330- 6435 if you have any questions. Sincerely, s/Joseph G. Sedarski Joseph G. Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst Enclosure cc: Suzanne Steinhauer, Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security Project Service List Minnesota Minnesota Department of-Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources,Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St.Paul.Minnesota 55155-4025 DEPARTMENT OF Phone:(651)259-5109 E-mail:lisa.joyal@state.mn.us NATURAL RESOURCES March 31,2011 Correspondence#ERDB 20110246-0002 Mr.Dustin Daniels URS Corporation,Inc. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE:Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Orono Substation Expansion; T118N R23W Sections 29,30,31,&32;Hennepin County Dear Mr.Daniels, As requested,the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query,rare features have been documented within the search area (for details, see the enclosed database reports; please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology,habitat use,and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: • Trumpeter swans(Cygnus buccinator),a state-listed threatened species,have been documented nesting in close proximity to the proposed project. These rare birds may be at risk for colliding with or being electrocuted by overhead transmission lines. We recommend the use of bird diverters on overhead lines near lakes and rivers, or other areas that may attract large concentrations of waterfowl. Please contact the DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist,Melissa Doperalski at 651-259-5738,for a regional perspective on the recommended number and locations of bird diverters for this specific line. The Route Permit Application should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect this state-listed species and,if so,any avoidance or mitigation measures that will be implemented. The Natural Heritage Information System(NHIS),a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota's rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities,and other natural features. However,the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore,ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. The enclosed results include an Index Report and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted. www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER f f The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section,and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an environmental review document(e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The Detailed Report is for your personal use only as it may include specific location information that is considered nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0872, subd. 2. If you wish to reprint or publish the Detailed Report for any purpose,please contact me to request written permission. For environmental review purposes,the Natural Heritage letter and database reports are valid for one year;they are only valid for the project location(noted above)and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or if an updated review is needed. Please note that locations of the gray wolf(Canis lupus),federally-listed as threatened and state-listed as special concern,and the Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis), federally-listed as threatened,are not currently tracked in the NHIS. As such,the Natural Heritage Review does not address these species. Furthermore,the Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole.Instead,it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features.Additional rare features for which we have no data may be present in the project area, or there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. For these concerns,please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist(contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Natural Heritage Review Coordinator enc. Rare Features Database:Index Report Rare Features Database:Detail Report Rare Features Database Reports:An Explanation of Fields cc: Jamie Schrenzel,DNR Melissa Doperalski,DNR Krista Larson,DNR Deborah Pile, OES en wgO A N 00 O or M LD `" m o' — � a a u 0 N N 00 s.0 .N-. N N - 0 C Cw C. C . 1:1 03 °' vo v0 00 00 —� o a) a+ oo Ve o0 v vi o Z C. W 9 9 C 9 0 9 .. co C A o o a oma, 0000 in N co O, .�-., O, I.- et C a N-• 3. cn v 4) o U •U pp O ce e" Z MQ Z Z U C7 a C7 C7 0 O 0 0 COyy o a t0 1., CO 4.7 U '° tdi ct G z ° ' a m x x 0 u +�-' p N Z 7 Z 0 0 a, Z � aCID (4 _ 00 0 ° � A E = o � ai o a� 7 C cv h .. =C. •"' b0 —. ,....6 C z R. ¢ C. '9 Q Q ~ O 1 O O '7, .=+ F. 00 Z 007.) Z Z C C vi .u.. rip ? X Co 1`.1 y g vp = CLQ W .1" chi ., aai O I. C r . u w up lis .00 0 R .. '+ CO = 12 o a.E ` 0 pb� ha),a a � aC .to a. c— .�' (i. ' 7 .t. of T L C C VA C) f-, E N .M-. o re 0 W o E v oE-rU o U ° o eek 3 ).. 0 C U y 5 " -a C. N •bpx• O N 7 C g:* N a, et V O 000 u 'Ll O !. N 0 u DOi. p• L ^ 'C LO = 47 C N CO, cn° °CN o aCO o WCQ t 6 00 U U �Z O O U CO 0 Vo C c„C ea 0."' cooo coo U U w w .. aC Nz a N dC v Y. O ' M h A — o ,DO C w 00 O z 0 0 E y O [x c v) o o _ o o 3 gC .0 L.) U NdU U:: L ,Zo N el 0 C v 2 C U C u It 'C x by = x `� u F• O C i> -o • C7� x E N y p N N O Ca O .- Z V] U [/� en , en £ 00 o V] aimmirC � 3 W o ed3 03 s v3 0 1.. Cl. •d U ` en g en F.y u e en 3 .� o0.1 • = EZen uy v = Z °' Z .� ] Z paa a A F. U .4 x a Z H. F. = 7 H ; �, D •° en = is ,c5 yy a' = -° o" .? o E o o: II CO EM L U N N ,o v a L u = 01) $ E a`i „' a Wap., v' U o en ed en u 07 g 33 3 w, = 3 7 3 g g 3 (43 'L aQ r., z L � � �a Q NO en 4013 0en ; '= `ya w a � CO y w Z 7 aui Z e0 Z 3 x z u Z O z '6 L e: N .- A 00 E 0 00 u ep 00 > > 00 p CC 6E7 CC) .N. ,4 A • = O ea CC iC N L g W > U H cn x H. Q U H a H Z Z F a H a Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields The Rare Features Database is part of the Natural Heritage Information System,and is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR). **Please note that the database reports are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission** Field Name: [Full(non-abbreviated)field name, if different]. Further explanation of field. -E- Element Name and Occ#: [Element Name and Occurrence Number]. The Element is the name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records,this field holds the scientific name followed by the common name in parentheses;for all other elements(such as native plant communities,which have no scientific name)it is solely the element name.Native plant community names correspond to Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification(Version 2.0).The Occurrence Number,in combination with the Element Name,uniquely identifies each record. EO Data: [Element Occurrence Data]. For species elements,this field contains data collected on the biology of the Element Occurrence* (EO),including the number of individuals,vigor,habitat,soils,associated species,peculiar characteristics,etc.For native plant community elements, this field is a summary text description of the vegetation of the EO, including structure (strata) and composition (dominant/characteristic species), heterogeneity, successional stage/dynamics, any unique aspects of the community or additional noteworthy species (including animals).Note that this is a new field and it has not been filled out for many of the records that were collected prior to conversion to the new database system.Some of the information meeting the field definition may be found in the General Description field. EO ID#: [Element Occurrence Identification Number]. Unique identifier for each Element Occurrence record. EO Rank: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of an Element Occurrence(EO)from A(highest)to D (lowest).Represents a comparative evaluation of: 1)quality as determined by representativeness of the occurrence especially as compared to EO specifications and including maturity,size,numbers,etc.2)condition(how much has the site and the EO itself been damaged or altered from its optimal condition and character).3)viability(the long-term prospects for continued existence of this occurrence-used in ranking species only).EO Ranks are assigned based on recent fieldwork by knowledgeable individuals. Extent Known?: A value that indicates whether the full extent of the Element is known(i.e.,it has been determined through field survey)at that location. If null,the value has not been determined. -F- Federal Status: Status of species under the U.S.Endangered Species Act:LE=endangered;LT=threatened;LE,LT=listed endangered in part of its range,listed threatened in another part of its range;LT,PDL=listed threatened,proposed for delisting;C=candidate for listing. If null or"No Status"the species has no federal status. First Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was first reported at the site in format YYYY-MM-DD.A year followed by"Pre" indicates that the observed date was sometime prior to the date listed,but the exact date is unknown. -G- General Description: General description or word picture of the area where the Element Occurrence(EO) is located(i.e.,the physical setting/context surrounding the EO),including a list of adjacent communities.When available,information on surrounding land use may be included.Note that the information tracked in this field is now more narrowly defined than it was in the old database system,and some of the information still in this field more accurately meets the definition of the new EO Data field. We are working to clean up the records so that the information in the two fields corresponds to the current field explanations described herein.Also note that the use of uppercase in sentences in this field is not significant but rather an artifact of transferring data from the old database system to the new system. Global Rank: The global(i.e.,range-wide)assessment of the relative rarity or imperilment of the species or community.Ranges from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis)to G5(demonstrably secure,though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by NatureServe,an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers. -L- Last Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was last observed to be extant at the site in format YYYY-MM-DD. Last Survey Date: Date of the most recent field survey for the Element Occurrence,regardless of whether it was found during the visit.If the field is blank,assume the date is the same as the Last Observed Date. Location Description:County or Counties in which the Element Occurrence was documented followed by Township,Range,and Section information(not listed in any particular order). Each unique Township,Range,and Section combination is separated by a comma.In some cases,there are too many Township,Range,and Section combinations to list in the field,in which case,the information will be replaced with,"Legal description is too lengthy to fit in allotted space". -M- Managed Area(s):Name of the federally,state,locally,or privately managed park,forest,refuge,preserve,etc.,containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank,the element probably occurs on private land. If"(Statutory Boundary)"occurs after the name of a managed area,the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or park. MN Status: [Minnesota Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered;THR=threatened;SPC=special concern;NON=tracked,but no legal status.Native plant communities,geological features, and colonial waterbird nesting sites do not have any legal status under the Endangered Species Law and are represented by a N/A. -N- NPC Classification(v1.5): Native plant community name in Minnesota's Native Vegetation:A Key to Natural Communities(Version 1.5). This earlier classification has been replaced by Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification(Version 2.0). -0- Observed Area: The total area of the Element Occurrence,in acres,which is measured or estimated during fieldwork.If null,the value has not been determined. Ownership Type: Indicates whether the land on which the Element Occurrence was located was publicly or privately owned;for publicly owned land,the agency with management responsibility is listed,if known. -S- Site Name:The name of the site(s)where the Element Occurrence is located. Sites are natural areas of land with boundaries determined and • mapped according to biological and ecological considerations. Survey Site#/Name: The name of the survey site,if applicable,where the Element Occurrence is located.Survey sites are sites that provide a geographic framework for recording and storing data,but their boundaries are not based on biological and ecological considerations. Minnesota County Biological Survey site numbers,if applicable,are also listed in this field. Survey Type: Information on the type of survey used to collect information on the Element Occurrence. Surveyor(s): Name(s)of the person(s)that collected survey information on the Element Occurrence. State Rank: Rank that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the taxon or plant community in Minnesota. The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research,inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available.S1=Critically imperiled in Minnesota because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s)making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2=Imperiled in Minnesota because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 =Vulnerable in Minnesota either because rare or uncommon,or found in a restricted range,or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4=Apparently secure in Minnesota,usually widespread.S5=Demonstrably secure in Minnesota,essentially ineradicable under present conditions.SH=Of historical occurrence in the state,perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years,but suspected to be still extant. An element would become SH without the 20-year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for.SNR=Rank not yet assessed.SU=Unable to rank. SX=Presumed extinct in Minnesota. SNA =Rank not applicable. S#S#=Range Rank:a numeric range rank(e.g.,S2S3)is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element. S#B, S#N = Used only for migratory animals, whereby B refers to the breeding population of the element in Minnesota and N refers to the non-breeding population of the element in Minnesota. -V- Vegetation Plot: Code(s)for any vegetation plot data that have been collected within this Element Occurrence(i.e.,either Releve Number or the word"RELEVE"indicates that a releve has been collected). *Element Occurrence—an area of land and/or water in which an Element(i.e.,a rare species or community)is,or was,present,and which has practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued(or historical)presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location. Specifications for each species determine whether multiple observations should be considered 1 Element Occurrence or 2, based on minimum separation distance and barriers to movement. Data Security Locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to the rare features. For example,wildflowers such as orchids and economically valuable plants such as ginseng are vulnerable to exploitation by collectors;other species,such as bald eagles,are sensitive to disturbance by observers. For this reason,we prefer that publications not identify the precise locations of vulnerable species.We suggest describing the location only to the nearest section. If this is not acceptable for your purposes,please call and discuss this issue with the Natural Heritage Review Coordinator at 651-259-5109. Revised 9/2010 Appendix C.2 LIST OF LGUs AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND AGENCIES SENT A 90-DAY PROJECT NOTICE LETTER MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-l1-223 ■ 4 II us 4Z:55 ' III Ifz Rivers Park District Baker Park Reserve r ■ 111 • i Proposed Double Circuit 115 kV Transmission Line ' NORTHERN STATES "-1-.-7N,,..= _:,.,. ..41:: . ■ WER�CO Hydf Pd*, Proposed• P0 hr�qd Orono 1,..'-. Substation 115 kV t it Existing ,x _: I Orono IS 11 f ■ ■. .r r I ■ ■ ■ ■ r ■ I II r ,r -. Substation !. ■ • a H 69 kV I J a $ so ds k= Y L. ' Legend Existing Xcel Energy Line#0831 09ORO-MED—115kV Northern States Power Land N1PUCnDocl:et 10. F Existing GRE Line BD—69kV Hennepin County Parcel E002/11.4-1-223 WIN 0 100 400 NSP-MN Transmission Structure Figure 1 l Pro o DTransmission le ircuit Line Proposed Orono A p1" � Proposed Orono Substation Project L.j� Substation(115 kV) XcelEner NOTE: Proposed transmission line Approximate Wetland ( 9Y Existing Orono Boundaryo,Sa�,MER(This information is L. . and substation expansion locations h are approximate. Substation(69 kV) to change mod correct but meesubject m�na��a,e roc�.a�re a. Appendix C.3 City of Orono Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 gyrk CITY of ORONO 1(; !4 Municipal Offices 44'`, f' Gti Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Chris Rogers Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 414 Nicollet Mall MP-8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 • REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUBJECT: Zoning Application #10-3486 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for a conditional usepermit (CUP) for roe located at 3960 Sixth Avenue. We PP property rtY received your application on August 23, 2010. Below is a list of items the city is requesting to complete our review: ✓ Two (2) original scaled copies of the certificate of survey, and a reduced copy (11'x17' or smaller), meeting our survey requirements indicating the following: o all existing and proposed structures, o all proposed improvements, o existing topographic contours extending 50' past the property boundaries, and o proposed stormwater drainage and proposed site grading (please indicate total cubic yards of proposed earth movement on/off site). ✓ Scaled elevation drawings and construction plans, transmission tower details— height, color, etc. ✓ Screening pPosal ro any). (if Y) I $2,500 escrow — This project requires submittal of an application escrow in the amount of $2,500. Please complete the enclosed escrow agreement and submit along with a check for • the escrow. Application #10-3486 is incomplete. I understand the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approval process requires a scoping meeting be held by our Planning Commission prior to the City's CUP public hearing process. This scoping meeting can be held prior to the submittal of the aforementioned outstanding CUP items, however the CUP application must be considered complete at least 30 days prior to the CUP public hearing date. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or email at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Orono _ r si Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax(952)2494616 www.ci.orono.mn.us • Paito Sedarski, Joseph G From: Mike Gaffron{MGafäiicLorono.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, November 18;2010 2:46 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G Cc: Melanie Curtis Subjegt firghway 12 Plan Sheets Attaclments: 2005 TH 12 Erosion Control Sheetqwest416-12 intersection.pdf; 2005 Forcemain Relocation Sheets west of 6-12 inteitseption.pdf;200$fhplaoki.l.1tility Sheets west of 6-12 intersection.pdf Joe— The attached MnDOT Highway 12 plan sheets may be of some use although I don't know whether they are final plans; all are dated 2005. What they do show is that the railroad bell& racks appear to have not beettrei,40,ted westtfthe CR6/Hwy12 intersection,which il•viltiat I regatt They iriOhovv limits of construction and riaitl'itAvilf-klcatiohs4t fOn't know whether these will resolve some questiOnbut they are all we have here. Mike 'Michael P.Saffron Assistanretty Administrator/Long Term Strategy City of Orono 44tmet Address)2750 Kelley Parkway (Whitting Address)P.O.Box 66,Crystal Bay,MN 55323 PifrOjitetqt*T*49-4622 ra$419. 9-4616 1/4/2011 if C: CITY of RON Municipal,Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: �� 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.136k;66i ��" 0 Orono,'M T 55356 Crystal Bay,MI-S 5323=0066 • December 16, 2010 Dr. Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota'Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101 Orono Substation Expansion City Zoning File 186 PUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957 Thr:Maar As you are aware, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota.corporation (Xcel Energy) intended to seek local review and approval of their expansion Of the existing Xcel Orono Substation at354O Sixth Avenue North and construction of a new 115 kilovolt(kV) transmission line (Project). On September i,.2010, Xcel Energy notified the,Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC)of it's intent to seek local review and approval of the Project putuartto the Power Plant Siting Act(PPSA),Minnesota Statute § 216E.05, subd.3,.,and Minnesota Rule 7050$308;aibp..3. On September 7,2010, the Office of Energy Security notified the City and Xcel Energy that-the PUC received the notice and confirmed that the Project is eligiblefor local review. Subsegttently, Xcel Enrbrgy made a partial application to the City for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) review and approval, and initiated en Environmenta. ssessment(EA) process. To date, Xcel Energy's application to the City of Orono for the CUP and EA for'the Project at 3960 Sixth Avenue North is incomplete. • This letter iS't&ibtify you the Orono City Council voted on Monday, December 13, 2010,to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting for thisPjpject to the PUC pursuant to MN Statute §21E.05, subd. 1(b) and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4. If you have any questions or need any further information regarding the City's decision please feel freeto contact me at 952-249-4627. Thank you, CITY OF ORONO Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator c: Ray Kirsch Xcel Energy Energy;Facility Permitting, Office of Energy Security Attn: Chris Rogers, Siting and Land Rights Agent Minnesota Department of Commerce 414 Nicollet Mall MP-8 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55401 St. Paul, MN 55101 I! Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us Appendix C.4 NRCS Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 United States Department of Agriculture CS 4444fiesources Conservation Service VElackson Street,Suite 60D St.Pahl,MN 55101-1854 January 2D,;011 Mr. Chris Rogers Xcel Energy 414.Nic01l et Mall Minneapolis,MIST 55401-1993 IN REPLY REFER TO: Excel Energy—Orono Substation Expansion D Rogers: The Minnesota NaU '#rl sottrcets Conservation Service(MRCS)has reviewed the above- referenced prolt jthttpraject sponsors aildnot USDA program beneit°recipien Pius the .4%letland conserV ibfl Wovisions of the 19S5'Food Security act, as amended,and .ot applicable. should be nota, "however,that aeons by a non-USDA participant third pat*tproject sponsor) 'hich irdpact a .tural vetlands-� . � operated by USDA participant.%may jeopardize the ow nelAperator's USDA eligibility. Ifvguah impacts are anticipated,the:q ner/operator :should c 4 4 ecour ty' a n Service Agncy(FS4)office to consider an pplication for a 2 " titin: °lO`lOWh l 'es mayhave federal or state weden a Lural resources, ality or � moi Ihreatened and endangered species jurisdiction in the propo ed projogt,,and should VO-Orisulted. Attroy Corps of Engineers (LSACQ;E}—Cleat Water Act • US Fish and Wildlife Servit 'S)—Endangered Species Act • Board of Water and Soil Resets (BWSR)'-Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) • Mitme;6ta.PQ 1 n Control Aget ` MPCA) • State tion.Officer tate Archaeologist(SHPO) Final tf as a.esult of your proposal you are.affecting 'griculturallands, and if any federal monies are involved,it is a requirement that t: 'armlantdPPo11cy Protection Act(FPPA) site assessmentl7e;appropriately filed, Because of the locate"and type of activity proposed, this project mayimpact agricultural ids. If so,you.should;submit a Farmland Conversion Impact "'= ;ting form (Form AD-I 006)for each Minnesota linty with part me(J) filled out. Along with the AD-1006, send a detailed map of the area;ii.tpacted. We will,,`then complete the form and mail it back to you. FPPA land evaluations are conducted by local'L ,C;S personnel who review the project for possible effects on unique,prinie or statewide important farmland. You can find the FPPA form AD-1 006 at http://www.nres.usda.gov/programs/fppal. Please refer Helping People'Help the Land (fin Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer spec oAPPA requIlOin Hennepin County to Kathryn Des-Forge,Area Re5O pe Soil Scientist, at(763 )66-2941 of;lath iyn.desforge@mn,usdagov. / 9., PAUL A.FLYNI' = E vironmentalak t and t qee Program ' nDes1orge;,ARSS,NRCS, Brooklyn Center,MN' 2 Appendix C.5 US FISH AND WILDLIFE Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 "Sedarski,Joseph G" To "'Andrew_Horton@fws.gov"'<Andrew_Horton@fws.gov> <Joseph.G.Sedarski@xcelenergy.com> cc "'Dustin Daniels@URSCorp.com"' tez `, 02/09/2011 01:03 PM <Dustin_Daniels@URSCorp.com>,"Rogers, Christopher w;;' <Christopher.C.Rogers@xcelenergy.com>,"Kotz II,Eugr bcc Subject RE:Orono Substation Expansion Project Good afternoon Mr. Horton: Thank you for reviewing and responding to our request for comments regarding the Orono Substation Expansion Project. We will take this into account in the permitting process, and include your comments in the Route Permit Application as well. Thanks again and Best Regards, Joe Joe Sedarski Xcel Energy 1 Responsible By Nature Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall, MP8, Minneapolis, MN 55401 P: 612.330.6435 C: 612.816.5073 F: 612 .573-1834 E: joseph.g.sedarski@xcelenergy.com XCELENERGY.COM Please consider the environment before printing this email Original Message From: Andrew_Horton@fws.gov [mailto:Andrew_Horton@fws.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:34 AM To: Sedarski, Joseph G Subject: Orono Substation Expansion Project Joseph Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dear Mr. Sedarski, Our records indicate there are no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat within the action area of the proposed project. The project area does run across a small wetland and is near the Three Rivers Park Districts' Baker Park Reserve. Given the proximity of the project to this important bird area, we recommend that bird flight diverters be installed on the shield wire of the transmission line that crosses the wetland from the Proposed Orono Substation to the BNSF Railroad/US Highway 12 Right of Way. If any maintenance is required on the existing Xcel Energy Line #0831 ORO-Med we would also recommend that bird flight diverters be installed on the shield wire of the transmission line for the portion that crosses Baker Park Reserve. If project plans change, additional information on listed or proposed I. species becomes available, or new species are listed that may be affected should be reinitiated. Thank you for our by the project, consultation Y cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Ifyou have anyfurtherquestions, please contact me at (612) f' 725-3548 x2208. Sincerely, Andrew Horton Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Twin Cities ES Field Office 4101 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 (612) 725-3548 ext. 2208 Appendix C.6 MnDOT Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 0ti�rieso% Minnesota Department of Transportation j .MetropoIitan 'District ,„ _ Waters Edge �opr i, 1500 West'County Road B-2: a Roseville,MN-5113 3174 October 14,2010 Xcel Energy ATTN: Joe Sedarski,Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet'11 ail—MPS Minneapolis,MN 55401 SUBJECT: Orono g'n'bstation Expansion and 1151cV Transmissi9114.0e4410 036, SW Quadrant of US 12 and 6th Ave.N. M Orono,Hennepin Ave Contrc, $t{ot n, Zia" De ;Mr,Sedarslci. Thaq you for t portunity to comment on the Orono Substation txpafitsitin a'nd••1151N tatlimissioxi1. to Project. Mn/DOT has reviewed the infor tion and has the following dominents: The proposed location of the new transmission line will be an improvement over the extstif, . 6910/ GRIT Line BD,which will be disconnected, since it•Wllbbe located farther from themewUS 12/County Road 6 iritercb nge. Mn/DOT does not have.anriecincerns with the scope of the.EA. If the new transmissiot tttt�ongMn/DOT right ' londgti t `witbe V q wtbtn or affectingMn/DOT X: tares aJiermit.Permit required. use ar +'' forms are availalile.T•om Nt1iDO`lu:s utility website at www d * p usftecsuphrtility.Please include one 11 x 11 plan set and ie full size plan set with ea , iertittapplication. Please direct any questions regadan,peinit requirementWOIck CraigDOT'sMetroPermits'Section,at (651)'234-7911. We look forward to reviewing the'EftVironrnentAl Assessment when it becomes available. If you have any questions concerning this.rWew pleasefeel free to contact me at(651)234-7794. Sineerely Tod;Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy: Bob Byers/Hennepin County Planning Melanie Curtis/City of Orono An equal opportunity employer Electronic Copies: Buck Craig,Permits Scott Pederson, AreaEngineer Becky Parzyck,Right-of-Way Ryan,Coddington,Traffic Nancy Jacobson,Design Dave;Seykora, State Program Administration Coordinator Stacy Kotch,Program Specialist 2 Bob Byers,P.E Hennepin Coujlty;Public'Works Medina,;C � 4O-542I Melanie Curtis Planning=&'Zoning Coordinator City of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay,'MN.55323 Appendix C.7 SHPO Response MPUC Docket No. E002/IL-11-223 r '.i. 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 Transritssion Line Project T118 R23 S29 SW, S30 SE, S32 NW Orono, Hennepin County PUC Docket Number: E002/LR-10-957 SHPO Number: 2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for thOrktakit to review and comment On'the above protea; It s ?� ,p;t ';suantto the 1 �1t the Minnesota Historical Society by the,Minnes Sites Act and theIVlin estata } Gc'haeology Act. Due to the tiature of the proposed project,we recommend that an archaeological survey be completed.,The survey must meet the requirements of itOegretary of the interior's Standards for Identification:and Evaluation,and should includean ey$i iiiStOrkat Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 12, 2011 Joe Sederaid.',S.,enior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet:Ma-II, AllioneapgaliNitit-5401-1993 OtOntittibstation Expansion and Transmission Line OroneMennepin County " [ 81-1P0 Number:.2010-4976 -. Dear-Pli;"6.edarski: Thank youl,Otlhe#14-plitltiCy'WfAtlitif,and comment on the PhasolltilterilureAeiiietlit.,q subrnitteOldffhe ebOVeOrOjeak\thes been reviewed pursuant to;responsibilities gi'Vefflift: State liletorfO'Preeervetioribitee by the Natioliat Historic Preservation Act of 1960-and the procedures of the AdVisory.00-91.19,on Histonofreservation-.(36CFR80P). Based on the inforrnatiolipePvieto4.concur With the Conclu00114-244ltecOPIrOtidations of your consulting archaeof st1l fielci'‘skArvey_needs to'be petitiOtied'AttWO locations :within the project are iiiO.'*itirfficir*,*1**I'for:epansiohaAopiohosubstation,.. .and the laniffertn_preiiTaigitttA000001200.11$2nbeing considered as a-location for transMission structura,-, We Iti6ider-iivard to reviewing results of thk-ititvey. Meanwhile, please call our archaeologist, David Mather, at(651) 269-3454, if you have any questions-OnpUr review. Sincerely, / r ge2 I , /Mary AndHeideimann, Manager Goverment Programs and Compliance Idirwn*otatilOoritatstfejekt*.'3:441(111990131aufeverd West,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ,8ft,259t3600,÷.8884717,43386+.0Yorinehrnrhsximi Appendix C.8 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 A Metropolitan Council October 26,2010 Xcel Energy ATT'N:Joe Se erSki, Senior."Permitting Analyst 11 41141calletMall—MP8 Minneapolis,MN 55401;: RE: Request for~Coininents on Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115kV Transmission Line Project Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments City of Orono.Zoning Application-410-3486 PUC Docket No.E0021LR-10-957 Council Review File No.20780-1 Dear Mr.Sedarski: The Metropolitan Council(Council)received)(cel Energ tequest for comments an the scopeof the Environmental Assessment(EA)that wine prepared for ttiti'oposed Orono substation expansion and new 115kV transmission line project The Orono substation is located,at'960 Sixth Avenue North itt`Oranrt Ones`ota. The proposed project would completely-rebuild the eciSCing substation to increase its!operafitg t+oltage from 69kV to::115kV, construct a new 0.5.mile 115kV transmission line to connect the substation to existing 115kV Line 0831, and remove an unspecified length of existing GRE Litt ,BD-69kV. The following comments are offered that will need to'be dressed,in the EA document. The proposed substation expansion project is located near Baker Park Reserve,owned and operated by Three Rivers Park District,and part of the metropolitan area's regional parks system, The potential visual and noise impacts to the park reserve should be evaluated,in the BA.and the,proposed disconnection and removal of power line GRE Line BD-69kV-through$aker.Rari tkkeserve should be coordinated with Three Rivers Park District, The proposed new transmission line will cross Council forcemain Interceptor 8352 south of Highway 12 and east of Hunt Farm Road. This 12-inch diameter Ductile Iron Pipe interceptor was built in 2008 at a depth of approximately 12 feetTo assess the potential impacts to the interceptor pipe in this location,preliminary plans should be sent to Scott Dentz,Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Interceptor Engineering Manager(651-602-4503)for review and comment,prior to initiating the project. Please contact Jim Larsen PE, Senior Planner,with any questions at 651-.602-1159. Sincerely, Phyllis Hanson,Manager Local Planning Assistance cc: Robert McFarlin,District 3 Council Member Susan Hoyt,Planning Sector Representative Judy Sventek,Water Resources Assessment Cheryl Olsen,Reviews Coordinator wj w.metrocounc[I,txr 300 Hobert Street North • St. Paul. ti1N 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • N'ax(6511 602-1550 • `IT?(651)201-0904 An',qua Oppbrifant!!stt '. Appendix C.9 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 '1'hree�Zivers "` PARK DISTRICT t eA' Three Rivers October 26, 2010 =x-- Park District ,' Board of 4 • Commissioners *-t: Mr. Joe Sedarski E6:1•'' Senior Permitting Analyst _. Sara Wyatt 414 Nicollet Mall — MP8 District 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 4 44- RE: Request for Comments of Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115kV Transmission Line Project Marilynn Corcoran, City of Orono Zoning Application #10-3486 f•'.' District 2 PUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957 •.- 'i: f: 'i: Dear Mr. Sedarski L. i:' T', MarK Haggerty Three Rivers Park District (Park District) has reviewed the proposed Xcel Energy i' District 3 project as described in the Xcel Energy letter dated September 23, 2010 and as referenced by the PUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957. As defined in your project description and attached Figure 1, it appears no new construction will affect Park District property. Dale Woodbeck.e Vice chair `i k` L District 4The Park District will work with Xcel Energy on the decommissioning of the existing fi � r• 69kV transmission line to be disconnected as per Figure 1. Please send all future correspondence directly to me. I can be contacted directly, at Rosemary Frazsse 763.559.6759 or ddeveauCa>threeriversDarkdistrict.orq, with questions or comments. i,"f District 5 i'..; Sincerely, / , ri / i' / ;;`Larry Blackstad,Chair Appointed Donald J. DeVeau, Director Department of Planning and Development DJD:Icl rBarbara Kinsey Appointee C: Three Rivers Park District Del Miller, Intergovernmental Relations Manager John Barten, Director of Natural Resources Cos Gears r Superintendent H:\WP\LETTERS\DEVEAU 2010\10-26-10--J Sedarski-Xcel'Energy Orono Substation-DJD.doc X411 a Administrative Center,3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559.9000 TTY 763.559.6719 • Fax 763.559.3287 * www.ThreeRiversParks.org Appendix C.9 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Response MPUC Docket No. E002/IL-11-223 • t 4{y . 1 Tk. r• ThreeRivers dtk+i a t` `, :. PARK DISTRICT i ti rya v0 14 . t;rte" .ai o> n ' ' '« f�iTATAJI) November 12, 2010 hreeRive s } arkfit7istrict Mr. Joseph G. Sedarski Permitting Analyst Commissioners Xcel Energy ""`"� 414 Nicollet Mall - MP8 £„ � 41 W Minneapolis, MN 55401 ara 1hl at , RE: Proposed Orono Substation Expansion New 115 kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono Zoning Application #10-3486 PUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957 MSOis t. . . ' Dear Mr. Sedarski: Three Rivers Park District (Park District) understands that Xcel Energy proposes to 4' expand the Orono substation and construct a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line a � aggert as part of said project. The Park District also understands that in addition to the line ( , oistt*gF^' 4`, identified in the original proposed substation project, Xcel Energy will evaluate t; ! %• R `Or routing alternatives for the proposed transmission line. °; # y One alternative transmission line route discussed at our meeting on November 1, i •Dai ;Woodbeck* I 2010, is proposed within Baker Park Reserve, owned and operated by Three Rivers• a R' ,',L„_ Park District. Under Minnesota State Statutes, the Park District is charged to f nistr ct 4 pmaintain, protect, improve, preserve the park system. Baker Park � �^��,�} � operate, and Reserve is a 3,300 acre park reserve under the jurisdiction of the Park District. Please understand, as discussed on November 1, 2010, pursuant to Minnesota State asemary,Franzese Y Statutes and Park District policy, diversion of Park District property for any purpose +�+f.LY74..,1 S5x estct5 other than those for which the lands were strongly acquired will be q g y o pposed. Park ::,;,74;&,.,:10.,774,4,74,.- District Policy XII is enclosed for your reference and use. ( a. ,�ta.xa i,a�� In order for the Park District Board of Commissioners to consider the diversion of , 'x Ag,�I'atet' public park property, all alternatives must be considered and evaluated. This 4 .y, ,t,. ti diversion includes, but not limited to, fee title ownership, easement, permit, �Fu temporary occupancy permit and temporary access. ”� s= ra 'se ° The Park District insists that Excel Energy evaluate all options for the alternative � r ar Kiti tkrNthF ��S'y� ppomted � transmission line route prior to consideration of the route through Baker Park Reserve. If the Baker Park Reserve route is considered, the Park District has Js *F identified several components which need to be addressed and evaluated through an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process. Following is a partial list of therima concerns that Three Rivers Park District desires to be addressed in the T ; S s w P ry up�rr,tend EAW. These Issues may need to be expanded based upon preliminary findings in the ,.: EAW. } x r 3 t y �? ,• , z ma Administrative Center,3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559.9000 • TTY 763.559.6719 • Fax 763.559.3287 • www.ThreeRiversParks.org mss',., �_.. Environmental Assessment 1. Project Title 2. Proposer 3. Identify RGU 4. Reason for EAW 5. Project Location 111 6. Description 6a. Provide a project summary 6b. Give a complete description of the proposed project. 6c. Explain the project purpose; explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. 6d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? 6e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 7. Project magnitude data 8. Permits and approvals required. List all "known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Describe relationship to existing facilities and utilities. 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. - Trumpeter Swans frequently fly through this area. One significant cause of swan mortality is collision with power lines. Specifically, the EAW needs to address measures to protect the swan population from power line entanglement. 11a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts including but not limited to: - Wetlands - Identify actual requirements for utility pole installation in non-stable soils within marsh. - Woods/forest - Specifically address the construction impacts and impacts of long-term maintenance on the trees southeast of Lake Katrina.. Identify height restrictions of vegetation under the proposed transmission line and the frequency and method of vegetation control. Documented experience indicates that disruption of the natural vegetation in the Park Reserve will increase the potential for invasive - species introductions into the Park Reserve. The EAW needs to discuss short-term and long-range measures to minimize these invasive introductions and preventative measures to manage vegetation. - Brush/grassland - Lawn/landscaping - Impervious surfaces 11b. Identify mitigation strategies 11c. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration - dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment - of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? If yes, identify water resource affected. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 2 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? 14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? 15. Water surface use. Will the project alter any recreational, educational, or aesthetic characteristics on Lake Katrina? 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved. Address soil compaction during construction and long-range maintenance. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff 17a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. 18. Water quality: Describe any wastewaters that may be anticipated. 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions 19a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water 19b. Describe the soils on the site 20. Identify any temporary or permanent solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks to be used on site. 20a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. 21. Traffic. Identify and describe any traffic improvements necessary. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Identify any air quality impacts. 23. Describe any stationary source air emissions 24. Odors, noise and dust 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? - Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? - Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? - Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? - Scenic views and vistas? - Other unique resources? Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? 29. Cumulative potential effects. Describe the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. 30. Identify/describe other potential environmental impacts. 3 Please contact me at 763.559.6759 with any questions or comments. Thank you. Sinc=rely, 1r •onald J. DeVeau, Director Department of Planning and Development DJD:Icl Forwarded under separate cover: Three Rivers Park District Policy Statement - January 2007 C: John Barten, Director of Natural Resources Del Miller, Intergovernmental Relations Manager File: BAK 3:\Pg6J@CT5\Bakes Pal Reser-v.?.\BkK Geoent\31-O8-SO--J 5edarski-Xcel-Proposd jhonr,SubStalion axi arrSion•PJR.AtC • 4 tr'eeRivers • PARI(DISTRICT Three Rivers Park District Board of Com,riissioners sa04/I)att January 26, 2011 Joseph G. Sedarski MarVty>Srs,.Ct siren, Senior Permitting Analyst cossrlct z: Xcei Energy 414',Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401-1993 Mark Haggerty Dear Mr. Sedarski: District 3 Commissioner Sara Wyatt asked me to express her thanks for your letter of January 10, informing her of the proposal to expand and upgrade the Orono substation and construct new 115 kilovolt transmission lines. We Dale Woodbeck, appreciate the update, and we look forward to hearing about the next Vice Chair District 4 steps in the process. Sincerely, ,71ti Rosemary Franxese= '� ,District 5 Beth Nash Public Affairs Coordinator i.arry Blacks-tad,Chair Appointed cc: Sara Wyatt, Commissioner, District 1 Del Miller, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Barbara Kinsey Appointed Cris Gears Superintendent Administrative Center,3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth,MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559:9000 s' TTY 763,559.6719 Fax 753.559.3267 • www.ThreeRiversParks.org Appendix C.10 MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 P _ __ _Uo c _o + d +,r,.� ttrit S5 7rk Plat dist,&u1rc SO St.Paul, M1 561412I98 ' 4 "" , ' , T brash 651.296,40215Jaz tt:651.296.2B6Q X651.297'.75.91. — ; snin t.gatc.rnn.us September 7, 2010 Joe Sedarski Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Melanie Curtis City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Local Review of Orono Substation Expansion and 115 kV Transmission Line Commission Docket Number: E002/LR-10-957 Dear Mr. Sedarski and Ms. Curtis, Greetings. This letter confirms that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(Commission) has received notification that Xcel Energy intends to seek local review to expand the existing Orono substation and to connect this substation to the electrical transmission grid via a new 115 kilovolt(kV) transmission line. The expanded substation and new transmission line would be within the City of Orono in Hennepin County, Minn. Under the Power Plant Siting Act, a permit from the Commission is required for transmission line projects over 100 kV (Minn. Stat. § 216E). However, local review and permitting is possible for eligible projects (Minn. Stat. § 216E.05). For such projects, a utility may apply to a local unit of government instead of the Commission for a permit to build the project. This letter confirms that Xcel Energy's proposed project is eligible for local review. Xcel Energy has indicated that the City of Orono is the local unit of government with jurisdiction to permit the project. A conditional use permit application was submitted to the City of Orono on August 20, 2010. A local unit of government may relinquish its permitting jurisdiction by requesting that the Commission assume jurisdiction within 60 days of the filing of an application with the local unit of government(Minn. Rules 7850.5300, Subp. 4). An environmental review process, including the development of an environmental assessment (EA), must be conducted by the local unit of government with jurisdiction over the project (Minn. Rules 7850.5300). This letter acknowledges that the City of Orono is the responsible governmental unit for the proposed project and associated environmental review. Specific requirements with regard to the environmental review process include(Minn. Rule: 7850.5300, Subp. 5): (1) Providing an opportunity for the public to participate in the development of the scope of the environmental assessment(EA) before it is prepared, (2) Publishing notice in the EQB Monitor when the assessment is available for review a1d the procedure for commenting on the assessment, and (3) Withholding a final decision on the project until at least ten days after the notice appears in the EQB Monitor. The City of Orono must also provide a copy of the environmental assessment to the Commi;sion when it is completed (Minn. Rules 7850.5300, Subp. 5). Electronic filing(eFiling) of the environmental assessment is encouraged (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling). Files of less than five megabytes (5 MB) in size are also encouraged. Finally, this letter confirms that Xcel Energy has sent the required notice to those persons 011 the Commission's general notification list that a permit has been applied for from a local unit o: government(Minn. Rules 7850.5300, Subp. 3). Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, / • Ray Kirsch Energy Facility Permitting Office of Energy Security raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us 651-296-7588 cc: Burl Haar, Commission Bob Cupit, Commission Xcel Energy® 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401-1993 March 17,2011 --Via Electronic Filing-- Dr. Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul,MN 55101 Re: Notification of Intent to File Route Permit Application Under the Alternative Permitting Process for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and Transmission Line Project Dear Dr. Haar: In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7850.2800, Subpart 2, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy), hereby notifies the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of its intent to submit an application for a route permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and Transmission Line Project (Project) pursuant to the alternative permitting procedures in Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3700. The proposed Project includes rebuilding the existing 69 kilovolt (kV) Orono Substation to 115 kV and constructing up to one mile of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line to connect the planned substation to existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831, located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project is needed to increase the operating voltage from 69 kV to 115 kV which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. Xcel Energy plans to file the application in April 2011 and will work with PUC and Office of Energy Security staff to address any questions and/or comments in order to expedite application acceptance and completion of the environmental assessment. If you have questions,please contact me at (612) 330-6435. S. cerely, fi-h)-1,4 se h G. Sedarski enior Permitting Analyst cc: Deborah Pile, Office of Energy Security Bob Cupit,Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Timothy G. Rogers,Xcel Energy Paul J. Lehman,Xcel Energy Christopher B. Clark,Xcel Energy Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Melissa Fogelberg <melissafogelberg@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:45 PM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Re: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project I noticed that just as I pressed "send". You should have received a copy by now in a separate email. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM,Lipman, Eric(OAH)<Eric.Lipman@state.mn.us>wrote: Dear Ms. Fogelberg: Your message did not include an attachment. Very truly yours, Eric L. Lipman Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Street Address: 600 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64620, St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Telephone: (651) 361-7842 - Facsimile: (651) 361-7936 From: Melissa Fogelberg [m ilto:melissafo elber @ mail.com ] • Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:40 PM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project Attached please find my comments regarding above application. Thank you. i Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Melissa Fogelberg <melissafogelberg@gmail.corn> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:41 PM To: Lipman, Eric (OAH) Subject: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Replacement Attachments: Xcel Orono Substation Fogelberg Comments.doc C' Attachment included this time. • MRF : • 1 i - :: �__ .....:._.� .. _-. 1 1 _ .. -.... .. __._...._ J... • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY FACILITY PERMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT is AND ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION NEW 11KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 1 • ,,,c,,:;.•,, Y�: '..17:- '� L .:. 'n` d q d :tot, rw 8 - 8. 1.� ai�.y t...tt7 . Y/".1-73,.&1' .%�1' F.-fir :4.;0. . . , , . 4,1 • ..., , .-.,, . -:!-*.. .,0,:, ,,„0.,r0 4::...41....,.,-t..FA-•, ..1..--:,,,06, 2 II ..,,,, ',;70,.._ i., ,.j ,i,„ . � rr alp,' : »iv„ it, •1 1 December 15,2011 Comments of: Melissa and Paul Fogelberg Emily, Julia and Sara Fogelberg 870 Hunt Farm Rd. Orono,MN December 15, 2011 The Honorable Eric L. Lipman Office of Administrative Hearings P.O.Box 64620 St.Paul,Minnesota 55164-0620 Fax: (651-7936 Eric.Lipman@state.mn.us Re: PUC Docket Number:E002/TL-11-223 OAH Docket Number: 8-2500-22429-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about the Route Permit Application for the Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project. We are homeowners on Hunt Farm Road and,as such, are members of the Hunt Farm Homeowners Association, which owns property across which Xcel desires to obtain an easement for high-voltage transmission lines. Inasmuch as the value, and our use and enjoyment, of our home would be adversely affected by the proposed project,we have tremendous interest in the outcome of this hearing. Our concerns are many,but they all boil down the following: Xcel has a monkey on its back, and it wants to solve that problem by putting said monkey on the back of nearby homeowners, and other residents of Orono whose interests are adversely affected if the city's comprehensive plan, and the rights and interests of its citizens, are not respected. • Xcel is exhibiting little concern about the project's impact on homeowners and other stakeholders, and it appears that instead Xcel is seeking a quick, cheap and easy solution for its problem. We refer to the proposal as"Xcel's 9-9-9 Plan". On a scale of 0-9,Xcel scores all 9 for itself: Xcels' 9-9-9 Plan 9 9 9 "Cheap, easy and quick" "Cheap,easy and quick" Homeowners and Orono solution creates shareholder solution helps enable Xcel residents pay the price for value to pay CEO$12 solving Xcel's problem million/year compensation (i.e.,puts Xcel's monkey on backs of others) The project is a 0-0-0-Plan, however,for homeowners and Orono residents,who will pay the price for a project that benefits others. We would submit that, as a matter of good public policy,the better solution is a 5-5-5 Plan. That is one in which Xcel vigorously pursues every alternative to placing an ill-suited,visually abusive, and risky substation and high-voltage transmission lines in the backyards of homeowners, and imperiling precious wetlands. If potential alternatives are diligently explored and no other alternative does, in fact, exist, every effort MUST be made to ensure that precious wetlands are protected, and the impact on homeowners and residents are mitigated to the greatest extent possible,and to our satisfaction. Those should be the paramount objectives, not resolving Xcel's problems quickly, cheaply and easily. If the cost of the project increases, so be it. Pass on the cost to all those users who receive the benefit of the improvements, or let the shareholders and executives share in the costs.Xcel should keep its own monkey. Here are some of our specific concerns: • Xcel has not demonstrated an urgent, compelling need to justify expansion of the substation. Given state of the economy now and for many years to come,the argument that the substation is required to accommodate growth in the western suburbs is not convincing. If there is no urgent, compelling need,the project should not be pursued at this time. f, • Representatives of Xcel have admitted that Xcel did not explore alternative sites for location of the substation. Consistent with its 9-9-9 Plan, Xcel has chosen this site out of concern for its own costs and convenience, rather than demonstrating due regard for nearby homeowners or for residents of the city of Orono who have an interest in enforcement of the city's comprehensive plan.Although the EA examines alternative routes from the existing substation, it does not explore alternative sites for the substation. It should.A paramount consideration should be location of a site that has the least impact on any residential neighborhood and does not desecrate wetlands. • In discussing alternative routes,the EA makes a puzzling statement that selecting one of the alternate routes would have an additional impact on new landowners. Why would the impact on new landowners be more compelling that the impact on existing landowners?Who are these new landowners? Developers? Do they have that much influence over the process?Or is this just more 9-9-9? • The proposed project is not consistent with the city of Orono's comprehensive plan. In a letter dated August 22,2011, from Lili Tod MacMillan,mayor of Orono,the city expressed its"critical concerns", and the city's interest in "protecting natural vistas without manmade intrusions".While the proposed use of the site may be a permissible use under applicable zoning laws,that does not mean the facility itself may be constructed in a fashion that is not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan or without due regard for other stakeholders. • The EA also does not take into consideration another stakeholder: Minnesota taxpayers,whose millions of dollars were spent to improve and beautify Highway 12, ; including the interchange at Highway 12 and County Road 6. As a matter of public j policy, one must consider the absurdity of a situation where one arm of state government(i.e., the Department of Transportation)expends substantial sums of taxpayer money,only to have those efforts defiled by a project approved by another arm of state government(i.e.,the Department of Commerce). What an outrage for taxpayers. • • An expert we consulted has advised us that it is highly unusual for a substation of this I type and magnitude to be established in a residential neighborhood. Although the EA incorporates research concluding the health risks associated with exposure to high voltage power lines are minimal, other studies indicate that there is a coincidence, if not a correlation,between exposure and a number of serious, life-threatening diseases. An honest assessment would acknowledge that, at this time,the research is inconclusiveness. Given that uncertainty and the severe potential consequences of being wrong, prudent public policy would default to placing substations and power lines as far from residential neighborhoods as possible,not pursuing the 9-9-9 project proposed by Xcel. • The EA is written in a manner that does not accurately capture or depict the character of the substation. In fact, it is written in a manner that demonstrates a bias in favor of Xcel. See,for instance,the cover page of the environmental assessment,which displays a beautiful marsh,rather thanthe atrocious substation Xcel proposes to build, subtly suggesting to the reader that the project will have no aesthetic or environmental impact. See,also,references to statements in the EA that the proposed substation will be"larger"than the existing substation.Actually,the proposed • substation will be exponentially,larger thanthe existing substation. This is a .hoto:ra.h I took of the current substation(m car is in the fore:round : y t .y•*xvr�3- +y« g $, 'd.ib. ,,Lkl :der 1::::t p �i`''I '.4'A:" ,,c,e4 'wei 4' - i'z,. i*, � �` as + � n 1 X 6',t K E ! N Ly. :,: :3g' f f :c.:01-c-77 .,,q l�,-c-77 7,d 7 .} 4'+"... a lt,,t41,1 4'*404 ,. I i This is a photograph of a substation(Bassett Creek)that is similar in size to the proposed substation.(Note: my car is parked in the far left corner.The substation is so large I was unable to back up far enough to capture the entire substation in the photograph): j, �' it § ! w 9 ' *$CRdi atx . ea14-4 c19 r = • Likewise,other descriptions and drawings in the EA do not accurately the enormity of the proposed substation.While these misleading depictions are subtle,it is our belief that they can have a tremendous influence over a reader. We do not suggest that the bias is purposeful. More probably,the bias reflects an unconscious belief that the outcome(i.e,approval)of the application is inevitable,and that Xcel's application will be approved regardless of homeonwer objections.An assessment that reflects such a bias should be discarded,and a new non-biased EA that accurately reflects the effects of the proposed project should be prepared. • • The mitigation strategies proposed by Xcel in existing plans and testimony are wholly inadequate(more 9-9-9?). Among other things: choosing H-frame structure,which have longer span widths,would have less visual impact on the surroundings. Xcel has described the steps it will take to maintain the lines after they are constructed(assuming they are approved), but it has not indicted what steps it would take,either during or after construction,to prevent and detect invasive species that may be introduced by construction disturbances. Construction vehicles and equipment should be decontaminated before entering the wetlands. Construction areas and rights of way should be regularly inspected for invasive species on an ongoing basis. Rights of way in natural areas should be re-vegetated with DNR-approved seed mixes,both after initial construction and later as vegetation is removed as part of ongoing maintenance. It is not sufficient that herbicides be applied following EPA and state agency standards. Any such herbicides should be appropriate for use in wetlands.The property should not be used by Xcel as a storage facility,or to park Xcel vehicles. • 1 • On page 25,in a discussion of the impact on human settlement and possible mitigation measures,the EA states,"The primary mitigation strategy to minimize impacts to homes and businesses is avoidance through routing.No additional mitigation is proposed."(Emphasis added.) Xcel admitted it has explored no other sites.Does this mean it intends to take no steps to mitigate the impact on Hunt Farm homeowners and other citizens of Orono created by this potential blight? • In the same paragraph,the EA states that impacts on property values will be mitigated through negotiation of an easement with the landowner. In this instance,however,the right of way would run over property that is held by the homeowners association. The inference that affected homeowners will be compensated for diminution in the value of their homes is fatuous, if not dishonest. Nor does it compensate Orono residents--who share the city's critical concerns, and interest in protecting natural vistas without manmade intrusions—or Minnesota taxpayers whose investment in Highway 12 will be desecrated by this project. • Xcel's proposed efforts to mitigate the aesthetic impact of the substation are altogether insufficient. As demonstrated by the photographs attached to this comment letter(below),there are many imaginative and effective designs that would conceal the substation or present an attractive edifice. We propose that the substation structures be either buried or enclosed,or be otherwise fully concealed from view— both from nearby homes, as well as from County Road 6.Prairie landscaping and planting the few trees as shown on the drawing provided by Xcel do not begin to mitigate the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood and city. We expect Xcel will oppose this based on the additional cost,but we do not believe that is a sufficient reason for us to take the monkey off its back. • While the proposed substation expansion poses substantial negative impacts on the Hunt Farm Road homeowners and other residents of Orono,the alleged benefits accrue to others. As a condition of approval,mitigation proposals should be presented to and negotiated with affected homeowners. The Hunt Farm Road homeowners have attempted to meet with representatives of Xcel to discuss our concerns, but have been unable to schedule a meeting at a time that is convenient for all the interested parties. If Xcel is serious about addressing and resolving the concerns of those it proposes to harm with this substation expansion,we believe they should address those homeowners individually and collectively before further action is taken on their application. Thank you for considering our remarks. We are hopeful we can reach a prudent and effective resolution that is acceptable to all parties involved. Very truly yours, Paul,Melissa,Emily,Julia&Sara Fogelberg These photograp substatons hs of electric substations dareemonstratepossible.that attractive and less obtrusive i . ....?,,,,,„,,..,...„,_, ,„..„ix ,,,,,, , F ya'. Z ^01 ,�j �t "` dam r -,` - - it; }id E4:',';!.,1'-‘-i,',:.,',1.:',,...,:,',1,,,,,,,,-?., Sa l a E. ot.,,,;;;_, In r.ie� t,t3 , , -''d � +''.'.1-=,e-'+'-‘.'f , t 1'f 1r , a2 1� w ,' ',k.,7„,:-.,.., �, § ' a g° ,y-,. ° ohr, x'.`'' ' 'iey z A '0 4.0y 1 ,A .. , ..a t i ' ' � «� - -: ! �� 4�' ,.......01!..!-- ,.. % '1',,.�$.aM '` :5; �a i,.' �, it; x .`t � mss.- e #s. ,g t r • i I l i. I , i' '' ., y {. q, I ..:..:maP. � ... ' 1 y 1, .... tiewkwas ruwinrwtway, :;.: _:: �� i .. dp 7 . ✓a .'`,1.'...,'... .,,....,-c-...-.-..,.:',,......21,',.,:„..,`` ate. ., .:. �.%*i�'�� �,... , ..ca . .,'..&t ...F.m ... Lam_..„........-.....-7-,,,,..,,....;.,-.:.; • I, N . moi' x kY ,4C-"i' , -----x 'r�" rI 'sr „� ''u)' t '_ �{ .a x .rr i 6±r44; •+*xr r L Z ,....,..,,,,,f!,- nsW ,.. F n t�`�'� (iV�}t bhi fl'-i- xE R � � �s",r tear � >.�>_,: ` ,.fT y■ t i �,�yE<w"-, ! �X1. ' '` f'.7i+' � "as9r.za� r� ,, ..- N W y f " $ Y r� xs .I r ,x ,. • •"711W, .Y 4 'l^c' vy 9 1P • or- . 0 'aNIC-s., 6$h� !i-.., -www „).',¢.Sq X • • .# Ian ,i3„ ;4i M T'I F. t s 5 9, a1 ' 'T qq ...Rw.l J 9 alt. � 4 `'�3 S. a..�q } 1 } l la 1 {'4p" ,,, : 6 q:•. d g;,wiz '' % -f-iii. ' r ifi tlt". n. - 9 'sx ., I rte, .':..-',:-% d f ....-.-4,:.,", $�„ i ka b F '4'''';f C 1� i� r. : x.. L.- '' X45 F t h � y� • 0 a�: i rte' .• ' ; i.l�r' „�-i w1-y ,. L,,;" Al t:.,. .l,'wp, „`�S' w °"`: aa'� i<4e`*' i e- lam. e afi ux� or ', / ¢,_* a a .,,. �i r •:T'' r i :e. It'-'1',..*:.. ({may .'4. ; •1 .° _ ZI'4'7 ' Bpi r, r 6 Yd _ 3 :7W','"41;-7 3 *: `ti tt k ii.;•' ;i i i i it y . �.-?'7; iY ..`4+d , a r e;, 'ak 'li re YuiSa,. I I. p. , ' ?11"- '4 j ' f .,fix. mss. � Q • • , .. '. ---, ',,' .. , '4 -,'.‘ -tNI.,1t# k-' ,, ..,. - .10_;%*„';;''7,' '‘, , t ' �. } 7 �,fr P fir �5�u , • .-i,` y f ,, ( ,..---.044111111 4�ilr"""III ., r i i r"' Ott tk 4 "e' ; t f3 .. , � . e.," , �f tis • i ' ''a _.. . °""?..en‘.* • r. $ y# f M ( t' t �.. 't v" I ata te, C - w I • Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Michael Kuruvilla<michael.kuruvilla©att.net> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:58 AM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) • Subject: FW: Xcel's Orono Substation proposal-Ref: PUC Docket Number: E0021TL-11-223 Attachments: Xcel's Orono Neighbourhood.jpg Dear Judge Lipman: • Here is the e-mail that I sent to Ms.Steinhauer. Thank you again. Very truly yours, . Michael Kuruvilla Kallivayalil 760 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN. 55356 From: Michael Kuruvilla jmailto:michael.kuruvillaCa�att.net'[ • Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:43 PM To: 'Steinhauer, Suzanne(COMM)' Cc: 'Kirsch, Raymond (COMM)'; 'Kaluzniak, Mike (PUC)' • Subject: FW: Xcel's Orono Substation proposal- Ref: PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 Here is the attachment. Michael From:Michael Kuruvillafmailto:michaeLkuruvilla@att.net] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:30 PM To: 'Steinhauer, Suzanne (COMM)' Cc: 'Kirsch, Raymond (COMM)'; 'Kaluzniak, Mike(PUC)' Subject: Xcel's Orono Substation proposal- Ref: PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 Dear Ms.Steinhauer, I am a resident of Huntington Farm neighborhood in Orono and the president of Hunt Farm Home Owners Association. I am writing this letter as a representative of my neighborhood, Xcel Energy's proposed Orono Substation is right behind my house and very close to the entrance to the Huntington Farm neighborhood houses(Hunt Farm Road). Not only that this proposed substation will be next to my backyard,the proposed route is next to several of our association members houses with one of the big power poles next to the house of another home owner. We, myself as well as the other home owners, have some major concerns on where Xcel is proposing their expanded substation and how they are going about trying to do it. When Xcel found out that they have opposition from the home owners,they pulled their application from the City of Orono and went to the PUC. We feel that these actions show that Xcel is trying to ram this project down our throat because they are a big company and they can easily ignore the people. We hope and expect Xcel will take into account our issues and concerns and move their expanded substation to another location. Here are some of our concerns: 1. How can Xcel easily go through the wetlands within and next to our association property? What kind of environmental impact does this have on the wetlands if this go through the currently proposed plan? 2. What are the health issues that we would face who will be living next to this big power grid? 3. What kind of potential accidents would we be exposed to from an expanded substation from lightening, storms,tornados,etc. (I have seen occasional lightening fires at the current Xcel station-which is considerably smaller than the one they are proposing now)? 4. What would the economic impact that we would suffer from the loss of our property values if this humongous substation is built next to our neighborhood entrance? I know my home value will be substantially reduced (since it is right next to my house) and I could have a very difficult time selling my house. F. We want to start out by stating that we are not against Xcel's substation expansion. What we are hoping is that Xcel will find another site for their expanded substation that will have the least effect on the homeowners and the surrounding environment. Though it may seem to be the easiest and cheapest route for Xcel to expand their substation at the current site since • they already own the property at this location,there are other plausible solutions available. Again,since Xcel is a big • company they may have the power to do whatever they want for their convenience. However, in my opinion,for the good of the people,Xcel should do the right thing-not easiest or the cheapest. I believe Xcel could sell or swap their current property and acquire a similar property to build the substation without losing money. Xcel could make their current property into a small neighborhood park or leave to the wild life . • There are properties near the current Xcel facility that I believe are away from homes that Xcel could potentially acquire to build an expanded substation. I am attaching a yahoo map of the surrounding area where I marked 4 potential properties. (1)a property just north of the current Xcel property; (2)a property next to the Gun Club on County Road 6; (3) a property north of Wayzata Blvd; and (4)a property on the south side of Wayzata Blvd (and this property is for sale). These are my initial thoughts on this subject. Please let me know if I can provide more information and/or commends on this. I appreciate any help you can provide in persuading Xcel to move their substation to a location that would have lesser impact on the environment and the people. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Michael Kuruvilla (Kallivayalil) 760 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN. 55356 • August 26, 2011 •• •2 o pi: M � "" . } . ".sk+ a =' 2 mow't.3 k 'w'�i r 'i i i 4 t ac . r : _ } . _ r � ...ash"`." Jam'' .......;.....::...... .....,:::.,...... ...'11...pottliwswo*....‘,,-...-.--... ..., .-•-• • :.,,i',:i:';',;:.•,:i.,: :... . • ..:. ,,,,-.7,...... :-.r!7.---N......'..,i' - ' ': . . 1721 ( � f 01(.''''' a h R i£E / - ;,. va� xis�ems �<- my� 1�iGa: a 34#' Sin ;t.}iC°'Aitcrz'Dtf;fir« :-1M +- .- s #s4irii ce,$ Vit; r1 . .-11!„.4W.., .,, x .i+ -i4' i. > s 1. , . h: ..§ . ' , . ' ' .. .• . ..: . ...' .+F.igi.... ,L4414c.110.... '4'‘Iltiq, ..- : , ... . .. . .. . . . .:. . .r. .. .... • • . ,..,„,„.,..14.,j$,. ...littlilr! . - ' '......,.•- -ii; :. ... ' .. 411 $ ; Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Peter Schoon <Peter@SystemSupportSolutions.com> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:59 AM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Cc: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com Subject: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments Attachments: EA.pdf; Page 25.pdf; Maps.pdf Importance: High bear Honorable Judge Lipman, In reviewing the attached Environmental Assessment, I have two statements: 1. All of us (ten families of the Huntington Farms Home Owners' Association) support the north side of US Highway 12 route alternative. It complies more fully with your stated requirement to select alternatives which inflict less impact on residents, flora, and fauna. 2. Page 25 includes conflicting statements: Under "Mitigation Measures": "The primary mitigation strategy to minimize impacts to homes and businesses is avoidance through routing. No additional mitigation is proposed." Then in the 4th paragraph under the same heading I read, "Xcel Energy has stated it intends to minimize vegetation clearing to the extent possible and to work with landowners to identify visual concerns related to the project and to develop suitable mitigation measures." I need to know which it is to be? In verbal discussions with Mr. Chris Rogers, mitigations which include berms and tree plantings to mitigate both visual (new 90' monopole) and noise (corona crackle) impacts have been discussed. Specifically, my wife (Carla Schoon) and myself have requested planting of approximately twenty (20) 15' trees on the North side of our property to mitigate visual and noise impacts to our home at 994 Hunt Farm Road. I realize the specifics of this discussion would be implicated • in the easement negotiation for the "swing" area over our property, but still request that the wording on page 25 be brought into agreement with itself. Thank you for considering our questions. •1 Peter & Carla Schoon 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55356-9325 952 745-1111 x115 952 473-0260 (Fax) • li 2 Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Melissa Fogelberg <melissafogelberg@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:49 PM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Re: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project Thank you. I'm hoping to attend. On Thu,Dec 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM,Lipman,Eric (OAH)<Eric.Lipman@state.mn.us>wrote: Yes,thank you. I have received it. If your schedule permits,the hearing in this matter begins at 6:30 p.m.at the Orono City Hall. Very truly yours, Eric L. Lipman Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Street Address: 600 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64620, St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 Telephone: (651) 361-7842 - Facsimile: (651) 361-7936 From: Melissa Fogelberg [mailto:melissafogelberg@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:45 PM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Re: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project I noticed that just as I pressed "send". You should have received a copy by now in a separate email. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Lipman, Eric(OAH)<Eric.Lipman@state.mn.us>wrote: Dear Ms. Fogelberg: Your message did not include an attachment. Very truly yours, Eric L. Lipman Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings • • Street Address: 600 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64620, St. Paul, MN 55164-0620 . Telephone: (651) 361-7842 - Facsimile: (651) 361-7936 From: Melissa Fogelberg [mailto:melissafogelberg(agmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:40 PM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Comments re: xCel Route Permit Application for Orono Substation Replacement and new 115kV Transmission Line Project Attached please find my comments regarding above application. Thank you. Melissa Fogelberg 2 Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Jason <monies@frontiernet.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:28 AM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH); christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy..com; Peter@SystemSupportSolutions.com Cc: 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Anthony Waldera'; 'Dave and Sue Wilson'; 'Jason Admonius'; 'Kate Persian'; 'Melissa R. Fogelberg'; 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Michelle Langton'; 'Nancy Fraser'; 'Paul Fogelberg'; 'Paul Fraser'; 'Paul Passolt'; 'Steve Persian'; 'Will Langton' Subject: RE: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments Honorable Judge Lipman and those it may concern, I am a member of the Huntington Farms Home Owners Association. I feel that I should clarify a misrepresentation in the below attached email. I do not support the north side of US Highway 12 route alternative, of the listed alternatives it is the most desirable. However I do not support it as a solution. I feel that this option will still have severe negative repercussions on both the aesthetics of our neighborhood and the salability of our property, thus devaluating our homes. I'm not sure how Mr. Schoon came to the conclusion that "All of us" support said route. I was not a party to any discussions where the route was discussed and supported and can further assure you that I do not support any of the listed route alternatives. I do not want to presume to speak for the rest of the members of the association, but I can assure you that being a member of the association and not a supporter of said route, "All of us" is a definite misrepresentation of the association as a whole. Sincerely, Timothy Jason Admonius Original Message From: Peter Schoon Imailto:Peter@System5upport5olutions.coml Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:59 AM To: eric.lipman@state.mn.us Cc: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com Subject: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments Importance: High Dear Honorable Judge Lipman, In reviewing the attached Environmental Assessment, I have two statements: 1. All of us (ten families of the Huntington Farms Home Owners' Association) support the north side of US Highway 12 route alternative. It complies more fully with your stated requirement to select alternatives which inflict less impact on residents, flora, and fauna. 2. Page 25 includes conflicting statements: Under "Mitigation Measures": "The primary mitigation strategy to minimize impacts to homes and businesses is avoidance through routing. No additional mitigation is proposed." Then in the 4th paragraph under the same heading I read, "Xcel Energy has stated it intends to minimize vegetation clearing to the extent possible and to work with landowners to identify visual concerns related to the project and to develop suitable mitigation measures." I need to know which it is to be? In verbal discussions with Mr. Chris Rogers, mitigations which include berms and tree plantings to mitigate both visual (new 90' monopole) and noise (corona crackle) impacts have been discussed. Specifically, my wife (Carla Schoon) and myself have requested planting of approximately twenty (20) 15' trees on the North side of our property to mitigate visual and noise impacts to our home at 994 Hunt Farm Road. I realize the specifics of this discussion would be implicated in the easement negotiation for the "swing" area over our property, but still request that the wording on page 25 be brought into agreement with itself. Thank you for considering our questions. Peter & Carla Schoon 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55356-9325 952 745-1111 x115 952 473-0260 (Fax) No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4058 - Release Date: 12/05/11 2 Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Jason <monies@frontiernet.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:25 AM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH); christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com; Peter@SystemSupportSolutions.com Cc: 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Anthony Waldera'; 'Dave and Sue Wilson'; 'Kate Persian'; 'Melissa R. Fogelberg'; 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Michelle Langton'; 'Nancy Fraser'; 'Paul Fogelberg'; 'Paul Fraser'; 'Paul Passolt'; 'Steve Persian'; 'Will Langton' Subject: RE: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments • Honorable Judge Lipman, Let me first apologize for taking up your valuable time. It has been brought to my attention that my previous email was not clear enough. My intention was first to clarify that I had not agreed to support any solutions and was caught off guard by the original email. Secondly, I think the use of the word "support" is too strong of a word. I personally don't believe that either site (North or South) is a good solution as it still puts Large towers, power lines, and substation near my home. I'm sure that you can agree that if you were in my situation you wouldn't want that eyesore and potential health risk near your home. A solution that I would "support" would be one where the station and lines are nowhere near my home. That being said, if I only had the two options (North or South) to choose from, I would choose that the Lines be placed on the North side of Hwy 12. But again, that is like being made to choose the best of two terrible options. I hope this clarifies my feelings on the situation. Thank You, Timothy Jason Admonius Original Message From: Jason [mailto:monies@frontiernet,netj Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:28 AM To: eric.lipman@state.mn.us; christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com; Peter@SystemSupportSolutions.com Cc: 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Anthony Waldera'; 'Dave and Sue Wilson'; 'Jason Admonius'; 'Kate Persian'; 'Melissa R. Fogelberg'; 'Michael Kuruvilla'; 'Michelle Langton'; 'Nancy Fraser'; 'Paul Fogelberg'; 'Paul Fraser'; 'Paul Passolt'; 'Steve Persian'; 'Will Langton' Subject: RE: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments Honorable Judge Lipman and those it may concern, I am a member of the Huntington Farms Home Owners Association. I feel that I should clarify a misrepresentation in the below attached email. I do not support the north side of US Highway 12 route alternative, of the listed alternatives it is the most desirable. However I do not . support it as a solution. I feel that this option will still have severe negative repercussions on both the aesthetics of our neighborhood and the salability of our property, thus devaluating our homes. I'm not sure how Mr. Schoon came to the conclusion that "All of us" support said route. I was not a party to any discussions where the route was discussed and supported and can further assure you that I do not support any of the listed route alternatives. I do not want to presume to speak for the rest of the members of the association, but I can assure you that being a member of the association and not a supporter of said route, "All of us" is a definite misrepresentation of the association as a whole. Sincerely, Timothy Jason Admonius Original Message From: Peter Schoon jmailto:Peter@System5upportSolutions.coml Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:59 AM To: eric.lipman@state.mn.us Cc: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com Subject: Orono 115 KV Transmission Line Hearing comments Importance: High Dear Honorable Judge Lipman, In reviewing the attached Environmental Assessment, I have two statements: 1. All of us (ten families of the Huntington Farms Home Owners' Association) support the north side of US Highway 12 route alternative. It complies more fully with your stated requirement to select alternatives which inflict less impact on residents, flora, and fauna. 2. Page 25 includes conflicting statements: j Under "Mitigation Measures": "The primary mitigation strategy to minimize impacts to homes and businesses is avoidance through routing. No additional mitigation is proposed." Then in the 4th paragraph under the same heading I read, "Xcel Energy has stated it intends to minimize vegetation clearing to the extent possible and to work with landowners to identify visual concerns related to the project and to develop suitable mitigation measures." 2 I need to know which it is to be? In verbal discussions with Mr. Chris Rogers, mitigations which include berms and tree plantings to mitigate both visual (new 90' monopole) and noise (corona crackle) impacts have been discussed. Specifically, my wife (Carla Schoon) and myself have requested planting of approximately twenty (20) 15' trees on the North side of our property to mitigate visual and noise impacts to our home at 994 Hunt Farm Road. I realize the specifics of this discussion would be implicated in the easement negotiation for the "swing" area over our property, but still request that the wording on page 25 be brought into agreement with itself. Thank you for considering our questions. Peter & Carla Schoon 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55356-9325 952 745-1111 x115 952 473-0260 (Fax) No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0,1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4058 - Release Date: 12/05/11 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4059 - Release Date: 12/05/11 3 Collins, Denise (OAH) From: Michael Kuruvilla <michael.kuruvilla@att.net> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:53 AM To: Lipman, Eric(OAH); Lipman, Eric(OAH) Subject: Xcel's proposed Orono 115 KV substation December 18, 2011 • The Honorable Eric L. Lipman Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 64620 St. Paul,Minnesota 55164-0620 Fax: (651-7936 Eric.Lipman(a,state.mn.us Re: PUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 OAH Docket Number: 8-2500-22429-2 Dear Judge Lipman: Please do not let Xcel build their huge substation in our backyard. It does not belong here-it does not belong in anybody's backyard. Xcel has the expertise and resources to find an alternate site that would not be in somebody's backyard. The area they plan to service with this substation is a very large rural area, including Delano. Finding a different site may be a little inconvenient for them. However, Xcel need to be a responsible company who would take into account the long term good of the society- including every member of the society,however, insignificant he or she may be. They should not try to hurt them. Xcel is trying to hurt me and my family with this proposal. I am sure any one of you could understand my position if you put yourself in my shoes and imagine Xcel is trying to build their substation in'your'backyard. We may all look at things differently when things happen to us and since this is happening to me and my family, I am hoping that you will understand my position. I do understand that PUC has considered a few other sites for the EA. However, they are sites that I suggested to Suzanne Steinhauer with the Minnesota Department of Commerce in a letter on August 26, 2011. I attached a yahoo map of the surrounding area attached to this letter that I sent to Ms. Steinhauer where I marked 4 potential properties. I will forward this to you by separate e-mail for verification. These were the only sites that PUC considered for their EA. I simply pointed out some sites near their current location that I saw just from driving to/from my home that I thought might work for Xcel. I am by no means an expert on all these vast rural area. Xcel has alternatives. Xcel has not so far proposed an alternate site-they have no incentive to do so. They can fmd a different site if they want to fmd one in this vast rural area,rather than trying to build their'HUGE SUBSTATION' in my backyard. I was told that Xcel would do whatever Xcel wants to do. I do hear that part. But, a powerful company such as Xcel to do anything that would be the easiest or the cheapest or the most 1 convenient for them without regard to people who do not have the power or the lawyers or engineers or planners the resources to stop Xcel from hurting them would simply be not the fare thing. If Xcel needs to build this huge substation in this area,they need to use their expertise and resources to look at some other sites that are not in somebody's backyard. For the good of the people,Xcel should do the right thing-not easiest or the cheapest. Excel could even sell or swap their current property and acquire a similar property in this large rural area to build the substation without losing money. Better yet,Xcel could make their current property into a small neighborhood park or leave it for the wild life and the wetland. Xcel's current planned course of action has serious impacts on people's lives. I am under constant intense stress because of this and I have seen several cardiologists for chest pains. My cardiologists told me that getting out of here for a while may be good. I am leaving for India this Monday,December 19th. I hope when I come back after a little over a month, I would not have to continue to deal with Xcel trying to build their'HUGE SUBSTATION' in my backyard. I hope and request for your understanding and support for our position. Thank you so much. . i Very truly yours, Michael, Leena&Ambily Kallivayalil 760 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN. 55356 952-404-2046 (Home) 612-296-3518 (cell) 2 �-7 H O R• ztvry IfljUUUi n = • - n .qq O . q- Fz,' . q ,sem•mom`; Q CD A�i .72 rt 4 ,5 • 5' io 4 45 �. Ius' 555 ;=co 0 0 0 y w CD = y a• y y y ,,, 25 a r1,� :,,, (D (. co P.^'7 •'0 C 'D 5.70 '0 .0 N O O O = O O O o ° O O w ° = o ° O �' !"t y 2 0 0 0 o n n _ ), Y C7 t5 t, d d = P ril a w m R' g S g C7 g g n o o , -= & w - d o w w .,w = w w 'a c n IJ X F..; vc `J' ,, O --i u n o Ctl n �, _ o, f n CD N N t0.7 0 v o o w e o ? o E trif ) qq q /o d o t=i, ?. ti = y oN n. 'E R E- a f a a � � � n ,2 0• R o o• g' 0 0 0 o w K ri O Eg 0 _ = s G 5 5CD 0 CD CD E n _ a = = P., CJ 7y C7 (7 x to 7y a CJ o n cn r x c ri t ry w t5. w w o O o r.a ,q c V- R w , 0 rt < °.. Q Q. fD a rt oN a w x x .° w c v' ,r•. O ci O c- g o w W o r00 . t' 0 0P CA r' ° °$ E ,-,-•, R 'rk, r+ ro r tri el: n 7� d ro n b d O d d d n � Ifl rorn N crn1 ) z ro yw• Ei Q oq g n A G .0. . 6i O2 IflH �' a N 9 R. ' 3 g.. .r O R. a. A o iflill w to Q..'ro11' ° 0a n 9 O aia. W' P' w W n •0 25' 0 3, 5. �' E. W"+ 0pS 4' '^' p'w Ni S "U fD ng FnC S' o rn ^ 5 .0 "nom o o N' o to q° �• M CA = O `6• O R. 9 N. Ti 76' A 00 0 CD V1 n g. a CE aS a 'Fd -, oa co n . G co co Cl pw pw ro 8w 8cA ? 8w w –00 T,wp0 Tw�p0 w w N w w aA to p p oN, A ro ,.,,a' .� 0 (...i•• Al 0 8 0 J 8 N 0 0 ,-/, U O ,`Oi, ,`O2, O S O O U O O r -'h o F, O z v7 ti 2 qy qo ', x r ',F., .6. r. CC 7y 0, • ' ry' r+ ' . k >< m N o, 0, o o cw, rn D2.. ... w w o Y 5. Ctl y fD P 2 x 5 ^� Sc Ez F� R �i Sx : 1n �' CA cn CA B a o ¢� N. K' , n rn n fD `Y! Al O .. o r CA [n , rn 0. w ^ "O" 4 �' co.. a G M C ',3 � °O Z',r^ r z z a pz• o a o. o o P. P• P• O to ti: '+ rt rtCD a' � n C�C z' a. o. o o P a z E v' f� `. N n' `y O ,T A es, O CD O N P. O a rz 6 F. V. til n -i0 0E fmw -0w . w w .0 .0 .0 ° v n O.. cii bo iw w m w g $ ig v E. E E E E E E E E E E E E ' E r, co O = a '''.' E .. E EE E EEEEE E EE E E E E E E EEE Eat cam' V, 0, 0, V, N N VH Z.N N V, to VI N °, °, °, N N r W Q .' S o a 000 COwO N O O -6..' J ,0 Cl Cl Cl 01 ,D J Cl o, 0, Cl Cl 01 U a Cl 0, Cl O, °, 0, `,5', ' I� t°., W se, N D.. N N N N W p N, N NNN N N N N N NN NN N N N N cl,' r._a '•'' "" a N A ,ND v bii, O § U b W w H " U In U O ,NO A.� (D `P `P Y. C 0 rn R' 4' 90 -1 N n�N1 'P P f• X91 ?' ,P ,P prop ,D "p-�' Y, S� `9'' Q' O 93 ,p? °p; J W oat ,ND A ,w0 p0 UI R. 0 W A 0 Opo A W o a °w, N! Cr Q+ a O 8 00 Cl J ,0 0, O ,0 O O Cl 00 w N -1 ,0 O N 00 lA 00 "1 J f rD— E. G w ? ff o a g °• ; , x w o 5" P c w co. c iIt}JiIHflTtIIIIIiL ,- £ZZ-1 i-'I.L/Z00E DNI 233tpoQ D[ldw Z a'q>'i, u! pals!'uosJad tiara 02 was Imp uourwauinaop amp anUE2uasaJdai si Imp 10220' a'dtuexa u>' si 2uimo"o3 aq j Xcel Energy* 414'N Collet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 65401-1993 SESPONSIfltE 1Y•N'.A?U7^E*' January 10, 2011 Melanie Curtis Planning and Zoning Coordinator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Notice of Proposed Transmission Line and Substation Expansion Project Orono Substation Expansion Project Xcel Energy, Inc./Northern States Power Company PUC Docket No. E002/TL- Dear Ms. Curtis: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy) proposes to expand and upgrade the existing Orono Substation and construct new 115 kilovolt (kV)transmission lines to connect the planned substation to existing Xcel Energy 115kV transmission Line 0831 located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, City of Orono (City), Hennepin County, Minnesota (see Figure 1). The expansion and upgrade will include a complete rebuild of the existing Orono Substation, an increase in operating voltage from 69kV to 115kV, and a new double circuit 115kV transmission line to connect the substation to existing transmission line (Project). The Project is needed to increase the operating voltage from 69kV to 115kV which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. The purpose of this letter is to provide you notice of Xcel Energy's plan to obtain a Route Permit from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) for the proposed Project and request comments for the Project. This notice is also required under Minn. Stat. §216E.03, subd. 3a and 3b to allow each local governmental unit (LGU)within the proposed Project area the opportunity to meet with Xcel Energy to discuss the Project prior to filing a Route Permit Application (RPA). 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 %of the SW%of Section 29 and the NW %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 the west and south, wetland to the north, and a highway interchange to the east. 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 be located within existing Xcel Energy property. Xcel Energy also proposes to build a new double circuit 115kV transmission line to connect the Orono Substation to the existing 115kV Line 0831 located approximately 1/2 mile northwest of the Orono Substation. The Project will require modifying Xcel Energy's existing transmission Line 0881 to make this connection. The new double circuit 115kV transmission line route is proposed to 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). Please note that Xcel Energy is evaluating siting/routing information and previously obtained public comments regarding the Project. Page 2 January 10, 2011 Depending upon the final selected route, the Project may cross over adjacent wetlands or railroad/roads. A portion of the proposed Project may be located within existing easements maintained by Xcel Energy or other road authorities and utilities. However, some new easement acquisition is anticipated. For new construction of structures and transmission line, Xcel Energy typically proposes a 400-foot-wide route corridor, 200 feet on either side of the proposed new line location. Permitting Requirements The proposed new 115 kV transmission line meets the definition of a High Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) under Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.1000, subp. 9. A Route Permit is required for the Project, for which Xcel Energy will apply. The Project qualifies for the Alternative Permitting Process under Minn. Stat. §216E.04, subd. 2(3) and pursuant to Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 (see Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.2800, subp. 1(C)), which Xcel Energy may elect to use. A Certificate of Need (CON) is not required for the Project because it is not classified as a large energy facility(LEF) under Minn. Stat. §§2166.243 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 nor does it cross a state line. Therefore, Xcel Energy will not need to apply for a CON for the Project. The Route Permit proceeding will determine where the proposed facilities will be located. As part of the permitting process, the MPUC considers input from the applicant utility, interested stakeholders, local government units, state and federal agencies, and landowners who may be affected by the Project. Xcel Energy plans to submit an application for a Route Permit for the Project to the MPUC within the next several months. Additional environmental review will occur during the routing process. The routing process will consider environmental, land use, and other potential routing impacts, and provide the opportunity for the public to comment. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §216E.03, subd. 3b, you may request a pre-application consultation meeting regarding the proposed Project within 30 days of receiving this notice. Please review this information and provide comments, questions, or concerns you may have regarding the proposed Project, or if you would like to request a pre-application consultation meeting. Please contact me at(612) 330-6435 or joseph.q.sedarski(axcelenergy.com if you have any questions or comments regarding the Project or this notice. Sincerely, Xcel Energy Senior Permitting Analyst Enc. Figure 1 cc: Chris Rogers, Xcel Energy