Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrono_Route_Permit_Application - Docket # W002/TL-11-223 Northern n States Power erCo t, Minnesota Public Ut `e Commission for ublic '' Substation Replacementa Route per Utilities; , and mit Orono Transmission Line pr New 115 kV ' New ....--------.....„\\-\ .11 tf )11 3 ' r. Docket No Alter ti permitting process E002/TL-11-223 PF XcelEnergyg 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 June 7, 2011 --Via Electronic Filing -- Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7t' 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 PERMITTING 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 ("Pro)ect") 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 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR A ROUTE PERMIT ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT And NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT Alternative Permitting Process MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 June 7, 2011 Table of Contents Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Proposal Summary.................................................................................................................1 1.2 Completeness Checklist........................................................................................................3 2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................6 2.1 Statement of Ownership.......................................................................................................6 2.2 Requested Action...................................................................................................................6 2.3 Permittee.................................................................................................................................6 2.4 Certificate of Need................................................................................................................8 2.5 Route Permit, Alternative Permitting Process...................................................................8 2.6 Notice to Commission..........................................................................................................8 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...........................................................................................................9 3.1 Project Location.....................................................................................................................9 3.2 Project Proposal.....................................................................................................................9 3.3 Need for Project................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Project Schedule.................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Project Cost......................................................................................................................... 11 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND ROUTE SELECTION RATIONALE ........................ 12 4.1 Transmission Line Description........................................................................................ 12 4.2 Route Width and Alignment Selection Process............................................................. 14 4.2.1 Route Width........................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Route Selection Process....................................................................................... 14 4.3 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected................................................................. 16 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1............................................................................................... 16 4.3.2 Alternative Route 2............................................................................................... 16 4.3.3 Alternative Route 3............................................................................................... 17 4.3.4 Alternative Route 4............................................................................................... 17 4.4 Associated Facilities and Substation Modifications....................................................... 18 4.4.1 Orono Substation (Replacement)....................................................................... 18 4.4.2 Transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078 (Existing) ..................................... 19 4.5 Design Options to Accommodate Future Transmission Lines ................................... 20 5.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION............................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Structures, Right -of -Way, Construction and Maintenance ........................................... 21 5.1.1 Transmission Structures....................................................................................... 21 i Table of Contents (continued) Page 5.1.2 Right -of -Way Width............................................................................................. 23 5.1.3 Right -of -Way Evaluation and Acquisition........................................................ 27 5.1.4 Transmission Construction Procedures............................................................. 29 5.1.5 Restoration Procedures........................................................................................ 30 5.1.6 Maintenance Procedures...................................................................................... 31 5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields............................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Electric Fields........................................................................................................ 31 5.2.2 Magnetic Fields...................................................................................................... 32 5.2.3 Stray Voltage.......................................................................................................... 36 5.3 Farming Operations, Vehicle Use, and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines .............. 36 6.0 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES......... 38 6.1 Description of Environmental Setting............................................................................ 38 6. 1.1 Topography............................................................................................................39 6.1.2 Geology and Soils................................................................................................. 39 6.2 Human Settlement.............................................................................................................. 40 6.2.1 Public Health and Safety...................................................................................... 40 6.2.2 Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Land Use .......................................... 40 6.2.3 Displacement.........................................................................................................41 6.2.4 Noise.......................................................................................................................42 6.2.5 Television and Radio Interference..................................................................... 45 6.2.6 Aesthetics............................................................................................................... 45 6.2.7 Socioeconomic Impacts....................................................................................... 47 6.2.8 Cultural Values...................................................................................................... 48 6.2.9 Recreation.............................................................................................................. 48 6.2.10 Public Services....................................................................................................... 49 6.3 Land -Based Economics..................................................................................................... 50 6.3.1 Agriculture..............................................................................................................50 6.3.2 Forestry...................................................................................................................50 6.3.3 Tourism.................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.4 Mining.....................................................................................................................51 6.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources........................................................................... 51 6.5 Natural Environment......................................................................................................... 52 6.5.1 Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 52 6.5.2 Water Quality......................................................................................................... 53 ii Table of Contents (continued) Page 6.5.3 Wetlands.................................................................................................................54 6.5.4 Flora........................................................................................................................58 6.5.5 Fauna.......................................................................................................................59 6.6 Rare and Unique Natural Resources................................................................................ 60 7.0 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ...................... 63 8.0 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.................................................................................................... 65 8.1 Agency Contacts and Response........................................................................................ 65 8.1.1 Notice to Local Government Units................................................................... 65 8.1.2 Notice to Other Agencies and Interested Parties ............................................ 65 8.1.3 Natural Resource Conservation Service............................................................ 65 8.1.4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service............................................................. 65 8.1.5 Minnesota Department of Transportation........................................................ 66 8.1.6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources .................................................. 66 8.1.7 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office .................................................. 66 8.1.8 Metropolitan Council........................................................................................... 67 8.1.9 Three Rivers Park District................................................................................... 67 8.2 Identification of Landowners........................................................................................... 67 8.3 Public Participation............................................................................................................ 67 8.4 Required Permits and Approvals...................................................................................... 69 9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................71 10.0 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................... 74 11.0 ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................76 111 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Completeness Checklist.........................................................................................................3 Table 2 Estimated Project Schedule.................................................................................................10 Calculated Magnetic Flux Density (milligauss) for Proposed Transmission Table 3 Estimated Project Cost........................................................................................................11 Line Design (3.28 feet above ground)...............................................................................33 Table 4 Detailed Description of Proposed Route..........................................................................13 Distance to Occupied Structures........................................................................................41 Table 5 Structure Design Summary.................................................................................................22 Common Noise Sources and Levels..................................................................................42 Table 6 Calculated Electric Fields (kV/m) for Proposed Transmission Line Design LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Project Location......................................................................................................................2 Figure2 Proposed Route...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Photo of Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure ...........................21 Figure 4 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure..............................21 Figure 5 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Braced Post Structure ............................22 Figure 6 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements For Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure......................................................................................24 Figure 7 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kVDavit Arm Structure......................................................................................................25 Figure 8 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure....................................................................................................26 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Applicant's Notice Letter to Commission of Intent to Use Alternative Permitting Process Appendix B Maps Figure B-1 (3.28 feet above ground)......................................................................................................32 Figure B-2 Table 7 Calculated Magnetic Flux Density (milligauss) for Proposed Transmission Land Use Land Cover Figure B-4 Line Design (3.28 feet above ground)...............................................................................33 Figure B-5 Table 8 Distance to Occupied Structures........................................................................................41 Wetlands and Waterbodies Table 9 Common Noise Sources and Levels..................................................................................42 Figure B-8 Table 10 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification.................................................................43 Table 11 Calculated Audible Noise (dBA) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground)......................................................................................................44 Table 12 Population and Economic Characteristics of the Project Location..............................47 Table 13 Wetlands within the Proposed Route................................................................................56 Table 14 Rare and Unique Resources Near the Proposed Project................................................61 Table 15 Potential Required Permits..................................................................................................69 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Project Location......................................................................................................................2 Figure2 Proposed Route...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Photo of Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure ...........................21 Figure 4 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure..............................21 Figure 5 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Braced Post Structure ............................22 Figure 6 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements For Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure......................................................................................24 Figure 7 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kVDavit Arm Structure......................................................................................................25 Figure 8 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure....................................................................................................26 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Applicant's Notice Letter to Commission of Intent to Use Alternative Permitting Process Appendix B Maps Figure B-1 General Vicinity Map Figure B-2 Proposed Project and Route Location Figure B-3 Land Use Land Cover Figure B-4 Zoning Figure B-5 Property Parcels Figure B-6 Wetlands and Waterbodies Figure B-7 Parks and Recreational Areas Figure B-8 Locations of Known Rare and Unique Resources Orono Project June, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 iv Figure B-9 Archaeological and Historical Resources Figure B-10 Orono Substation Replacement Plan Appendix C Public Correspondence C.1 MnDNR NHIS Response C.2 List of LGUs and Other Interested Parties and Agencies Sent a 90 -Day Project Notice Letter C.3 City of Orono Response CA NRCS Response C.5 US Fish and Wildlife Response C.6 MnDOT Response C.7 SHPO Response C.8 Metropolitan Council C.9 Three Rivers Park District C.10 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Appendix D Landowner List and Public Comments D.1 Landowner List D.2 Public Comments Appendix E Phase Ia Report and Minnesota SHPO Correspondence Appendix F Wetland Delineation Report and Minnehaha Creek Water District Response Appendix G Summary of Application Factors G.1 Supplemental Information to Section 4.3 G.2 Detailed Description of Alternative Routes G.3 Figure G-1 Alternative Routes G.4 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes Orono Project June, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 v 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Proposal Summary Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company") submits this application ("Application") for a Route Permit to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("Commission" or "MPUC") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 216E and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850. A Route Permit is requested to replace the existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation with a new 115 W substation, construct approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and construct approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission line within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono located west of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Project"). Figure 1 shows the general vicinity of the proposed Project. The substation replacement will include a complete rebuild of the existing Orono Substation from an existing operating voltage of 69 kV to an operating voltage of 115 W. The increase in the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation is needed to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. The Project qualifies for the Alternative Permitting Process under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 (see Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C)). The Company respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed route and authorize a 400 -foot route width along the proposed route. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 1 a R ENl.mSt .EMain St h' �m St E! In:: usti tfll��\ Existing Xce! Energy Orono Substation Property Figure 1 ect Location Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 2 1.2 Completeness Checklist The content requirements for an application with the Commission under the Alternative Permitting Process are identified under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3) and Minn. R. 7850.2900 and 7850.1700. Table 1 lists the rule requirements and the section where the information can be found in this Application. Table 1 Completeness Checklist Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 3 Minn. R. Subpart 1. Eligible Projects 7850.2800, Subp. l(C) An applicant for a site permit or a route permit for one of the 2.5 following projects may elect to follow the procedures of parts 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 instead of the full permitting procedures in part 7850.1700 to 7850.2700 for high voltage transmission lines of between 100 and 200 kilovolts. Minn. R. Subpart 2. Notice to Commission 7850.2800 0a Subp. 2 An applicant for a permit for one of the qualifying projects in 2.6 and subpart 1, who intends to follow the procedures of parts Appendix A 7850.2800 to 7850.3700, shall notify the Commission of such intent, in writing, at least 10 days before submitting an application for the projects. Minn. R. Contents of Application (alternative permitting process) 7850.3100 The applicant shall include in the application the same 4.3 information required in part 7850.1900, except the applicant need not propose any alternative sites or routes to the preferred site or route. If the applicant has rejected alternative sites or routes, the applicant shall include in the application the identity of the rejected sites or routes and an explanation of the reasons for rejecting them. Minn. R. Route Permit for HVTL 7850.1900, Subp. 2 (applicable per Minn. R. 7850.3100) �. a statement of proposed ownership of the facility at the time of 2.1 filing the application and after commercial operation B. the precise name of any person or organization to be initially 2.3 named as permittee or permittees and the name of any other person to whom the permit may be transferred if transfer of the permit is contemplated Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 3 I Authority Required Information Where C. at least two proposed routes for the proposed high voltage Not Applicable transmission line and identification of the applicant's preferred per Minn. R. route and the reasons for the preference 7850.3100. However see 4.3 D. a description of the proposed high voltage transmission line and 3.2, 4.1, 4.4, all associated facilities including the size and type of the high 5.1.1 voltage transmission line 1 . the environmental information required under 7850.1900, Subp. 3 Chapter 6 I . identification of land uses and environmental conditions along the Chapter 6 proposed routes G. the names of each owner whose property is within any of the 8.2 and proposed routes for the high voltage transmission line Appendix D.1 H. United States Geological Survey topographical maps or other Appendix B maps acceptable to the chair showing the entire length of the high voltage transmission line on all proposed routes I. identification of existing utility and public rights-of-way along or 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, parallel to the proposed routes that have the potential to share 5.1.2 right-of-way, the land used by a public utility (as for a transmission line), with the proposed line J. the engineering and operational design concepts for the proposed 5.0, 5.2 high voltage transmission line, including information on the electric and magnetic fields of the transmission line K. cost analysis of each route, including the costs of constructing, 3.5 operating, and maintaining the high voltage transmission line that are dependent on design and route l.. a description of possible design options to accommodate 4.5 expansion of the high voltage transmission line in the future �l. the procedures and practices proposed for the acquisition and 5.1.3 — 5.1.6 restoration of the right-of-way, construction, and maintenance of the high voltage transmission line �. a listing and brief description of federal, state, and local permits 8.4 that may be required for the proposed high voltage transmission line 0. a copy of the Certificate of Need or the certified HVTL list 2.4 containing the proposed high voltage transmission line or documentation that an application for a Certificate of Need has been submitted or is not required Minn. R. Environmental Information 7850.1900, Subp. 3 A. a description of the environmental setting for each site or route 6.1 B. a description of the effects of construction and operation of the 6.2 facility on human settlement, including, but not limited to, public health and safety, displacement, noise, aesthetics, socioeconomic impacts, cultural values, recreation, and public services Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 4 Authority 1 Information C. a description of the effects of the facility on land-based 6.3 economies, including, but not limited to, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and mining D. a description of the effects of the facility on archaeological and 6.4 historic resources 1;. a description of the effects of the facility on the natural 6.5 environment, including effects on air and water quality resources and flora and fauna I . a description of the effects of the facility on rare and unique 6.6 natural resources G. identification of human and natural environmental effects that Chapter 6.0 cannot be avoided if the facility is approved at a specific site or route H. a description of measures that might be implemented to mitigate Chapter 6.0 the potential human and environmental impacts identified in items A to G and the estimated costs of such mitigative measures Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Statement of Ownership Xcel Energy will construct, own, and operate the proposed new 115 kV transmission line and new 115 kV Orono Substation. The new transmission line will connect the expanded Orono Substation to an existing 115 kV transmission line (Line 0831) located approximately 2,600 feet northwest of the Orono Substation site. The address of the Orono Substation is 3960 Sixth Avenue North, City of Orono ("City"), Hennepin County, Minnesota. See Figure 2. Xcel Energy is a Minnesota corporation with its headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Xcel Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc., a utility holding company with its headquarters in Minneapolis. Xcel Energy provides electricity services to approximately 1.2 million customers and natural gas services to 435,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Minnesota. Xcel Energy also provides electricity service to more than 83,000 customers in South Dakota and 88,000 customers in North Dakota. Xcel Energy Services Inc. is the service company for Xcel Energy Inc. holding company system and its personnel prepare, submit, and administer regulatory applications to the Commission on behalf of Xcel Energy, including Route Permit applications. 2.2 Requested Action This Application is submitted under the Alternative Permitting Process under Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3) and Minn. R. 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 (see Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C)). While the rules do not require consideration of alternative routes in the Application (see Minn. Rules Chapter 7850.3100), Xcel Energy's evaluation of four alternative routes, in addition to the "Proposed Route", as herein described for the Project is contained in this Application. See Figure 2. For the reasons presented herein, Xcel Energy prefers the Proposed Route for the new transmission line and substation replacement, and respectfully requests that the Commission approves the Proposed Route and authorize a route width of 200 feet on each side of the route centerline along the Proposed Route (400 feet total width). This Application demonstrates that construction of the Project at the existing Orono Substation and along the Proposed Route will comply with the applicable standards and criteria set out in Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 7, and Minn. R. 7850.4100. The Project will support the State's goals to conserve resources, minimize environmental and human settlement impacts and land use conflicts, and ensure the State's electric energy security through the construction of efficient, cost-effective transmission infrastructure. 2.3 Permittee The permittee for the proposed Project is: Permittee: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation Contact: Joseph G. Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst, Siting and Land Rights Address: Xcel Energy Services Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall, MP -8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-330-6435 Email: joseph.g.sedarskikxcelenergy.com Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 6 ® Fxisting Structure ® Proposed Structure i� Proposed Route Existing Xcel Energy 1151kV Line D821 -11F Existing GRE 89kV Line BE, 00.04 GRE 89kV Line BD To Be Removed +� r Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BE Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Requested Route Width (Approximately400'Totaq . Existing Xcel Crone Substation Orono Substation Property Park Boundary Proposed 75 Ft Right -of -Way Q Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels r 077 (New) To be:replaced S� A' - N h Figure 2 f000ls T saker 076 31) To eLine repla bed Park R s� r ve 076-1 (New) Ta replace existing structure 077 077 (Line 41 0831) To be replaced'with new structure 076-1 076-2 (New) — A Y y - 076-3 (New) grr�• '.J .076 1 1 � MFUC Docket No F002fTL-11-223 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 7 4 Feet ' - Aerial Image Source. Aerial FxpressFCWlmage _ dated Sept. 15, 2000 MFUC Docket No F002fTL-11-223 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 7 2.4 Certificate of Need A Certificate of Need ("CON") is not required for the Project because it is not classified as a large energy facility under Minn. Stat. §§ 21613.243 and 216B.2421, subd. 2(3). While the Project is a HVTL with a capacity of 100 kV or more, it is not more than 10 miles long in Minnesota and it does not cross a state line. Therefore, a CON is not required. See Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.2421, subd. 2(3) and 216B.243. 2.5 Route Permit, Alternative Permitting Process The Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act ("PPSA") provides that no person may construct a HVTL without a Route Permit from the Commission. Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 2. Under the PPSA, an HVTL includes a transmission line that is 100 kV or more and is greater than 1,500 feet in length. Minn. Stat. § 216E.01, subd. 4. The proposed new 115 kV transmission line is an HVTL greater than 1,500 feet in length and, therefore, a Route Permit is required from the Commission prior to construction. The Project qualifies for review under the Alternative Permitting Process authorized by Minn. Stat. § 216E.04, subd. 2(3), and Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 1(C) (establishing alternative process for HVTLs between 100 and 200 kilovolts). Accordingly, Xcel Energy is following the provisions of the Alternative Permitting Process outlined in Minn. R. 7850.2800 to 7850.3900 for this Project. 2.6 Notice to Commission Xcel Energy notified the Commission on March 17, 2011, by letter (mailed and electronically filed) that Xcel Energy intended to use the Alternative Permitting Process for the Project. This letter complies with the requirement of Minn. R. 7850.2800, Subp. 2, to notify the Commission of this election at least 10 days prior to submitting an application for a Route Permit. A copy of the letter is attached in Appendix A. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 8 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Project Location The proposed Project is located within Hennepin County, Minnesota. Figure 1 shows an overview of the general vicinity of the Project and the Proposed Route is shown in Figure 2. Appendix B includes detailed maps of the proposed Project and the planned replacement of the existing Orono Substation described in this Application. The Project is located wholly within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono within Township 118N, Range 23W, Sections 29, 30 and 32. 3.2 Project Proposal Xcel Energy proposes to replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and connect the new substation to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 by constructing a new double circuit 115 kV transmission line. The proposed new 115 kV double circuit transmission line primarily runs north and west from the Orono Substation site to transmission Line 0831. Figure 2 and Figure B-2 in Appendix B show the Proposed Route. Appendix B also includes detailed maps concerning environmental factors of the proposed Project. More specifically, Xcel Energy proposes the following for the Project: • install approximately 2,041 feet of new double circuit 115 kV transmission line and structures from the new Orono Substation to the connection point with existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 at new transmission Structure 076-1; • remove three existing transmission structures (Structures 076, 077, and 078) and associated 1,030 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission Line 0831 and installing two new structures and approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit 115 kV transmission line to re-route the existing line off of residential property and onto adjacent Huntington Farm Association ("HFA")' property adjacent to the BNSF railroad; • disconnect the existing Line 0831 at transmission Structure 077, install a new double circuit corner structure, and connect the new double circuit 115 kV transmission line from the new Orono Substation to Line 0831; • installing fiber optic ground wire with the new 115 kV transmission line and the replaced segment of Line 0831; • except for existing switchgear (which will be reused in the new substation), remove the existing Orono Substation and construct the replacement Orono Substation as a 115- 13.8 kV transmission substation to accommodate the new 115 kV line termination and/or ring bus by, installing a 28 MVA, 118-14.3 kV transformer, adding transfer trip 1 HFA is an association of landowners which are a part of the Huntington Farm residential development that is located west of the existing Orono Substation site. HFA owns undeveloped parcels surrounding the residential parcels that are Dart of HFA. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 9 and pilot relaying, installing fiber optic lines for relaying and transfer trip, installing breakers, reconfiguring line protection, replacing shield wire with fiber optic shield wire, and related modifications; and • revise as needed line designations, terminals, breakers, relays, and line protection as a result of the above changes in connecting the new Orono Substation to 115 kV transmission Line 0831. Specific details to the substation replacement and associated facilities are further described in Section 4.4. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, the following work will also be completed: • disconnect approximately 385 feet of existing Great River Energy (GRE) 69 kV transmission line (BD) from the existing Orono Substation and re-route approximately 420 feet of this line around the proposed new Orono Substation and associated new 115 kV transmission line facilities (the re-routed GRE 69 kV transmission line would not be connected to the new Orono Substation). The proposed transmission structures are single -pole, galvanized steel or weathering -steel type structures. The height of the new single circuit poles will range from 70 to 90 feet while the double circuit poles will range from 75 to 115 feet, with the spans between poles ranging from 300 to 500 feet. Xcel Energy respectfully requests a route width of up to 200 feet on each side of the Proposed Route alignment (400 feet total width), on either side of Line 0831 to Structure 076 and up to the south side of U.S. Highway 12 (see Figure 2). Following construction, the typical right-of-way width for the new transmission line will be 75 feet. 3.3 Need for Project The Project, which includes increasing the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation from 69 kV to 115 kV and connecting it to Xcel Energy's existing transmission system, is needed to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future (Hollydale/Meadow Lake Load Serving Study, Xcel Energy Services, Transmission System Planning and Reliability Assessment, June 2011). 3.4 Project Schedule Construction for the Project is expected to begin in the first quarter 2012, and Xcel Energy anticipates a second quarter 2013 in-service date for the proposed facilities. Table 2 provides an estimated permitting and construction schedule summary. Table 2 Estimated Project Schedule Project Task Date File Route Permit Application with the Commission —A 2" d Quarter 2011 Route Permit Review Process Complete 4`h Quarter 2011 Begin Transmission Line and Substation Construction 1S` Quarter 2012 In -Service Date 2°d Quarter 2013 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 10 This Project schedule is based on information known as of the date of this filing and upon planning assumptions that balance the timing of implementation with the availability of crews and materials and with other practical considerations. This schedule may be subject to revision as further information is developed. 3.5 Project Cost Xcel Energy estimates that the Proposed new transmission line and new Orono Substation will cost approximately $5.3 million, depending upon the selected route, and broken down as follows in Table 3. Table 3 Estimated Project Cost Xcel Energy will construct, operate and maintain the new Orono Substation and transmission lines proposed in this Project. Operating and maintenance costs for the transmission line will be nominal for several years, since the line will be new and minimal vegetation maintenance will be required. Typical annual operating and maintenance costs for 115 kV transmission voltages across Xcel Energy's Upper Midwest system area are on the order of $300 to $500 per mile of transmission right-of-way. The principal operating and maintenance cost include inspections, which are usually done by fixed -wing aircraft and by helicopter on a regular basis. The Company performs periodic inspections of substations and equipment. The type and frequency of inspection varies depending on the type of equipment. Typical inspection intervals are semi- annual or annual. Maintenance and repairs are performed on an as -needed basis, and therefore the cost varies from substation to substation. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 11 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND ROUTE SELECTION RATIONALE 4.1 Transmission Line Description The Project involves replacing the existing 69-13.8 kV Orono Substation (a distribution substation) with a 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and constructing approximately 1,095 feet of single circuit and approximately 2,041 feet of double circuit 115 kV overhead transmission line. The proposed transmission line will originate at the proposed new Orono Substation. See Figure 2. At the point the Proposed Route exits the planned substation replacement area, it extends approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16 -acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly across HFA property and paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of- way approximately 1,205 feet where it will connect to a new transmission structure (to be designated Structure 076-1) that will replace existing Structure 077 on Line 0831. Existing Structure 077 will be removed from its current location on private residential property and moved to a new location on HFA property. See Figure 2. From this point, the Proposed Route continues approximately 590 feet northwesterly and parallel to the BNSF railroad right-of-way across HFA land to a new transmission structure (to be called Structure 077). The Proposed Route then bears southwesterly across HFA land, a water crossing and a wetland to existing Structure 078 where it will terminate. Transmission Structure 078 will be replaced with a new structure, but it will continue to be called Structure 078 on Line 0831. See Figure 2. After exiting Xcel Energy property, the Proposed Route for the transmission line crosses undeveloped land within the HFA for approximately 2,270 feet. Under the City of Orono Zoning Regulations, HFA land is designation "Outlot A" Common Area and is Zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). The Proposed Route will only traverse approximately 2,270 feet of HFA land and will primarily parallel the existing BNSF right-of-way before terminating at existing Xcel Energy transmission Structure 078. A detailed description of the Proposed Route is provided in Table 4. Figure 2 provides an overview of the Proposed Route and Appendix B, Figure B-2 provides an additional detailed map of the proposed Project. The entire proposed new 115 kV transmission line will be constructed with single -pole, galvanized steel or weathering -steel structures with davit arms or braced posts on drilled pier foundations. The Project's proposed transmission line will create a loop connecting the new Orono Substation and Xcel Energy's Gleason Lake and Crow River Substations via transmission Line 0831. The Gleason Lake Substation is located approximately 6.1 miles east of the Orono Substation, and the Crow River Substation is located approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the Orono Substation. The Proposed Route is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of highways, railroads and Xcel Energy property for approximately 2,661 feet of the length of the route or 84 percent. The remaining 475 feet of the route crosses an undeveloped area of HFA property. Overall the Project crosses Xcel Energy property and undeveloped HFA land for 100 percent of the Proposed Route. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 12 Table 4 Detailed Description of Proposed Route . ' . ute Distanc A&mm"rn-ging Road . Public Waters LL... a mai A Orono Substation to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV Line 0831 south of U.S. Highway 12 (2,600 feet west of Orono Substation) North out of proposed new substation on Xcel Energy property (double circuit on proposed 100 feet No features crossed Structure 076-4)) Northwest to Xcel Energy's west property line (double circuit on proposed Structures 076-4 -)11 fcct No features crossed and 076-3) North along Xcel Energy's west property line to just south of BNSF right-of-way (double 455 feet Unnamed Wetland circuit on proposed Structures 076-3 to 076-2 Northwest across HFA land and paralleling BNSF right-of-way to proposed Structure 076- 1,205 feet Unnamed Wetland 1 (double circuit on proposed Structures 076-2 and 076-1) Northwest paralleling BNSF right-of-way (single circuit on proposed Structures 076-1 590 feet Painter Creek and new 077 Southwest (single circuit on proposed new 475 feet Unnamed Wetland Structures 077 and 078) Total Length 3,136 feet There are no residences located within 200 feet of the Proposed Route centerline (see Section 6.2.2). A total of 34 cultural resource sites are located within one mile of the Proposed Route, including 15 archaeological sites and 19 historic architectural properties. None of the 15 archaeological sites are listed on the National Register Considered Eligible Finding ("CEF"). Of the 19 architectural properties, none listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") (see Section 6.4). The historic character of the architectural properties will not be affected by the Proposed Route nor does the Proposed Route cross any of the 15 archaeological sites. The Proposed Route does cross any three Public Waters Inventory ("PWI") watercourses or waterbodies. Of the PWIs crossed, Painter Creek will be crossed by the Proposed Route just prior to or after proposed the connection to Structure 077 depending on final placement of this Structure. The Proposed Route will also cross two PWI wetlands (Unnamed (27-917-W and 27-916-W). These two wetlands appear to have been connected prior to the development of the HFA properties. The Proposed Route will span approximately 2,135 feet of wetland (see Section 6.5.4). 4.2 Route Width and Alignment Selection Process 4.2.1 Route Width The PPSA, Minn. Stat. Chapter 216E, directs the Commission to locate transmission lines in a manner that "minimize[s] adverse human and environmental impact while ensuring continuing electric power system reliability and integrity and ensuring their electric needs are met and fulfilled in Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 13 an orderly and timely fashion." Minn. Stat. § 216E.02, subd. 1. The PPSA also authorizes the Commission to meet its routing responsibility by designating a "route" for a new transmission line when it issues a Route Permit. The route may have "a variable width of up to 1.25 miles" within which the right-of-way for the facilities can be located. Minn. Stat. § 216E.01, subd. 8. Based upon the following analysis, Xcel Energy respectfully requests that the Commission authorize a route width of 200 feet on each side of the route alignment on either side of Line 0831 to Structure 076 and up to the south side of U.S. Highway 12, for a total route width of up to 400 feet (see Figure 2) for the routes proposed in the Application. A detailed map showing currently planned route widths and proposed alignments is provided in Appendix B, Figure B-2. 4.2.2 Route Selection Process In developing the route proposed in this Application, Xcel Energy first analyzed the statutory and rule criteria set forth in the PPSA, Minn. Stat. Chapter 216E, and Minn. R. 7850.4100. Xcel Energy also gave due consideration to non-proliferation of new infrastructure corridors and met with interested stakeholders and landowners, including applicable municipalities and government agencies. Throughout the process, Xcel Energy evaluated several route alternatives, considering feedback provided at City of Orono ("City") planning meetings and through written comments. Xcel Energy also consulted with federal, state, and local agencies associated with the general vicinity of the Project. Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the proposed Project from the City. On September 1, 2010, the Company notified the Commission of its intent to follow the local review process for the Project (see Appendix C, C.3). The Commission, through the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security, acknowledged the Company notice in a letter dated September 10, 2010 (see Appendix C, C.10, Docket No. E002/LR-10-957). On August 20, 2010, Xcel Energy submitted a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to the City, the Local Government Unit ("LGU"). See Section 8.1.1 and Appendix C of this Application for additional information. On September 20, 2010 the City Planning Commission met to discuss the Project, review Environmental Assessment ("EA") requirements for the Project, and request public comment on the scope of the EA. Public interest focused primarily on the proposed location of the new 115 kV transmission line within and near HFA and residential properties near the Orono Substation site, impacts to land values, aesthetics and health concerns. On December 13, 2010, the Orono City Council voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(b), and Minn. Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4 (see Appendix C, C.3). Xcel Energy then initiated the State permitting process for the Project. The Proposed Route was subsequently developed by Xcel Energy's permitting and engineering personnel based on their investigation of the overall area in the vicinity of the Project and on input from the public and government agencies. The general vicinity around the Project was initially studied during the planning process by a team of siting, right-of-way, planning, environmental, ecological, and engineering personnel. The team also reviewed the general area surrounding the Project to help identify anticipated and significant routing issues that might arise. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 14 The Company also performed an analysis of environmental resources in the Project Area by using computer mapping aerial photographs, topographic maps and ground reconnaissance. Environmental resources identified within the general vicinity of the Project are discussed in Sections 6.5 and 6.6 of this Application. The Proposed Route is designed to best minimize the overall impacts of the Project. The proposed location of transmission line locations and associated structures and facilities were developed with the following primary objectives: • Maximize use of existing Xcel Energy property; • Minimize land use impacts by routing along transportation corridors and existing distribution and transmission lines to reduce the amount of new right-of-way required; • Minimize land use impacts by routing along natural corridors, field lines, and property lines, where an existing corridor (e.g., fence line, drainage ditch, access road) is present; • Minimize use of new right-of-way; • Minimize impacts to residences; • Minimize impacts to public resources, including Baker Park Reserve; and • Minimize impacts to environmental and sensitive resources. The Company believes the Proposed Route and use of the existing 16 -acre Xcel Energy property best meets the objectives stated above. The Proposed Route is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of highways, railroads and Xcel Energy property for approximately 2,661 feet of the length of the route or 84 percent. The remaining 475 feet of the route crosses an undeveloped area of HFA property. Together, the Proposed Route is within the 16 -acre Xcel Energy property and undeveloped HFA land for 100 percent of the route. The Proposed Route does not cross any public roads, trails or railways. The Proposed Route requires some clearing of trees and vegetation. The clearing of trees and vegetation is required where the existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 crosses two residential lots that are associated with the HFA. During the route investigation phase of the Project, Xcel Energy met with these two landowners and began discussing an option to remove the existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 and associated structures located at their properties and to relocate them with a new line and structures north and on adjacent HFA property (see Figure B-2 in Appendix B). While removing the existing transmission facilities from residential parcels will minimize impacts to these residents and no longer require clearing of trees and vegetation at these parcels, it will increase the overall length of new transmission line for the Project (approximately 885 feet of additional line), add additional support structures and require some additional right-of-way clearing. The use of existing transmission line corridors, existing railroad corridor, and Xcel Energy's own property was an important factor for this Project because using existing corridors reduces transmission line proliferation and minimizes and reduces impacts to residences and environmental and sensitive resources. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 15 4.3 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected In consultation with surrounding landowners, the City and applicable regulatory agencies, Xcel Energy identified and analyzed four Alternative Routes for the Project, which are identified as "Alternative Route 1", "Alternative Route 2", "Alternative Route 3" and "Alternative Route 4" (collectively, "Alternative Routes") in Appendix G, Figure G-1, and are further described in Appendix G. Table G.1 in Appendix G provides a detailed description of the Alternative Routes, including road and waterbody crossings. In evaluating the Alternative Routes, Xcel Energy focused predominantly on the location of existing transportation corridors, alignment of the existing distribution and transmission lines and land use because they best satisfy the routing criteria. The Alternative Routes follow existing rights-of-way and property lines to the extent feasible. In performing the Alternative Routes analysis, Xcel Energy considered social, environmental, and engineering -related factors, such as location of existing transportation and utility corridors, land use, site conditions, proximity to residential or commercial structures, environmental impacts, effects on trees, proximity to areas of archaeological or historical significance, proximity to wetlands or PWI watercourses, and several engineering design -related factors. Based on this analysis, Xcel Energy concluded that the Alternative Routes were not preferable to the Proposed Route for the reasons summarized below and further described in Appendix G. 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the Proposed Route. At this point Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more westerly course for approximately 550 feet to existing Structure 077 of Line 0831. Alternative Route 1 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill one main objective of the Project, that being to minimize impacts to residences. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy is working with the two landowners whose properties are currently crossed by existing Line 0831 to remove the Line 0831 from the properties and move the line north of their respective property lines onto adjacent HFA property. Alternative Route 1 also requires the clearing of some mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. 4.3.2 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point Alternative Route 2 continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 (see Figure 3). The existing tower (Structure 076) located at this connection point lies within 30 feet of a paved bike path within Baker Park Reserve. Alternative Route 2 was rejected due to the number of transportation crossings (e.g. the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12), the location of an existing Metropolitan Council sewer line located Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 16 between the railroad and highway and impact to Baker Park Reserve property. Alternative Route 2 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill two main objectives of the Project, those being: i) maximizing the use of existing transportation rights-of-way and transmission line alignments; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed Route. 4.3.3 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 3 and the Proposed Route share the same route from the point the routes leave the proposed substation replacement to approximately 1,000 feet west of the point both routes turn westerly along the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this location Alternative Route 3 extends both to the north and to the west to make connections with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831. The northerly connection includes a 329 foot span across the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12, and enters into Baker Park Reserve property making the northern connection to transmission Line 0831 at existing Structure 076. Similar to the Proposed Route, this northern connection would require that existing Structure 076 be replaced by a steel single pole. The westerly connection of Alternative Route 3, south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, spans across HFA land, and spans a residential lot for approximately 384 feet to connect to Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 at Structure 077. The existing 115 kV line between the two connection points that spans the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 in Alternative Route 3 would be removed from service. However, a new span for the northern connection to Line 0831 would cross over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12. Alternative Route 3 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill one main objective of the Project, that being minimize to impacts to residences. As discussed in section 4.2.2 Xcel Energy is working with two residential landowners to remove the existing 115 kV transmission line from their residential lots within the HFA and move it north onto HFA land. Alternative Route 3 also requires the clearing of some mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. 4.3.4 Alternative Route 4 Alternative Route 4 was evaluated for the potential to parallel the existing GRE 69 kV transmission Line BD right-of-way. Alternative Route 4 exits the proposed substation replacement area northeasterly for approximately 100 feet over Xcel Energy property before turning southeasterly for an additional approximate 160 feet. Alternative Route 4 then parallels the GRE Line BD for approximately 3,130 of the route. Alternative Route 4 would continue east for approximately 607 feet prior to turning north. Upon turning north Alternative Route 4 would continue to follow the GRE Line BD north for approximately 2,523 feet leaving Xcel Energy's property and crossing over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and entering Barker Park Reserve. At this point the GRE Line BD turns east. Alternative Route 4 would continue north for approximately 350 feet across the Baker Park Reserve requiring new right-of-way that would not be co -located with other utility rights-of-way. Alternative Route 4 is the longest of the four routes evaluated for the Project. Alternative Route 4 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill two main objectives of the Project, those being: i) minimizing impacts to environmental and sensitive resources; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 17 Route. Additionally, Alternative Route 4 requires crossing the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 unlike the Proposed Route. 4.4 Associated Facilities and Substation Modifications The associated facilities for the Project include a replacement of the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a larger 115 kV substation, where the proposed new 115 kV transmission line will begin on the southeast end of the Project, reconfiguring Line 0831 and replacement of transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078. No additional fee land purchase is anticipated for the replacement of the existing Orono Substation. 4.4.1 Orono Substation (Replacement) The existing Orono Substation is located at 3960 6th Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on a 16 -acre site owned by Xcel Energy, approximately 900 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 6. It is approximately one mile east of the City of Maple Plain municipal boundaries (see Figure B-3 in Appendix B). The existing Orono Substation is a 69-13.8 kV distribution substation that will be partially demolished and replaced with a new 115-13.8 kV distribution substation (see Appendix B, Figure B-10). All of the substation replacement will be located within existing Xcel Energy property at the 16 -acre site and will encompass the site of the existing 69 kV substation. The existing switchgear will be reused in the proposed new substation. The existing substation will remain energized until the existing switchgear enclosure in its current location can be energized from the new 115 kV source. During construction a feeder field ties with ORO62 and a mobile substation with associated equipment will be installed to ensure continuity of service for the 17 MVA load before the switchgear enclosure is switched to the new 115 kV source. On the transmission portion of the Orono Substation project, the proposed replacement consists of: • a new 115-13.8 kV substation with a 28 mega volt ampere ("MVA"), 118-14.3 kV transformer; • two 115 kV line terminations, each with a motor -operated transmission line switch with a quick -break line dropping whip; • one single-phase coupling capacitors voltage transformers ("CCTVs") with carrier accessories; • a 2000 amp ("A") wave trap with line tuner; and • three 76 kV maximum continuous operating voltage ("MCOV") station class surge arresters. The transmission portion of the replacement work also includes all bus (all 115 kV bus will be sized for a minimum 2000A capacity), cable, controls and relaying, steel, trenching, applicable setbacks, stormwater ponds, grading, foundations, fencing, new and existing rights-of-way for the transmission line and transmission line termination structures. Xcel Energy will coordinate with GRE to modify the 115 kV remote end relay settings at both Crow Rivers (CRO GRE) and Medina Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 18 (MED GRE) substations. The Project includes removal of the 69 kV termination structure and associated foundations. On the distribution portion of the Orono Substation project, the proposed replacement consists of: • a 115 kV motor -operated disconnect switch and switch stand for the transformer high side disconnect and a 115 kV, 1200A, 40kA circuit switcher; • a 118-14.3 kV, 28 MVA., load tap changing ("LTC") transformer with oil containment, high -side, and low -side station class surge arresters; • a single-phase 13.8 kV potential transformer ("PT") (8400-120 volt); • one 50 kVA preferred station auxiliary transformer and associated equipment; • one 35 kV transformer -low -side box -structure to accommodate switches and conductor; • strain bus to connect the transformer low -side box structure to a second box structure next to existing switchgear in its current location; and • one Electrical Equipment Enclosure ("EEE") with control panels, batter, charger, PLC, terminal cabinets, furniture, heaters, AC & DC cabinets and lighting. The distribution portion of the replacement work also includes all grounding, trenching, controls, telephone and telephone protection, and control cable. Emergency station auxiliary power would be sourced from local distribution. 4.4.2 Transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078 (Existing) Transmission Structures 076, 077 and 078 will require replacement for the Project to accommodate the new line configuration of transmission Line 0831 and connection to the planned replacement of the Orono Substation (see Figure 4 and Appendix B, Figure B-2). Structure 076 is located within Baker Park Reserve and it will need to be replaced in order to transition the conductors from a horizontal configuration to a vertical configuration at the new double circuit structure (replacement of existing Structure 077) that will provide the in -out connection to the proposed new Orono Substation. For the Proposed Route the existing Structure 077 will be removed and replaced with a new single pole galvanized steel or weathering steel structure in a new location located north of its existing location, off residential property and onto HFA land located adjacent to the BNSF railroad (see Figure 2 and Appendix B, Figure B-2). The new structure will be renumbered as Structure 076-1. As indicated above, the existing Structure 077 will be removed. A new single pole galvanized steel or weathering steel structure will be installed northwest of the new Structure 076-1 and be located on HFA land adjacent to BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2 and Appendix B, Figure B-2). This new structure will be numbered Structure 077. Existing Structure 078 is located west of existing Structure 077 on HFA land. Similar to Structure 076, Structure 078 will need to be replaced to transition the conductors from a horizontal Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 19 configuration to a vertical configuration at the new double circuit Structure 076-1 and the connection to the new Orono Substation. 4.5 Design Options to Accommodate Future Transmission Lines The proposed double circuit 115 kV transmission line is designed to meet current and projected needs. In addition, the proposed replacement of the Orono Substation will be designed and constructed for accommodating future transmission line interconnections. The proposed new substation will include one new 115 kV, 2000A, group -operated, bus tie disconnect switch to minimize outages when a second future, transformer is installed. It will also provide a low profile layout to accommodate two transformers and four switchgear enclosures and space for a future 13.8 kV bus -tie connection between the distribution transformers. The proposed conductor for the Project is 795 kcmil 26/7 ACSS which will allow for future reconductor of Line 0831. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 20 5.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 5.1 Structures, Right -of -Way, Construction and Maintenance 5.1.1 Transmission Structures The 115 kV transmission line is proposed to be constructed partially as a single circuit line and partially as a double -circuit line with both portions using single -pole, galvanized or weathering steel poles placed on drilled pier foundations. Pictures of the proposed structure types are shown below Figures 3 to 5. Figure 3 Figure 4 Photo of Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Davit Arm Structure Steel Davit Arm Structure Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 21 Figure 5 Photo of Typical 115 kV Single Circuit Steel Braced Post Structure Direct embedded galvanized steel or weathering steel poles with davit arms are proposed to be used for the tangent structures if soil conditions warrant. Rock -filled culvert foundations may be required in areas with poor soils. Self-supporting galvanized steel or weathering steel poles with davit arms or braced post on concrete foundations are proposed to be used for long -span, angle, and dead-end structures. The height of single circuit poles will average between 70 and 90 feet and the double circuit structures will average between 75 and 115 feet. The average span for the structures will be approximately 300 to 400 feet, with a maximum span of approximately 500 feet to keep the conductor within existing right-of-way, where applicable. Table 5 summarizes the structure design and foundation for the line. Table 5 Structure Design Summary Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 22 Structure Span Right -of- Structure Base Foundation Between Line Type Structure Structure Way Width Height Diameter Diameter Structures Type Material (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) Single Single Pole 24 to 42: Circuit 115 �, Braced Post tangent kV • Davit Arm Steel •. structures Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 22 The proposed transmission line will be designed to meet or surpass relevant local and state codes, the National Electric Safety Code ("NESC"), North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") requirements and Company standards. Appropriate standards will be met for construction and installation, and applicable safety procedures will be followed during and after installation. The 115 kV conductor proposed for the Project will be 795 thousand circular mil ("kcmil") 26/7 Aluminum Core Steel Supported ("ACSS") conductor per phase. 5.1.2 Right -of -Way Width Xcel Energy typically requires a right-of-way of 75 feet wide (37'6" from centerline of structure) for new 115 kV transmission line construction such as that proposed in this Project. See Figures 6 - 8. In locations with existing rights-of-way or other engineering or site considerations, the Project may be designed to fit within a smaller right-of-way. Where the transmission line parallels other existing infrastructure right-of-way (e.g., roads, railroads, other utilities), an easement of lesser width may be sufficient as part of the right-of-way of the existing infrastructure, which can often be combined with the right-of-way needed for the transmission line. With the pole placement proposed for this Project, the transmission line shares the existing right-of-way, thereby reducing the size of the easement required from the private landowner. When the transmission line is parallel to a roadway or railroad, poles will generally be placed 5 feet within the private right-of-way adjacent to the roadway or railroad. Therefore, a little less than half of the line right-of-way will share the existing roadway or railroad right-of-way, resulting in an easement of lesser width being required from the landowner. In general, the structures will be placed as close to the property line as practical. Xcel Energy will work with industry standard practices and applicable roadway authorities and the BNSF railroad to position and manage the right of way. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 23 Figure 6 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements For Double Circuit 115/115 kV Davit Arm Structure Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 24 Figure 7 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Davit Arm Structure Typical Easement 37'-6" From Center Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 25 Figure 8 Typical Dimensions and Right -of -Way Requirements for Single Circuit 115 kV Braced Post Structure 0 C] E2 LTypical Easement 37'-6" From Center J When the transmission line is placed cross-country across private land, an easement for the entire right-of-way (up to 75 feet wide) will be acquired from the affected landowner(s). Xcel Energy plans to locate the poles as close to property division lines as reasonably possible. Figures 6-8 show the right-of-way requirements for the proposed structure. Xcel Energy will work within existing right-of-way for the Project whenever reasonably possible. The eastern portion of the Proposed Route is located within the existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation site, and no transmission corridor or easements are required for this part of the Project. The transmission easement for existing Line 0831 and Structures 076 and 078 will be used as much as possible for that portion of the Project where realignment of existing single circuit 115 kV transmission line is being considered. In locations where existing easements are insufficient for this Project, new or modified easements will be obtained, if required. Approximately 866 feet of the Proposed Route will not require new right-of-way as it is proposed to be constructed on Company owned property. Approximately 1,795 feet of new right-of-way will need to be acquired from the HFA for the Proposed Route on HFA land along the south side of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12. This portion of the Proposed Route is anticipated to be located on HFA land approximately five feet south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Approximately 475 feet of new right-of-way will also need Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 26 to be acquired where the Proposed Route turns southwest at the western edge of the Project near the terminations point at existing Xcel Structure 078 of transmission Line 0831. 5.1.3 Right -of -Way Evaluation and Acquisition Where the Project is expected to use existing rights-of-way, the right-of-way agent will evaluate all existing easements. If the terms of the existing easement are sufficient and no new right-of-way is needed, the right-of-way agent will continue to work with the landowner to address any construction needs, access, impacts, damages, or restoration issues. To the extent new right-of-way acquisition is necessary, the right-of-way agent will work with landowners to determine how to expand or modify existing easements. The current status of this evaluation is further discussed in Sections 8.1 to 8.3 of this Application. For those segments of the Project where new right-of-way will be necessary, the acquisition process begins early in the detailed design phase. For transmission lines, utilities acquire easement rights across certain parcels to accommodate the facilities. The evaluation and acquisition process includes title examination, initial owner contacts, survey work, document preparation, and purchase. Each of these activities, particularly as it applies to easements for transmission line facilities, is described in more detail below. The first step in the right-of-way process is to identify all persons and entities that may have a legal interest in the real estate upon which the facilities will be built. To compile this list, a right-of-way agent or other persons engaged by the utility will complete a public records search of all land involved in the Project. A title report is then developed for each parcel to determine the legal description of the property and the owner(s) of record of the property, and to gather information regarding easements, liens, restriction, encumbrances, and other conditions of record. After owners are identified, a right-of-way representative contacts each property owner or the property owner's representative. The right-of-way agent describes the need for the transmission facilities and how the Project may affect each parcel. The right-of-way agent also seeks information from the landowner about any specific construction concerns. The next step in the acquisition process is evaluation of the specific parcel. For this work, the right- of-way agent may request permission from the owner for survey crews to enter the property to conduct preliminary survey work. Permission may also be requested to take soil borings to assess the soil conditions and determine appropriate foundation design. Surveys are conducted to locate the right-of-way corridors, natural features, man-made features, and associated elevations for use during the detailed engineering of the line. The soil analysis is performed by an experienced geotechnical testing laboratory. During the evaluation process, the location of the proposed transmission line or substation facility may be staked with permission of the property owner. This means that the survey crew locates each structure or pole on the ground and places a surveyor's stake to mark the structures or substation facility's anticipated location. By doing this, the right-of-way agent can show the landowner where the structure(s) will be located on the property. The right-of-way agent may also delineate the boundaries of the easement area required for safe operation of the line. Prior to the acquisition of easements or fee purchase of property, land value data will be collected. Based on the impact of the easement or purchase to the market value of each parcel, a fair market Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 27 value offer will be developed. The right-of-way agent then contacts the property owner(s) to present the offer for the easement and discuss the amount of just compensation for the rights to build, operate, and maintain the transmission facilities within the easement area and reasonable access to the easement area. The agent will also provide maps of the line route or site and maps showing the landowner's parcel. The landowner is allowed a reasonable amount of time to consider the offer and to present any material that the owner believes is relevant to determining the property's value. This step is often performed prior to full evaluation in the form of an "option to purchase" contract and can be very helpful in obtaining permission for completion of all necessary evaluations. In nearly all cases, utility companies are able to work with the landowners to address their concerns and an agreement is reached for the utility's purchase of land rights. The right-of-way agent prepares all of the documents required to complete each transaction. Some of the documents that may be required include easement, purchase agreement, contract, and deed. In rare instances, a negotiated settlement cannot be reached and the landowner chooses to have an independent third party determine the value of the rights taken. Such valuation is made through the utility's exercise of the right of eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117. The process of exercising the right of eminent domain is called condemnation. Before commencing a condemnation proceeding, the right-of-way agent must obtain at least one appraisal for the property proposed to be acquired and a copy of that appraisal must be provided to the property owner. Minn. Stat. § 117.036, subd. 2(a). The property owner may also obtain another property appraisal and the company must reimburse the property owner for the cost of the appraisal according to the limits set forth in Minnesota Stat. § 117.036, subd. 2(b). The property owner may be reimbursed for reasonable appraisal costs up to $1,500 for single-family and two-family residential properties, $1,500 for property with a value of $10,000 or less, and $5,000 for other types of properties. To start the formal condemnation process, a utility files a Petition in the district court where the property is located and serves that Petition on all owners of the property. If the court grants the Petition, the court then appoints a three-person condemnation commission that will determine the compensation for the easement. The three people must be knowledgeable of applicable real estate issues. Once appointed, the commissioners schedule a viewing of the property over and across which the transmission line easement is to be located. Next, the commission schedules a valuation hearing where the utility and landowners can testify as to the fair market value of the easement or fee. The commission then makes an award as to the value of the property acquired and files it with the court. Each party has 40 days from the filing of the award to appeal to the district court for a jury trial. In the event of an appeal, the jury hears land value evidence and renders a verdict. At any point in this process, the case can be dismissed if the parties reach a settlement. As part of the right-of-way acquisition process, the right-of-way agent will discuss the construction schedule and construction requirements with the owner of each parcel. To ensure safe construction of the line, special consideration may be needed for fences, crops, or livestock. For instance, fences may need to be moved, temporary or permanent gates may need to be installed; crops may need to be harvested early; and livestock may need to be moved. In each case the right-of-way agent and construction personnel coordinate these processes with the landowner. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 28 5.1.4 Transmission Construction Procedures Construction will begin after federal, state, and local approvals are obtained, property and rights-of- way are acquired, soil conditions are established and final design is completed. The precise timing of construction will take into account various requirements that may be in place due to permit conditions, system loading issues, material procurement and available workforce. Construction will follow standard construction and mitigation practices, including best management practices ("BMPs") that were developed from experience with past transmission facility projects as well as any specific conditions identified in the Route Permit. These practices address right-of-way clearance, staging, erecting transmission line structures, and stringing transmission lines. Construction and mitigation practices to minimize impacts will be developed based on the proposed schedule for activities, permit requirements, prohibitions, maintenance guidelines, inspection procedures, terrain, and other factors. In some cases, activities or schedules are modified to minimize impacts on sensitive environments. Transmission line structures are generally designed for installation at existing grades. Typically, structure sites with 10 percent or less slope will not be graded or leveled. Sites with more than 10 percent slope will have working areas graded level or fill brought in for working pads. If the landowner permits, it is preferred to leave the leveled areas and working pads in place for use in future maintenance activities, if any. If permission is not obtained, the site is graded back to its original condition to the extent possible and imported fill is removed. Typical construction equipment used on a project consists of tree removal equipment, mowers, cranes, backhoes, digger -derrick line trucks, track -mounted drill rigs, dump trucks, front end loaders, bucket trucks, bulldozers, flatbed tractor -trailers, flatbed trucks, pickup trucks, concrete trucks, and various trailers. Many types of excavation equipment are set on wheel or track -driven vehicles. Poles are transported on tractor -trailers. Staging areas are often established for a project. Staging involves delivering the equipment and materials necessary to construct the new transmission line facilities. The materials are stored at staging areas until they are needed for a project. Staging areas may also be required for additional space for storage during construction. To the extent possible, Xcel Energy will use the existing Orono Substation site or other nearby Xcel Energy substation sites as staging areas for the Project. These areas will be selected for their location, access, security, and ability to efficiently and safely warehouse supplies. If needed, any temporary staging areas outside of the transmission line right-of-way or at non-Xcel Energy sites will be obtained through rental agreements. Access to the transmission line right-of-way corridor is made directly from existing roads or trails that run parallel or perpendicular to the transmission line right-of-way. In some situations, private field roads or trails are used. Existing access roads may be upgraded or new roads may be constructed where necessary to accommodate the heavy equipment used in construction, including cranes, cement trucks and hole drilling equipment. New access roads may also be constructed when no current access is available or the existing access is inadequate to cross roadway ditches. To the extent possible, these activities are coordinated with the owner of the property affected. When it is time to install the poles (structures), they are generally moved from the staging areas and delivered to the staked location. The poles are typically placed within the right-of-way until the pole Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 29 is set. Insulators and other hardware are attached while the pole is on the ground. The pole is then lifted, placed and secured using a crane. Poles that are considered medium angle, heavy angle or deadened structures will have concrete foundations, also referred to as drilled pier foundations. In those cases, holes are drilled in preparation for the foundation. Drilled pier foundations may vary from approximately 5 to 7 feet in diameter and 25 or more feet in depth, depending on soil conditions. After the concrete foundation is set, the pole is bolted to the foundation. Tangent and light angle structures may be placed on poured concrete foundations or direct embedded. Direct embedding involves digging a hole for each pole, filling it partially with crushed rock and then setting the pole on top of the rock base. The area around the pole is then backfilled with crushed rock and/or soil. Environmentally sensitive and wetland areas may require special construction techniques, which may vary according to conditions at the time of construction. During construction, impacts on wetland areas will be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, construction practices that help prevent soil erosion will be utilized and measures will be taken to ensure that equipment fueling and lubricating will occur at a distance from waterways. Additional mitigative measures relating to wetlands are contained in Section 6.5.4. 5.1.5 Restoration Procedures During construction, crews will attempt to limit ground disturbance wherever possible. However, areas are disturbed during the normal course of work, which can take several weeks in any one location. As construction is completed, disturbed areas are restored to their original condition to the maximum extent practicable. The right-of-way agent attempts to contact each property owner after construction is completed to see if any remaining damage has occurred as a result of a project. If damage has occurred to crops, fences or the property, Xcel Energy will fairly reimburse the landowner for the damages sustained that are not repaired or restored by Xcel Energy or its representatives. In some cases, Xcel Energy may engage an outside contractor to restore the damaged property as nearly as possible to its original condition. Portions of vegetation that are disturbed or removed during construction of transmission lines will naturally reestablish to pre -disturbance conditions. Resilient species of common grasses and shrubs typically reestablish with few problems after disturbance. Areas with significant soil compaction and disturbance from construction activities along the proposed transmission line corridor may require assistance in reestablishing the vegetation stratum and controlling soil erosion. Commonly used methods to control soil erosion and assist in reestablishing vegetation include, but are not limited to: • re -seeding and mulching; • erosion control blankets; • silt fence installation; and • minimizing soil disturbance during construction. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 30 These erosion control and vegetation establishment practices are regularly used in construction projects and are referenced in the construction permit plans. Long-term impacts are minimized by using these construction techniques. 5.1.6 Maintenance Procedures Transmission lines and substations are designed to operate for decades and require only moderate maintenance, particularly in the first few years of operation. The estimated service life of a transmission line for accounting purposes is approximately 40 years. However, practically speaking, transmission lines are seldom completely retired. Transmission infrastructure has very few mechanical elements and is built to withstand weather extremes that are normally encountered. With the exception of severe weather such as tornadoes and heavy ice storms, transmission lines rarely fail. Transmission lines are automatically taken out of service by the operation of protective relaying equipment when a fault is sensed on the system. Such interruptions are usually only momentary. Scheduled maintenance outages are also infrequent. As a result, the average annual availability of transmission infrastructure exceeds 90 percent. The principal operating and maintenance cost for transmission facilities is the cost of inspections, usually done monthly by air. Annual operating and maintenance costs for transmission lines in Minnesota and the surrounding states vary. For transmission lines with voltages ranging from 69 kV through 345 kV, experience shows that the annual maintenance cost is approximately $300 to $500 per mile. Actual line -specific maintenance costs depend on the setting, the amount of vegetation management necessary, storm damage occurrences, structure types, materials used, and the age of the line. Substations require a certain amount of maintenance to keep them functioning in accordance with accepted operating parameters and the NESC and NERC requirements. Transformers, circuit breakers, batteries, protective relays, and other equipment need to be serviced periodically in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. The site itself must be kept free of vegetation and drainage maintained. 5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields The term electromagnetic fields ("EMF") refer to electric and magnetic fields that are coupled together, such as in high frequency radiating fields. For the lower frequencies associated with power lines (referred to as "extremely low frequencies" ['ELF']), EMF should be separated into electric fields ("EFs") and magnetic fields ("Ws"), measured in kilovolts per meter ("kV/m") and milliGauss ("mG"), respectively. These fields are dependent on the voltage of a transmission line (EFs) and current carried by a transmission line (MFs). The intensity of the electric field is proportional to the voltage of the line, and the intensity of the magnetic field is proportional to the current flow through the conductors. Transmission lines operate at a power frequency of 60 hertz (cycles per second). 5.2.1 Electric Fields There is no federal standard for transmission line electric fields. The Commission, however, has imposed a maximum electric field limit of 8 kV/m measured at one meter above the ground in its previously issued permits, including the recent order In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for a Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 31 345 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET- 2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (adopting ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation at Finding 194 (April 22, 2010 and amended April 30, 2010)) (September 14, 2010). The standard was designed to prevent serious hazards from shocks when touching large objects parked under AC transmission lines of 500 kV or greater. Other concerns that have been raised regarding electric fields include biological responses and health effects, stray voltage, noise, television and radio interference, further discussed herein. The maximum electric field, measured at one meter (3.28 feet) above ground, associated with the Project is calculated to be 0.437 kV/m (see Table 6 below). Table 6 Calculated Electric Fields (kV/m) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) 5.2.2 Magnetic Fields There are presently no Minnesota regulations pertaining to MF exposure. Xcel Energy provides information to the public, interested customers and employees so they can make informed decisions about MFs. Such information includes the availability for measurements to be conducted for customers and employees upon request. The magnetic field profiles around the proposed transmission lines for each structure and conductor configuration being considered for the Project is shown in Table 7. Magnetic fields were calculated under normal system conditions (systems intact) for the expected peak and average current flows as projected for the year 2011-2021. The peak magnetic field values are calculated at a point directly under the transmission line and where the conductor is closest to the ground. The same method is used to calculate the magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way. The magnetic field profile data show that magnetic field levels decrease rapidly as the distance from the centerline increases (proportional to the inverse square of the distance from source). The magnetic field produced by the transmission line is dependent on the current flowing on its conductors. Therefore, the actual magnetic field when the Project is placed in service is typically less than shown in the charts. This is because the charts represent the magnetic field with current flow at expected normal peak based on projected regional load growth through 2011-2021, the maximum load projection timeline available. Actual current flow on the line will vary, so magnetic fields will be less than peak levels during most hours of the year. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 32 Table 7 Calculated Magnetic Flux Density (milligauss) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) Considerable research has been conducted throughout the past three decades to determine whether exposure to power -frequency (60 hertz) magnetic fields causes biological responses and health effects. Epidemiological and toxicological studies have shown no statistically significant association or weak associations between MF exposure and health risks. Public health professionals have also investigated the possible impact of exposure to EMF upon human health for the past several decades. While the general consensus is that electric fields pose no risk to humans, the question of whether exposure to magnetic fields can cause biological responses or health effects continues to be debated. In 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") issued its final report on "Health Effects from Exposure to Power -Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The NIEHS concluded that the scientific evidence linking MF exposures with health risks is weak and that this finding does not warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because of the weak scientific evidence that supports some association between MFs and health effects and the common exposure to electricity in the United States, passive regulatory action, such as providing public education on reducing exposures, is warranted. In 2007, the World Health Organization ("WHO") concluded a review of the health implications of electromagnetic fields. In this report, the WHO stated: Uncertainties in the hazard assessment [of epidemiological studies] include the role that control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed relationship between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong to remain a concern. (Environmental Health Criteria Volume N°238 on Extremely Loan Frequency Fields at p. 12, WHO (2007)). Also, regarding disease outcomes, aside from childhood leukemia, the WHO stated that: Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 33 System Current Distance to Proposed Segment Condition (Amps) -300 -200 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 200 300 Single Pole Davit Peak 250 0.34 0.72 2.42 3.75 6.19 10.20 12.17 10.50 6.29 3.72 2.35 0.65 0.29 Arm 115 kV Single Circuit Average 150 0.20 0.43 1.45 2.25 3.71 6.12 7.90 6.30 3.77 2.23 1.41 0.39 0.17 Single Pole Peak 250 0.27 0.57 1.86 2.84 4.60 7.46 9.64 7.78 4.75 2.85 1.81 0.50 0.22 Braced Post 115 kV Single Circuit Average 150 0.16 0.34 1.12 1.70 2.76 4.48 5.78 4.67 2.85 1.71 1.09 0.30 0.13 Single Pole Davit Peak 250 0.04 0.11 0.69 1.38 3.18 7.86 12.82 7.74 3.08 1.33 0.66 0.10 0.04 Arm 115kV/115kV Average 150 0.02 0.07 0.42 0.83 1.91 4.72 7.69 4.64 1.85 0.80 0.39 0.06 0.02 Double Circuit Note: The assumed beak and average line loading assumed for these calculations is the estimated flow of 50MVA. Considerable research has been conducted throughout the past three decades to determine whether exposure to power -frequency (60 hertz) magnetic fields causes biological responses and health effects. Epidemiological and toxicological studies have shown no statistically significant association or weak associations between MF exposure and health risks. Public health professionals have also investigated the possible impact of exposure to EMF upon human health for the past several decades. While the general consensus is that electric fields pose no risk to humans, the question of whether exposure to magnetic fields can cause biological responses or health effects continues to be debated. In 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") issued its final report on "Health Effects from Exposure to Power -Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The NIEHS concluded that the scientific evidence linking MF exposures with health risks is weak and that this finding does not warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because of the weak scientific evidence that supports some association between MFs and health effects and the common exposure to electricity in the United States, passive regulatory action, such as providing public education on reducing exposures, is warranted. In 2007, the World Health Organization ("WHO") concluded a review of the health implications of electromagnetic fields. In this report, the WHO stated: Uncertainties in the hazard assessment [of epidemiological studies] include the role that control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed relationship between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong to remain a concern. (Environmental Health Criteria Volume N°238 on Extremely Loan Frequency Fields at p. 12, WHO (2007)). Also, regarding disease outcomes, aside from childhood leukemia, the WHO stated that: Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 33 A number of other diseases have been investigated for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include cancers in children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications and neurological disease. The scientific evidence supporting a linkage between ELF magnetic fields and any of these diseases is much weaker than for childhood leukemia and in some cases (for example, for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence is sufficient to give confidence that magnetic fields do not cause the disease. (Id. at p. 12.) Furthermore, in their "Summary and Recommendations for Further Study" WHO emphasized that: The limit values in [ELF -MF] exposure guidelines [should not] be reduced to some arbitrary level in the name of precaution. Such practice undermines the scientific foundation on which the limits are based and is likely to be an expensive and not necessarily effective way of providing protection. (Id. at p. 12). Although WHO recognized epidemiological studies indicate an association on the range of three to four mG, WHO did not recommend these levels as an exposure limit but instead provided: "The best source of guidance for both exposure levels and the principles of scientific review are international guidelines." Id. at pp. 12-13. The international guidelines referred to by WHO are the International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection ("ICNIRP") and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers ("IEEE") exposure limit guidelines to protect against acute effects. Id. at p. 12. The ICNIRP-1998 continuous general public exposure guideline is 833 mG and the IEEE continuous general public exposure guideline in 9,040 mG. In addition, WHO determined that "the evidence for a casual relationship [between ELF -MF and childhood leukemia] is limited, therefore exposure limits based on epidemiological evidence is not recommended, but some precautionary measures are warranted." Id. at 355-56. WHO concluded that: given both the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, and the limited impact on public health if there is a link, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. Thus, the costs of precautionary measures should be very low... Provided that the health, social and economic benefits of electric power are not compromised, implementing very low-cost precautionary procedures to reduce exposure is reasonable and warranted. (Id at p. 13). Wisconsin, Minnesota and California have all conducted literature reviews or research to examine this issue. In 2002, Minnesota formed an Interagency Working Group ("Working Group") to evaluate the body of research and develop policy recommendations to protect the public health from any potential problems resulting from HVTL EMF effects. The Working Group consisted of staff from various state agencies and published its findings in a White Paper on Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Policy and Mitigation Options in September 2002, (Minnesota Department of Health, 2002). The report summarized the findings of the Working Group as follows: Research on the health effects of EMF has been carried out since the 1970s. Epidemiological studies have mixed results — some have shown no statistically significant association between exposure to EMF and health effects, some have shown a weak association. More recently, laboratory studies have failed to show such Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 34 an association, or to establish a biological mechanism for how magnetic fields may cause cancer. A number of scientific panels convened by national and international health agencies and the United States Congress have reviewed the research carried out to date. Most researchers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove an association between EMF and health effects; however, many of them also concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove that EMF exposure is safe. (Id. at p. 1.) The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin ("PSCW") has periodically reviewed the science on MFs since 1989 and has held hearings to consider the topic of MF and human health effects. The most recent hearings on MF were held in July 1998. Recently, January 2008, the PSC published a fact sheet regarding MFs. In this fact sheet the PSC noted that: Many scientists believe the potential for health risks for exposure to EMF is very small. This is supported, in part, by weak epidemiological evidence and the lack of a plausible biological mechanism that explains how exposure to EMF could cause disease. The magnetic fields produced by electricity are weak and do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or to cause mutations in DNA. Without a mechanism, scientists have no idea what kind of exposure, if any, might be harmful. In addition, whole animal studies investigating long-term exposure to power frequency EMF have shown no connection between exposure and cancer of any kind. (EMF -Electric &Magnetic Fields, PSC Qanuary 2008)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, based on the Working Group and World Health Organization findings, has repeatedly found that "there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects." In the Matter of the Application of Xcel Energy for a Route Permit for the Lake Yankton to Marshall Transmission Line Project in Lyon County, Docket No. E-002/TL-07-1407, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Issuing a Route Permit to Xcel Energy for the Lake Yankton to Marshall Transmission Project at p. 7-8 (Aug. 29, 2008); See also, In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Tower Transmission Line Project, Docket No. ET -2, E015/TL-06-1624, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Issuing a Route Permit to Minnesota Power and Great River Energy for the Tower Transmission Line Project and Associated Facilities at p. 23 (Aug. 1, 2007)("Currently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and any adverse human health effects."). The Commission again confirmed its conclusion regarding health effects and MFs in the Brookings County — Hampton 345 kV Route Permit proceeding ("Brookings Project"). In the Brookings Project Route Permit proceeding, Applicants Great River Energy and Xcel Energy and one of the intervening parties provided expert evidence on the potential impacts of electric and magnetic fields on human health. The ALJ in that proceeding evaluated written submissions and a day -and -half of testimony from these two expert witnesses. The ALJ concluded: "there is no demonstrated impact on human health and safety that is not adequately addressed by the existing State standards for [EF or MF] exposure." In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 343 kV Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET- 2/TL-08-1474, ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation at Finding 216 (April 22, 2010 and amended April 30, 2010). The Commission adopted this finding on July 15, 2010. In the Matter of the Route Permit Application by Great River Energy and Xcel Energy for a 343 k V Transmission Line from Brookings County, South Dakota to Hampton, Minnesota, Docket No. ET-2/TL-08-1474, Order Granting Route Permit (September 14, 2010). Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 35 5.2.3 Stray Voltage Stray voltage (also known as Neutral to Earth Voltage ("NEV")) is a condition that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from distribution lines, not transmission lines. More precisely, stray voltage is a voltage that exists between the neutral wire of the service entrance and grounded objects in buildings, such as barns and milking parlors. Transmission lines do not, by themselves, create stray voltage because they do not connect to businesses or residences. Transmission lines, however, can induce stray voltage on a distribution circuit that is parallel to and immediately under the transmission line. 5.3 Farming Operations, Vehicle Use, and Metal Buildings Near Power Lines Insulated electric fences used in livestock operations can pick up an induced charge from transmission lines. Usually, the induced charge will drain off when the charger unit is connected to the fence. When the charger is disconnected either for maintenance or when the fence is being built, shocks may result. Potential shocks can be prevented by using a couple of methods including: i) one or more of the fence insulators can be shorted out to ground with a wire when the charger is disconnected; or ii) an electric filter can be instilled that grounds out charges induced from a power line while still allowing the charger to be effective. Farm equipment, passenger vehicles, and trucks may be safely used under and near power lines. The power lines will be designed to meet or exceed minimum clearance requirements over roads, driveways, cultivated fields, and grazing lands specified by the NESC. Recommended clearances within the NESC are designed to accommodate a relative vehicle height of 14 feet. There is a potential for vehicles under HVTLs to build up an electric charge. If this occurs, the vehicle can be grounded by attaching a grounding strap to the vehicle long enough to touch the earth. Such buildup is a rare event because generally vehicles are effectively grounded through tires. Modern tires provide an electrical path to ground because carbon black, a good conductor of electricity, is added when they are produced. Metal parts of farming equipment are frequently in contact with the ground when plowing or engaging in various other activities. Therefore, vehicles will not normally build up a charge unless they have unusually old tires or are parked on dry rock, plastic or other surfaces that insulate them from the ground. Buildings are permitted near transmission lines but are generally prohibited within the right-of-way itself because a structure under a line may interfere with safe operation of the transmission facilities. For example, a fire in a building on the right-of-way could damage a transmission line. As a result, NESC guidelines establish clear zones for transmission facilities. Metal buildings may have unique issues. For example, metal buildings near power lines of 200 kV or greater must be properly grounded. Any person with questions about a new or existing metal structure can contact Xcel Energy for further information about proper grounding requirements. If a customer suspects that stray voltage/NEV is a concern on their property, they can call the Company stray voltage hotline. The customer can contact an Xcel Energy technician or engineer and discuss the situation. If an on-farm investigation is warranted it will be scheduled. On the day of the investigation, the Xcel Energy team will arrive and conduct an investigation of the utility Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 36 system serving the farm and the farm wiring. The team will discuss the preliminary results with the customer before leaving the farm. In most instances, recording volt meters will be set to measure activity over several days. A few days later these will be retrieved and taken to the Company for analysis. Upon completing the analysis, an Xcel Energy engineer or technician will call the farmer to discuss the results. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 37 6.0 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES 6.1 Description of Environmental Setting The approximate 16 acre Orono Substation site is located in an open upland area adjacent to and south of BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council sewer line and, west of County Road 6 and east of the HFA residential subdivision in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (see Figure 1 and Appendix B). Typical lots sizes in this subdivision range from 2 to 4 acres. The HFA, comprised of landowners within the subdivision, also owns approximately 64 acres of undeveloped land surrounding the residential lots. HFA land generally consists of wetland areas and is no longer under agricultural use. Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve is located north of U.S. Highway 12, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and the BNSF railroad. The replacement of the existing Orono Substation located on the previously discussed 16 acre substation site is part of the overall proposed transmission line Project and is discussed in Section 4.4.1. This portion of the Project includes replacing the existing 69 kV substation with a 115 kV substation facility that is being constructed to provide a more reliable system to those areas served by transmission Line 0831. The existing fenced area of the substation site comprises approximately 0.1 acres. The new substation fenced area will comprise approximately 1.2 acres. A portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) for construction of the new transmission line is located in upland and wetland areas within the 16 acre Orono Substation site. Xcel Energy put great emphasis on utilizing this site to the greatest extent possible when reviewing potential routes for the Project. By utilizing the existing substation site property, Xcel Energy was able to directly route the transmission line to an existing transportation corridor to minimize impacts to the neighboring properties. Upon exiting the proposed substation replacement area, the Proposed Route takes a direct path to the western property line and follows the property line north to the existing BNSF right-of-way. Together, the Proposed Route follows the existing BNSF right-of-way and is within Xcel Energy owned property for 85 percent of the Route. While the route parallels the BNSF right-of-way it will be within the HFA subdivision. The proposed interconnection point with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 is also located within a wooded upland area on HFA land. See Appendix B-2. Approximately 1,795 feet (57 percent) of the Proposed Route parallels the BNSF railroad and will not conflict with current land use. The Project is located within the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section (222M), a section within the biogeographic province known as the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province under the Ecological Classification System ("ECS") developed by the Minnesota Department of National Resources ("MnDNR") and the United States Forest Service ("USFS") (MNDNR, 2010). The Project Area is further located within the Big Woods subsection of the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section. See Appendix B-1. The Big Woods subsection generally consists of circular, level topped hills bounded by smooth side slopes. The Mississippi River runs along the eastern border of this subsection. The other major rivers within this subsection are the Minnesota and Crow Rivers and over 100 lakes greater than 160 acres in size exist within the Big Woods subsection. The area was previously occupied by oak woodland and basswood forest, with characteristic trees being elm, basswood, sugar maple and bur Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 38 oak. According to the Department of Soil Science, University of Minnesota, the subsection is predominately characterized as cropland, pasture, upland forest and wetland (Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of Minnesota 1973, 1980b, 1981a). Croplands and pasture lands are more predominate to the west of the Project than in the immediate area of the Project. Further, urban and rural residential development account for the majority of lands near the Project to the east and south. 6.1.1 Topography Unlike other portions of Minnesota, the Project location was not covered by the most recent glaciations (i.e., 10,500 years before present) (Minnesota River Basin Data Center, 2010). However, melt waters and glacial lakes associated with the last glacial advance contributed large volumes of meltwater to rivers that cut deep valleys along the present course of the Minnesota, Crow, and lower Mississippi Rivers located east, north and south of the Project. The Project is within a Big Woods subsection, which contains broad level areas between hills with closed depressions containing lakes and peat bogs. The surface water drainage network is young and undeveloped, and extensive areas of wetlands are present. Drainage is often controlled by lake levels. Prior to settlement, the area consisted of forest lands and wetlands. Today the topography of the area is level to gently rolling and has been greatly altered from pre - settlement times by residential development, roadways and interchanges, railroad and other man- made features. In general, the elevation within the Project ranges from 964 feet above sea level in wetland areas to 983 feet above sea level at the Orono Substation. Mitigative Measures The Project requires grading the area of the new substation site and storm water management to accommodate the substation replacement (see Appendix B, Figure B-10). To mitigate this, the preliminary design and site layout takes into account existing facilities, wetlands on the north and east sides of the parcel, storm water runoff and management, and surrounding land uses. To the extent possible, Xcel Energy will reuse the existing substation area and avoid wetlands at the site. While the western portion of the site will require grading and a new storm water pond will be installed at the northwest corner of the new substation area, the Project will not change the character of the landscape of the surrounding area. 6.1.2 Geology and Soils The Project site geology is composed of a gently rolling landscape and wetlands. The underlying geology and topography has remained consistent over time. However, the surface topography and natural drainage ways have been impacted by human settlement. Depth of bedrock varies from 100 to 400 feet (Olsen and Mossler 1982) The Project Area is underlain by Cambrian sandstones. The area north of US Highway 12 (Baker Park Reserve) has remained relatively undeveloped as have many of the wetland complexes in the area. Soils throughout the area are predominantly poorly drained hydric wetland soils that are derived primarily from till. Based on the Soil Survey of Hennepin County (U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), 2000), the most predominant soils in the Project location include the following two soil associations: Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 39 Klossner Association: Very deep, very poorly drained, nearly level muck formed in organic material over glacial till in wetland depressions; and Houghton and Muskego Association: Very deep, very poorly drained, nearly level muck formed in organic material in wetland depressions. Mitigative Measures As described above, the new substation site will require grading and storm water management. Xcel Energy does not anticipate any adverse impacts to geology or bedrock from the Project. Concerning impacts from the Project to surficial soils, Xcel Energy will implement the mitigative measures as described above in Section 6.1.1. 6.2 Human Settlement 6.2.1 Public Health and Safety Proper safeguards will be implemented for construction and operation of the proposed substation and transmission facilities. The Project will be designed in compliance with local, state, the National Electrical Safety Code ("NESC"), and Xcel Energy standards for clearance to ground, crossing utilities and buildings, strength of materials, and right-of-way widths. Construction and contract crews will comply with local, state, NESC, and Xcel Energy standards for installation of facilities and standard construction practices. Established Xcel Energy and industry safety procedures will also be followed after the substation and transmission line are installed. This will include clear signage during all construction activities. The proposed transmission line will be equipped with protective devices (circuit breakers and relays located in the new Orono Substation where the transmission lines terminate) to safeguard the public if an accident occurs, such as a structure or conductor falling to the ground. The protective equipment will de -energize the transmission line should such an event occur. In addition, the new Orono Substation will be fenced and access limited to authorized personnel. Proper signage is posted to warn the public about the risk of coming into contact with the energized equipment. For a discussion of EMF, see Section 5.2 above. Mitip-ative Measures Xcel Energy does not anticipate any adverse public health and safety impacts from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.2 Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Land Use In addition to use of Xcel Energy's existing 16 acre site for the Orono Substation land use near the Project is primarily residential and undeveloped/open-space. The City of Orono is the largest municipality in the local area, with a current projected population of 7,437 (US Census Bureau, American FactFinder website -accessed 04/05/2011). The entire Project and proposed transmission facilities fall within the current City limits as indicated in the attached Appendix B-4. The existing Orono Substation property is zoned for rural residential use, but has a conditional use permit through the City of Orono for this property. The areas near and around the Project are zoned for rural residential use. The proposed new transmission line will have minimal impact on the amount Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 40 of developable land in this area as it is sited within existing Xcel Energy property, adjacent to existing highway and railroad rights-of-way, and within undeveloped HFA land. The closest commercial business is a gas station located in the City of Maple Plain approximately 0.75 miles northwest from the proposed Project. This structure is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 19. See Appendix B-3. The closest rural residence to the proposed new transmission line and substation replacement is located approximately 220 feet south and across 6th Avenue North from the proposed Orono Substation replacement area. The closest farmstead residence is located approximately 0.5 miles directly south of the beginning of the proposed line at a residence on Orchard Park Road which is approximately 600 feet north of Watertown Rd. See Appendix B-2. The numbers of occupied structures located within various distances from the Project are shown in Table 8 below. Table 8 Distance to Occupied Structures Mitigative Measures Land uses near the Project are not expected to change as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line and substation. Permanent impacts will be limited to the area where structures (e.g. poles) are placed and to the construction areas as described in Section 5.1.1 For the Proposed Route, the structures and overhead transmission lines will be placed within the existing Xcel Energy property and within primarily undeveloped areas on HFA land along existing transportation corridors. Impacts to surrounding land uses will be minimized by following within or adjacent to existing roadways, railroad and utility rights-of-way as much as possible. 6.2.3 Displacement NESC and Xcel Energy standards require certain clearances between substation and transmission line facilities and buildings for safe operation of the facilities. There is sufficient land at the existing 16 acre Orono Substation site to maintain substation clearances for the proposed expanded Orono Substation and associated new transmission line. Off of the Orono Substation site, Xcel Energy acquires appropriate right-of-way for transmission lines that is sufficient to maintain these Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 41 clearances. Displacement can occur when an existing structure is located within the right-of-way for a new transmission facility. The proposed transmission line will be designed so that all existing residences are located outside of the right-of-way. Furthermore, the Proposed Route includes realignment of existing transmission Line 0831 and associated structures off of two residential properties as part of the Project. See Appendix B.2. The proposed Project will not require displacement of occupied residences. Mitigative Measures It is not anticipated that any buildings or residences will be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. Xcel Energy will work with landowners where buildings or residences are near the proposed transmission structures to ensure appropriate placement of such structures. 6.2.4 Noise Transmission Line Noise Transmission conductors produce noise under certain conditions. The level of noise depends on conductor conditions, voltage level and weather conditions. Noise emissions from a transmission line occur during certain weather conditions. In foggy, damp, or rainy weather, power lines can create a crackling sound when a small amount of electricity ionizes the moist air near the wires. During heavy rain, the background noise level of the rain is usually greater than the noise from the transmission line. As a result, people do not normally hear noise from a transmission line during heavy rain. During light rain, dense fog, snow, and other times when there is moisture in the air, transmission lines can produce noise. Noise levels produced by a 115 kV transmission line are generally less than outdoor background levels and are therefore not usually audible. Since human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound, the most noticeable frequencies of sound are given more "weight" in most measurement schemes. The A -weighted scale corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are measured in decibels ("dBA"). A noise level change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to human hearing. A 5 dBA change in noise level, however, is clearly noticeable. A 10 dBA change in noise level is perceived as a doubling of noise loudness, while a 20 dBA change is considered a dramatic change in loudness. Table 9 shows noise levels associated with common, everyday activities. Table 9 Common Noise Sources and Levels Noise Source ' et Engine (at 25 meters) Sound Pressure Level .: 140 et Aircraft (at 100 meters) 130 Rock Concert 120 Pneumatic Chipper 110 jackhammer (at 1 meter) 100 Chainsaw. Lawn Mower at 1 meter 90 Heavy Truck Traffic 80 Business Office, Vacuum Cleaner 70 Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 42 Noise Source' Sound Pressure Conversational Speech, Typical TV Volume Level .: 60 Library 50 Bedroom 40 Secluded Woods 30 Whisper 10 a A Guide to Noire Control in Minnesota Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis and Regulation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA'�, 2008. In Minnesota, statistical sound levels ("L" or Level Descriptors) are used to evaluate noise levels and identify noise impacts. The standards are expressed as a range of permissible dBA within a one hour period; L50 is the dBA that may be exceeded 50 percent of the time within an hour, while L10 may be exceeded 10 percent of the time within an hour. Land areas, such as picnic areas, churches, or commercial spaces, are assigned to an activity category based on the type of activities or use occurring in the area. Activity categories are then categorized based on their sensitivity to traffic noise. The Noise Area Classification ("NAC" list in the MPCA noise regulations to distinguish the categories. Residential areas, churches, and similar type land use activities are included in NAC 1; commercial -type land use activities are included in NAC 2; and industrial -type land use activities are included in NAC 3. Table 10 identifies the established daytime and nighttime noise standards by NAC. Table 10 Noise Standards by Noise Area Classification The noise levels from the proposed double circuit 115 kV transmission line are expected to be only slightly higher than the existing GRE 69 kV transmission line that is connected to the Orono substation. The GRE transmission line will be disconnected from the Orono Substation as a part of this Project. Therefore, noise levels from the new 115 kV transmission line should not be noticeably greater than existing levels. The proposed transmission lines were modeled using the Bonneville Power Administration CFI8X model to evaluate audible noise from transmission lines. Where possible, the model was executed as a worst-case scenario benchmark, to ensure that noise was not under -predicted. Table 11 presents the LS and L50 noise levels predicted for proposed transmission line structures and voltages for the Project. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 43 Daytime Noise Standard Nighttime Noise Standard Area Noise Classification L50 (dBA) L10 (dBA) L50 (dBA) L,0 (dBA) 1 1 1 1 :1 :1 The noise levels from the proposed double circuit 115 kV transmission line are expected to be only slightly higher than the existing GRE 69 kV transmission line that is connected to the Orono substation. The GRE transmission line will be disconnected from the Orono Substation as a part of this Project. Therefore, noise levels from the new 115 kV transmission line should not be noticeably greater than existing levels. The proposed transmission lines were modeled using the Bonneville Power Administration CFI8X model to evaluate audible noise from transmission lines. Where possible, the model was executed as a worst-case scenario benchmark, to ensure that noise was not under -predicted. Table 11 presents the LS and L50 noise levels predicted for proposed transmission line structures and voltages for the Project. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 43 Table 11 Calculated Audible Noise (dBA) for Proposed Transmission Line Design (3.28 feet above ground) Note: Noise calculations done using the EPRI Enviro software and the BPA standard method of calculation. The noise generated from the transmission line is not expected to exceed background noise levels and will, therefore, not be audible at any receptor location. Transmission conductors and transformers at substations can produce noise when it is foggy, damp, or rainy, including a subtle cracking or humming noise. Any audible noise will be well below the MPCA noise standards established for NAC 1, as shown in Tables 10 and 11 above. Transformer Substation Noise Transformer "hum" is the dominant noise source at substations. Transformer hum is caused by magnetostrictive forces within the core of the transformer. These magnetic forces cause the core laminations to expand and contract, creating vibration and sound at a frequency of 100Hz (twice the a.c. mains frequency), and at multiples of 100Hz (harmonics). Typically, the noise level does not vary with transformer load, as the core is magnetically saturated and cannot produce any more noise. Generally, activity -related noise levels during the operation and maintenance of substations and transmission lines are minimal. The nearest occupied structures to the proposed Orono Substation and related transmission facilities associated with the Project include two residences located approximately 220 feet to the south and approximately 290 feet west (see Appendix B, Figure B-2). It is unlikely that substation noise will be audible at these structures. The proposed substation will be designed and constructed to comply with state noise standards established by the MPCA Mitigative Measures The transmission lines and substation are designed and constructed to comply with state noise standards established by the MPCA. Transmission line noise levels are not expected to exceed the MPCA noise standards outside the right-of-way for all NACs. Likewise, substation noise will not exceed applicable limits, including the MPCA noise limits. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for the audible noise generated by the proposed Project. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 44 6.2.5 Television and Radio Interference Corona from transmission line conductors can generate electromagnetic "noise" at the same frequencies that radio and television signals are transmitted. This noise can cause interference with the reception of these signals depending on the frequency and strength of the radio and television signal. Tightening loose hardware on the transmission line usually resolves the problem. If radio interference from transmission line corona does occur, satisfactory reception from AM radio stations presently providing good reception can be obtained by appropriately modifying (or adding to) the receiving antenna system. Moreover, AM radio frequency interference typically occurs immediately under a transmission line and dissipates rapidly within the right-of-way to either side. FM radio receivers do not usually pick up interference from transmission lines because: • corona -generated radio frequency noise currents decrease in magnitude as the frequency increases and are quite small in the FM broadcast band (88-108 Megahertz); and • the excellent interference rejection properties inherent in FM radio systems make them virtually immune to amplitude -type disturbances. A two-way mobile radio located immediately adjacent to and behind a large metallic structure (such as a steel tower) may experience interference. Moving either mobile radio so that the metallic structure is not immediately between the two units should restore communications. This will generally require a movement of less than 50 feet by the mobile radio adjacent to the metallic tower. Television interference is rare but may occur when a large transmission structure is aligned between the receiver and a weak distant signal, creating a shadow effect. Loose or damaged transmission line hardware may also cause television interference. Digital reception is, in most cases, considerably more tolerant of electric interference and somewhat less resistant to multipath reflections. In the digital realm, the picture does not gradually degrade; rather, at what is called the "avalanche point," the picture suddenly pixelates (turns into squares) and usually "freezes." Mitigative Measures No impacts are anticipated from the proposed Project. However, if radio or television interference occurs because of the transmission line, Xcel Energy will work with the affected parties to restore reception to pre -Project quality. If the interference is due to the power line, the electric utility will remedy problems so that reception is restored to its original quality. Generally, the problem is resolved by moving or raising or adjusting the customer's antenna. In some instances, a more effective antenna or a signal amplifier is required. 6.2.6 Aesthetics The proposed substation replacement will be within existing Xcel Energy property and the transmission facilities will mainly follow existing BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12 rights-of-way. The Project will have some effects on the visual and aesthetic character of the area. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 45 The existing fenced area of the substation site is approximately 0.1 acres. It currently contains an Electrical Equipment Enclosure (EEE) and several pieces of electrical equipment, which are mainly metal. The existing substation site is somewhat screened from view by trees and vegetation located along the south and west property borders. The replacement substation will comprise a new fenced area of approximately 1.2 acres, which will subsume the existing 0.1 acre fenced area. Because the existing substation area will become a part of the new substation site, the elevation of the new substation site will be similar to the existing site. The new substation will contain approximately eight pieces of mainly metal electrical equipment and include a new EEE, and the maximum height of the new equipment will be approximately 13-18 feet above ground surface. The new equipment and fenced area will be located to comply with applicable property line setbacks. During site grading, some vegetation and trees will need to be removed in the substation replacement area to the south and west of the existing fenced area, as well as along the Proposed Route. Existing GRE transmission line structures at the substation site are wood monopole structures. The proposed structures for the single circuit and double circuit 115kV line will be a single pole design. The single circuit and double circuit structures will be approximately 70 to 90 and 75 to 115 feet tall respectively and will have an average span of 325 feet. A maximum span of 450 feet will be used between the structures, which will still keep the conductor within the right-of-way under blowout conditions. The typical right-of-way required for these types of structures is 75 feet wide. The overall spacing of the poles will be comparable to other Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission structures, which can vary based on soil conditions, engineering requirements and land use constraints. The finish of the proposed transmission poles will be galvanized steel or self -weathering steel. The existing transmission line structures in this area are wood poles, and some of the existing poles are of H -frame construction. The proposed galvanized or weathering steel poles will give the new transmission line a somewhat cleaner and more modern appearance. The landscape surrounding the Orono Substation site is gently rolling, lightly wooded or wetland areas with undeveloped or residential parcels and associated county and private access roads, as well as major double lane thoroughfare (U.S. Highway 12), a Metropolitan Council sewer line and the BNSF railroad. While the double circuit line is proposed to be located within existing Xcel Energy property and on HFA land along the BNSF railroad right-of-way, it will be visible to area residents. The visual effect will depend largely on the perceptions of the observers. The visual contrast added by the transmission structures and lines may be perceived as a visual disruption or as points of visual interest. The existing transmission and distribution lines and Orono Substation limit the extent to which the proposed new transmission line and new substation are viewed as a disruption to the area's scenic integrity. Mitigative Measures The proposed substation and transmission line will be partially visible by some residents near the Project. However, the proposed substation replacement and transmission route maximizes the use of existing Xcel Energy property, transportation and utility corridors, and avoids residences to the greatest extent practicable. Also, a portion of the Project site contains the visible existing Orono Substation and transmission and distribution lines that result in a visual impact and, therefore, the installation of new transmission facilities associated with the Project will incrementally increase visual impacts. Visual mitigation is also provided by building the substation partially into the Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 46 adjacent hillside which will be held back by the installation of a retaining wall along the southwest corner of the graded area. An additional berm with prairie landscaping and trees, suitable to the existing setting, is planned along the western property line for substation screening purposes. Mitigation is also provided by using double circuit transmission structures which minimizes the number of transmission structures and right-of-way needed for the Project. Replacing the existing wood three -pole Structure 077 with a single pole structure at a new location off of residential property will also mitigate aesthetic impacts. At the new substation site, Xcel Energy will design and construct the new facility to minimize impacts to existing vegetation and trees, as well as provide additional screening, as needed. Xcel Energy will work with landowners to identify concerns related to the proposed substation and transmission line aesthetics. 6.2.7 Socioeconomic Impacts Census data from 2010 was not fully available at the time this Route Permit Application was prepared. Socioeconomic data was obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census. The average per capita income is $65,825 in the City of Orono (2000) and $28,789 in Hennepin County (2000). Compared to the state or county average, the Project is located in an area that does not contain disproportionately high minority or low-income populations. No disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations are anticipated from the Project. Persons living in Hennepin County have a slightly higher median family income when compared with the rest of the state. The percentage of families with income levels below the federal poverty line is approximately 5.0 percent in Hennepin County (2000), which is slightly lower than the state average. Within the City of Orono, the average median family income is higher than that of the rest of the state. The percentage of families below the federal poverty line in the City of Orono is approximately 0.5 percent (2000). Population and economic data from the 2010 and 2000 US Census is provided in Table 12. Table 12 Population and Economic Characteristics of the Project Location * Population characteristics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 data. * Economic characteristics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 data. Approximately 15 to 25 workers will be needed over 26 weeks to construct the proposed transmission line and substation. During construction, construction crews will spend money locally, thereby providing a small economic benefit to the community. There will be short-term impacts on community services as a result of construction activity and an influx of contractor employees during construction the Project. Both utility personnel and contractors will be used for construction activities. The communities near the Project should experience short-term positive economic impacts through the use of the hotels, restaurants, and other services by the various workers. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 47 It is not expected that additional permanent jobs will be created by the Project. The construction activities will provide a seasonal influx of additional dollars into the communities during the construction phase, and materials such as concrete may be purchased from local vendors. Once the Project is operational, its socioeconomic effects are generally positive because it will provide a more stable and reliable supply of electricity, encourage economic development, provide for future growth, and increase the local tax base resulting from the incremental increase in revenues from utility property taxes. Socioeconomic impacts resulting from the Project will be primarily positive with an influx of wages and expenditures made at local businesses during the Project, increased tax revenue from the value of the Project and increased opportunities for business development from improved reliability. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project will not adversely impact socioeconomic factors. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.8 Cultural Values Cultural values are the history and beliefs of the area that provide a framework for community unity. The region surrounding the Project primarily depends on agricultural practices (typically corn, soybeans, and grazing), with some manufacturing and tourism, as well as educational and residential uses. Local community ties relate to work, worship, celebration, and recreation. Based on the City of Orono's website, examples of area culture and industry include the Corn Days Festival and farmer's markets in Long Lake and Maple Plain. Construction of the proposed Project is not expected to conflict with the cultural values along the route. No impacts on cultural values are anticipated. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project avoids or minimizes land uses associated with cultural values and no impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.9 Recreation There is one formal recreational area located north of the Project. Baker Park Reserve, which is part of the Three Rivers Park District is located within the boundaries of the City of Orono and the City of Medina and encompasses 2,700 acres (see Appendix B-7). The south end of Baker Park Reserve lies north of and across the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 from the proposed transmission line route. The new substation should not be visible from Baker Park Reserve and from U.S. Highway 12 due to the distance between these areas and the substation site, plus the higher elevation of the BNSF railroad when compared to the substation site, U.S. Highway 12 and the park. Baker Park Reserve has many activities available for park users including; biking, boating, camping, canoeing, cross-country skiing, dog trails, fishing, geocaching, golfing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, picnic and play areas, sledding, snowshoeing and swimming. The park wholly contains Spurzem Lake, Half Moon Lake and Lake Katrina and borders the southwest portion of Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 48 Lake Independence. The Project is not expected to impact Baker Park Reserve because the Proposed Route remains entirely south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12. Three recreational parks owned by the City of Orono (Bederwoods Park, Lowry Woods Nature Area and Lurton Park) lie between 0.5 miles to just over one mile from the Project Area. Bederwoods Park is located approximately 1.15 miles south east of the Project. It is 8 acres in size and includes a baseball field, swing -set, climber, slide and bike rack. Lowry Woods Nature Area which is located approximately 0.9 miles south of the Project is a 15 acre parcel of "Big Woods" and consists of 100 -year-old Red -Oak, Sugar Maple, Ash and Hickory trees. The distance between the Project and Bederwoods Park and Lowry Woods Nature Area along with topography, forested areas, and residential areas is significant enough that visual impacts from the Project will not occur. Likewise, the distance, topography and forested areas between the Project and these parks will be significant enough that audible impacts from construction of the Project will not occur at these locations. The third park (Lurton Park) is a 39 acre parcel located approximately '/z mile east of the Project. Lurton Park was donated to the City for use as a passive and natural environmental park. Visual impacts from the Project to this park are unlikely due to the elevation of the County Road 6 overpass of U.S. Highway 12. However, due to the close proximity of Lurton Park to the Project there is a potential that temporary audible impacts could occur during the construction of the Project. A portion on the south side of this park was recently purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") for the construction of the U.S. Highway 12 bypass project. Mitigative Measures The proposed Project will not directly affect recreational areas. The Project has been routed to avoid impacts to Baker Park Reserve to minimize impacts to parks and recreation. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.2.10 Public Services Public services within the vicinity of the Project include sewer, water and transportation. In the City of Orono, water and sewer services are provided by city -owned wells and wastewater treatment facilities. As the Project lies at the edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, water in nearby areas outside of the City is obtained from private wells as well as neighboring cities. Likewise, wastewater in surrounding areas is treated with individual septic treatment systems or neighboring cities. The Metropolitan Council forcemain interceptor 8352, which is a 12 -inch outside diameter ductile iron pipe, is buried between the BNSF railroad line and U.S. Highway 12 north of the Project (see Section 8.1.8 regarding Metropolitan Council response to the Project). The U.S. Highway 12 Bypass project adjacent to and north of the Project has been completed and no additional work to this project is known at this time. U.S. Highway 12 is a high volume traffic corridor providing access to the Twin Cities Metropolitan area freeway system for the suburbs and rural areas west of the metropolitan area. U.S. Highway 12 reduces from a divided four lane highway to an undivided two lane road just west of the County Road 6 overpass and on the north side of the Project. County Road 6 borders the south and east edges of the area of the Project. Additionally, local city and township roads traverse the area around the Project. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 49 An active BNSF railroad line is located north of the Project. While no direct impacts from the Project are expected to the BNSF railroad, the Proposed Route includes placement of new transmission structures approximately five feet from railroad right-of-way. Xcel Energy is discussing sharing of railroad right-of-way for transmission line overhang with BNSF. Except for the existing transmission Line 0831 crossing U.S. Highway 12, the Metropolitan Council forcemain, and the BNSF railroad line, the Proposed Route avoids these services. At this time no current or future transportation or utility corridor projects are known to exist. Mitigative Measures With the exception of existing Line 0831 crossing U.S. Highway 12, Metropolitan Council forcemain and BNSF railroad, the proposed Project will not directly affect public services. The proposed new 115 kV transmission line will not cross the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12, County Road 6 or other local roads, thus no disruptions to these transportation corridors are expected. Construction related vehicles will utilize U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 6; however, any increase in traffic is expected to be minor. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3 Land -Based Economics 6.3.1 Agriculture Hennepin County has strong economic ties to agricultural production. According to the 2007 United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Census of Agriculture, Hennepin County has 582 individual farms, marking a 7% decrease in total number of farms over the previous five years. Agricultural lands cover 66,558 acres, representing approximately 73% of all lands in Hennepin County with an average farm size of 114 acres. Hennepin County ranks among the top 20 counties in nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod (ranking 3rd statewide) land uses; and horses, ponies, mules, burros and donkeys (ranking 3rd Statewide). Over $51 million was generated from both crop and livestock sales in 2007. While Hennepin County is primarily agricultural, the entire Project site and proposed transmission route is located outside of actively cultivated tracts. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, the nearest farmstead is located 1/2 mile south of the Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are not located within or near any farm lands. Mitigative Measures No impacts to agriculture anticipated from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.2 Forestry There are no forested areas where tree species are harvested along the proposed transmission line route or the Orono Substation replacement site. The primary tree cover in the area is associated with waterways, homesteads and Baker Park Reserve. No economically significant forestry resources are located along the proposed transmission line route or at the Orono Substation site. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 50 Mitigative Measures No forest or commercial logging impacts from the Project are expected. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.3 Tourism Primary tourism activities in the region include camping, recreational use of the regions lakes for fishing and boating, bicycling, cross country skiing and hunting on private lands. The Baker Park Reserve is the only park in the immediate area of the Project that could be considered a tourist area. However, the proposed Project does not cross any lands owned or used by the park (see Figures B.2 and B.7 in Appendix B). Besides Baker Park Reserve, areas west and north of the Project are primarily rural residential and agricultural. Areas south and east of the Project are primarily rural and urban residential. Mitigative Measures No effects on tourism are anticipated from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.3.4 Mining According to MnDOT county pit maps for Hennepin County, there is one inactive gravel pit located approximately four miles east of the Project site. Because no existing gravel and rock resources are being utilized within or near the Project site or proposed transmission line route, no impacts are anticipated. Unknown resources that may exist near the Project would be situated in close proximity to existing transportation rights-of-way, making development of mining resources unlikely. Mitigative Measures No effects on mining are expected from the Project. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. 6.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources In response to an Xcel Energy request for comment, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") commented on the proposed Project in a letter dated October 21, 2010 (see Appendix C.7). The SHPO requested that an archaeological survey for the Project be completed prior to the beginning of construction activities. To further assess the potential for archaeological and historic resources to be present near the Project, Xcel Energy engaged URS Corporation ("URS") to conduct a Phase Ia background research/literature review for the proposed Project and prepared a Phase Ia Report. A copy of the Phase 1a Report has been included with this Application as Appendix E. Portions of the Phase Ia report have been omitted due to information considered confidential and not readily available to the general public. URS reviewed previously recorded cultural resource properties at the SHPO. In addition, historical maps, historic aerial photographs, and additional online resources were used to review the recent cultural and environmental history of Project site. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 51 The Phase Ia background research revealed that no archaeological site or inventoried standing structure is recorded within the proposed Project. A total of 34 previously recorded cultural resource properties were located within the proposed Project Area. The site file search identified 15 archaeological sites and 19 inventoried historic architectural properties located within one mile of the Project. The Phase Ia Report in Appendix E provides more information on these sites. Of the 15 archaeological sites, thirteen are pre -contact and consist of. six lithic scatters, two artifact scatters, three single artifact finds, and two Native American earthwork. The remaining two sites consist of post -contact historic structural ruins with associated artifact scatters. None of the previously recorded artifact scatters are listed in the National Register CEF by the SHPO. Of the 19 historic architectural properties none are listed on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") or CEF. Based upon these findings, the potential for the Project to impact any undiscovered archaeological site is low because the Project is proposed to be located at the existing Orono Substation site, and along existing transportation corridors or it is located in areas already disturbed by residential and commercial development. However, the URS archaeologist identified one area of concern at the proposed Orono Substation replacement site. The Phase Ia Report recommends that archaeological field surveys be initiated in areas previously undisturbed prior to construction at the Orono Substation replacement site. On April 13, 2011, Xcel Energy submitted a consultation letter with a copy of the Phase Ia Report to the SHPO requesting SHPO written agreement with the Phase Ia Report findings and recommendations for the Project. The SHPO responded by letter on May 12, 2011, and concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase Ia Report (see Appendix E). The SHPO indicated that a full field survey needs to be performed at two locations within the Project area. Xcel Energy will continue to work with the Minnesota SHPO to determine the appropriate next steps for the Project. Mitigative Measures As determined in the Phase Ia Report, no property listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites is located at or near the Project. However, several previously recorded cultural resource properties were located within one mile of the proposed Project area, and surveys are recommended for specific previously undisturbed Project locations. Xcel Energy implement the SHPO recommendations and will continue to work with the SHPO regarding possible impacts from the Project. If there is an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during Project construction, Xcel Energy will stop construction activities and consult with a professional archaeologist and the Minnesota SHPO to determine the proper course of action. If a cultural item or feature is determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, it will be avoided or mitigated before construction resumes. 6.5 Natural Environment 6.5.1 Air Quality Potential air quality effects related to transmission facilities include fugitive dust emissions during construction, exhaust emissions from construction equipment, and ozone generation during Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 52 transmission line operation Qackson et al., 1994). All of these potential effects are considered to be relatively minor, and all but the ozone effects are short-term. State and federal governments currently regulate permissible concentrations of ozone and nitrogen oxides. Ozone forms in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Air pollution from cars, trucks, power plants, and solvents contribute to the concentration of ground -level ozone through these reactions. Currently, both state and federal governments regulate permissible concentrations of ozone and nitrogen oxides. The national standard is 0.075 parts per million ("ppm") during an 8 -hour averaging period. The state standard is 0.08 ppm based upon the fourth -highest 8 -hour daily maximum average in one year. The only potential air emissions from a transmission line result from corona, and such emissions are limited. Corona consists of the breakdown or ionization of air within a few centimeters immediately surrounding conductors and can produce ozone and oxides of nitrogen in the air surrounding the conductor. This process is limited because the conductor electrical gradient of a 115 kV transmission line is usually less than that necessary for the air to break down. Typically, some imperfection such as a scratch on the conductor or a water droplet is necessary to cause corona. Ozone is not only produced by corona, but also forms naturally in the lower atmosphere from lightning discharges and from reactions between solar ultraviolet radiation and air pollutants such as hydrocarbons from auto emissions. The natural production rate of ozone is directly proportional to temperature and sunlight and inversely proportional to humidity. Thus, humidity (or moisture), the same factor that increases corona discharges from transmission lines, inhibits the production of ozone. Ozone is a reactive form of oxygen and combines readily with other elements and compounds in the atmosphere. Because of its reactivity, it is relatively short-lived. There are currently no non - attainment areas designated in Minnesota (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). During construction of the proposed transmission line, minor emissions from vehicles and other construction equipment and fugitive dust from right-of-way clearing will occur, but will be limited. Air-quality impacts during the construction phase will also be temporary. The magnitude of construction emissions is heavily influenced by weather conditions and the specific construction activity. Exhaust emissions, primarily from diesel equipment, will vary according to the phase of construction, but will be minimal and temporary. Adverse impacts on the surrounding environment will be minimal because of the short and intermittent nature of the emission and dust -producing construction phases. Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy will employ BMPs to minimize the amount of fugitive dust created by the construction process. Tracking control at access roads and wetting surfaces are examples of BMPs that will be used to minimize fugitive dust. Based upon this, Xcel Energy anticipates no significant effects to air quality from the Project; therefore, no additional mitigative measures are proposed. 6.5.2 Water Quality The water resources located within the Project are identified in Appendix B-6 (see also Table 4). Although areas of the Project, such as a portion of the Orono Substation site, have a greater elevation Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 53 than the surrounding wetland areas, the entire Project is located within the 100 -year floodplain (FEMA, 1994), and within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD"). The MnDNR Public Waters Inventory ("PWI") identifies lakes, wetlands, and watercourses over which the MnDNR has regulatory jurisdiction. The statutory definition "public waters" and "public waters wetlands" can be found in Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, subd. 15 and 15a. A MnDNR License for utility to Cross Protected Waters is required for designated PWI crossings. Two wetland areas are crossed by the Project (see Appendix B-6) which are designated as "unnamed (27-916 W)" and "unnamed (27-917 W), and require a MnDNR license. (MnDNR, 2010d). These are discussed below in Section 6.5.3. Potential groundwater impacts associated with overhead electric transmission lines are typically associated with the construction of the lines and structure placement. Examples of potential impacts include the clearing of rights-of-way leading to erosion into nearby streams and wetlands, vibrations from construction equipment resulting in sedimentation being released into shallow aquifers and the drilling of foundations for towers into shallow aquifers. Groundwater impacts are not anticipated during the construction of the Project. Aquifers in the area of the Project are not typically considered to be shallow in nature, therefore, sedimentation as a result of construction activities is not expected to occur. Potential impacts on water quality resulting from ground disturbance (e.g., excavating, grading and traffic) are limited to the construction phase of the Project substation replacement and new transmission structures and lines, when sediment could possibly reach surface waters. Mitigative Measures No significant impacts to water quality are anticipated from the Project. Xcel Energy will apply erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the potential for discharge to surface waters. Implementation of BMPs to prevent water quality impacts and the construction, restoration, and maintenance of the transmission line are discussed in Sections 5.1.4, 5.1.5 and 5.1.6. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") stormwater permit will identify additional mitigation measures, if necessary. In addition, standard erosion control measures identified in the MPCA Stormwater BMP Manual will be followed. During construction, Xcel Energy will control construction activities to minimize and prevent material discharge to surface waters and groundwater. If materials do enter surface waters or groundwater, they will be promptly removed and properly disposed of to the extent feasible. Disturbed surface soils will be stabilized at the completion of the construction process to minimize the potential for subsequent effects on surface water and groundwater quality. 6.5.3 Wetlands Large wetland complexes and small isolated wetlands are located in and around the Project site. A summary of wetlands within and near the Project is located in Table 13 and shown in Appendix B-6. Some of these wetlands are adjacent to the various lakes that lie near the proposed Project. For the proposed transmission line off of Xcel Energy property, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") National Wetlands Inventory ("NWI") was reviewed to assess which wetlands may be present within the requested transmission line route width for the Project (see Appendix B-6). The Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 54 NWI has not been field verified for a portion of the Proposed Route off of Xcel Energy property, and sometimes contains inaccuracies. However, it is a good tool for initial wetland identification and assessment. Xcel Energy engaged Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ("Westwood") to perform a wetland delineation of the 16 acre Orono Substation site and prepared a Wetland Delineation Report (dated July 2, 2010). The wetland area within the 16 acre site was identified as a type 3 Palustrine Emergent ("PEM") (Shallow Marsh) wetland. Additionally this wetland is classified as seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched ("PEMCd"). The dominate vegetation within the wetland consisted of cattail and reed canary grass, with lesser amounts of Box Elder. The vegetation within the upland areas of the site transitioned from hydrophytic vegetation in the wetland areas to non-hydrophytic vegetation in the upland areas. Westwood prepared the Wetland Delineation Report (dated July 2, 2010); Xcel Energy submitted the Wetland Delineation Report to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") on August 4, 2010; the MCWD issued a Notice of Application for the delineation and requested comments on August 10, 2010; and the MCWD issued a Notice of Decision accepting the wetland delineation on September 14, 2010. The Wetland Delineation Report can be found in Appendix F along with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA"), Notice of Decision (dated September 14, 2010) by the MWCD. In total, two wetlands were identified within the 400 foot wide route width for the proposed transmission line (see Appendix B-6). One additional wetland was identified just outside of the 400 foot wide route width. Overall, the 400 foot transmission line corridor extends approximately 3,136 feet and encompasses approximately 28.8 acres, of which approximately 13.63 acres (47%) are wetlands. Approximately 3.29 acres of the 75 foot right-of-way required for the transmission line are wetlands. Based upon preliminary structure locations and design spans nine transmission structures will be necessary for the proposed Project. It is estimated that five or six of these structures will fall within or on the edge of wetlands (see Appendix B-2 and B-6). The wetland present within the Proposed Route is classified as a Palustrine type wetland. Other wetlands near the Project site are also Palustrine type wetlands. The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetation within the wetland crossed on the 16 acre Orono Substation site consists of emergent vegetation with a mixture of grasses, cattail, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (see Wetland Delineation Report in Appendix F). The wetland present on the Orono Substation site is a large portion of PWI unnamed (27-916 W) crossed by the Project. The other PWI unnamed (27-917 W) crossed by the Project appears to have once been connected to unnamed (27-916 W) and likely will be of similar make up. Both of these wetlands are identified as public water wetlands (MnDNR 2010d). However, human impact in the form of residential development has since separated these two wetlands for construction of a road within the HFA. The proposed Project will have minor, mostly short term effects on surface water resources and associated wetlands. Most potential effects on surface waters and wetlands will be related to construction of the proposed transmission line across the existing wetlands. The Project may require wetland and water resource approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"), MnDNR, Hennepin County and the MWCD. USACE administers the federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. A license from the MnDNR is required to cross public water wetlands. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 55 Appendix B-6 shows wetland locations and Table 13 summarizes the wetlands located within the 75 -foot -wide easement and 400 -foot -wide corridor width associated with the Proposed Route. Table 13 Wetlands within the Proposed Route Township Range Section Wetland Wetlands Within 75 -foot -wide Easement Type' Wetland Area (acres) 118 23 29 PEM 0.44 118 23 30 PEM 2.85 Subtotal 3.29 Wetlands Within 400 -foot -wide Route Width 118 23 29 PEM 2.15 118 23 30 PEM 11.48 Subtotal 13.63 Based on the USFWS - Cowardin Classification System for wetlands. Wetland types include: PEM — (Palustrine Emergent). Approximately 3.29 acres of wetlands are located within the 75 -foot wide easement area and 13.63 acres of wetlands are located within the 400 foot wide route width of the Proposed Route. Because the proposed transmission line easement will be 75 feet wide, potential permanent impacts to wetlands will be limited to the areas where structures will be located and operated, as well as removal of vegetation for construction and operation of the overhead transmission line. Therefore, permanent wetland impacts are anticipated to be much less than the wetland areas indicated in Table 13, and a minimal amount of wetland conversion is expected for the Project. Temporary impacts from construction vehicles and equipment would occur in the areas needed to access the transmission structure locations for construction. The final locations of the transmission structures has yet to be determined. Similar to the Proposed Route, the USFWS' Cowardin System classifies the majority of wetlands affected by Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 as Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded or wet meadows. Approximately 2.05 acres of wetlands are located within the 75 -foot wide easement area of Alternative Route 1, approximately 1.26 acres for Alternative Route 2, approximately 2.05 acres for Alternative Route 3 and approximately 4.08 acres for Alternative Route 4. For similar reasons noted above, wetland impacts within the Alternative Routes are expected to be much less than the area of wetlands located within the easement area. Wetlands crossed by the Proposed and Alternative Routes may be jurisdictional to the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Once the route is finalized and permitting requirements determined, Xcel Energy will submit the Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects to the USACE's St. Paul District, MnDNR, and Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District ("SWCD"), if needed. Xcel Energy anticipates the Project will be authorized, if needed, under the USACE's General Permit ("GP")/Letter of Permission ("LOP") permitting program. Application materials will include information necessary for the USACE to make its jurisdictional determination for impacted wetlands. The joint application will also be subject to MnDNR, Hennepin County SWCD and MCWD review and regulation under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 56 According to the Clean Water Act, Section 401 water quality certification is required for activities that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. On non -tribal lands in Minnesota, such as the Orono Substation site and Proposed Route, the MPCA administers Section 401 water quality certification. If the USACE authorizes the Project under its GP/LOP permitting program as expected, the MPCA waives its Section 401 Water Quality Certification authority. Although the Orono Substation, and to a lesser degree the surrounding residential lots, have a greater elevation than the wetland areas, the entire Project is located within the 100 -year floodplain (FEMA, 1994) and is designated as Zone A. The 100 -year floodplain maps indicate areas with a one percent chance of being inundated by water in any given year. The Zone A designation for this area means that no flood base elevations have been designated. The crossing of the 100 -year floodplain occurs in upland areas as well as wetland areas. Although the Orono Substation and first 410 feet of proposed transmission line leaving the substation site is located within the 100 -year floodplain, the elevation (983) of this area is much greater than the surrounding wetlands areas (964). Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy will obtain a MnDNR License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters from the MnDNR Division of Waters because the proposed transmission line passes over, and across wetlands designated as state public waters (unnamed 27-916 W and 27-917 W), under Minn. Stat. 5 84.415. This license will include specific requirements for the PWI crossing. In addition to implementation of storm water BMPs and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP'� during construction, Xcel Energy will implement the requirements of the MnDNR license to cross the PWIs. In addition to the wetland delineation that was conducted at the existing Orono Substation site, Xcel Energy will conduct wetland delineation of the Proposed Route for the new transmission line. During construction, the most effective way to minimize impacts on wetland areas will be to span wetlands to the extent possible. In addition, crossing wetlands with equipment will be avoided except where necessary. Where wetlands must be crossed to pull in the new conductors and shield wires, workers may be required to walk or drive equipment across ice in the winter. These construction practices will help prevent soil erosion and ensure that construction vehicles and equipment fueling and lubricating will occur at a distance from wetlands. Xcel Energy will follow standard erosion control measures identified in the MPCA Stormwater BMP Manual, such as using silt fencing to minimize impacts on adjacent water resources. Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through appropriate construction practices. Construction crews will maintain sound water and soil conservation practices during construction and operation of the facilities to protect topsoil and adjacent water resources and minimize soil erosion. Practices may include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil, and stabilizing restored soil. Crews will avoid major disturbance of individual wetlands and drainage systems during construction. This will be accomplished by strategically locating new access roads and spanning wetlands and drainage systems where possible. The Project design will incorporate spacing of structures to span wetlands and streams to the extent possible. However, it is possible that some transmission structures could be placed within wetlands; any necessary permits will be obtained after final design is completed and prior to starting construction. When it is not feasible to span the wetland, construction crews will use several methods to minimize impacts: Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 57 • When possible, construction will be scheduled for when the ground is frozen; • Crews will attempt to take the shortest route when they access the wetland; • The structures will be assembled on upland areas before they are brought to the site for installation; and • When construction during winter is not possible, construction mats will be used where wetlands will be affected. Xcel Energy will obtain the required permits if waters of the United States, as defined by the USACE, or wetlands, as defined under the Minnesota WCA, are affected. No impacts to the identified floodplain are anticipated from the Project. However, Xcel Energy will design the Project to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts by siting transmission structures outside of the floodplain and controlling storm water runoff from the replacement substation site, to the extent possible. 6.5.4 Flora Land use within Hennepin County varies greatly from major metropolitan centers to industrial use, rural residential use and agricultural use. Although the majority of the land within Hennepin County is used for agriculture, the land adjacent to the proposed Project is larger developed residential parcels, undeveloped association land, wetlands or undevelopable park land (see Appendices B-8 and B-9). Other land uses adjacent to or within the proposed Project include undeveloped open and herbaceous and forest land. Forest lands in the area primarily consist of deciduous forest types (e.g., maple, oak). On February 17, 2011, Xcel Energy requested that the MnDNR provide Natural History Inventory System ("NHIS") data related to the Project site. In its March 31, 2011 letter, the MnDNR did not identify any rare flora features near the Project location. See Appendix C.1. The majority of trees within and near the Project are associated with residential areas and the Baker Park Reserve. In total the requested 400 foot corridor encompasses approximately 28.8 acres, of which trees cover occurs on approximately 2.7 acre. Removal of vegetation and trees and impacts to wetlands will be minimized to the extent possible through detailed Project design, siting of transmission structures and construction methods. Mitigative Measures Xcel Energy has selected the Proposed Project Route and design of the proposed Orono Substation replacement within Xcel Energy property to avoid occupied residences, private land and associated trees as much as reasonably possible. In addition, where possible the new transmission line will be located during detailed design and during construction to avoid existing trees. To minimize impacts on trees, only trees located within the transmission line right-of-way, and expanded substation areas, or those trees that will affect the safe operation of the transmission line will be removed. Trees outside the right-of-way that may need to be removed will primarily include trees that are unstable and could potentially fall into the transmission facilities. Xcel Energy will work with landowners to Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 58 modify the proposed construction area such that vegetation and tree removal is avoided to the extent possible. 6.5.5 Fauna Wildlife within the area of the Project consists primarily of deer, small mammals, waterfowl, raptors, and perching birds (MnDNR). These species are typically observed in areas that are primarily open and agricultural, with limited opportunities for nesting and cover. Threatened species and species of concern in near the Project are discussed further in Section 6.6 below. The land use at and within the vicinity of the proposed Project is predominantly residential or undeveloped wetland. The primary potential impact presented to fauna by transmission lines is the potential injury and death of migratory birds such as raptors, waterfowl, and other large bird species. The electrocution of large birds, such as raptors, is more commonly associated with small distribution lines than large transmission lines. Electrocution occurs when birds with large wingspans come in contact with two conductors or with a conductor and a grounding device. Xcel Energy transmission and distribution line design standards provide adequate spacing to eliminate the risk of raptor electrocution and will minimize potential avian impacts of the proposed Project. Wildlife could also temporarily be displaced and a small area of habitat could be lost from the Project transmission line right-of-way during construction. Wildlife that inhabits trees that may be removed for the Project, along with wildlife that inhabits other undeveloped areas, will likely be temporarily displaced. Similar tree habitats are found on land adjacent to the Proposed Route; therefore, it is likely that these species will only be displaced a short distance. In September 2010 and January 2011, Xcel Energy requested comments from MnDNR regarding impacts on wildlife in the vicinity of the Project. In a letter dated March 31, 2011 the MnDNR identified two avian species near the Project location, including Trumpeter Swans and Bald Eagles. Of these species, the Trumpeter Swan has a State status of Threatened and the Bald Eagle has a State status of Special Concern. See Sections 6.6 and 8.1.6 and Appendix C.1 for more information regarding this correspondence. Mitigative Measures Displacement of fauna is anticipated to be minor and temporary in nature, and no long-term population -level effects are anticipated. Xcel Energy has been working with various state and federal agencies over the past 20 years to address avian issues as quickly and efficiently as possible. In 2002, Xcel Energy entered into a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the USFWS to work together to address avian issues throughout its service territories. This includes the development of Avian Protection Plans ("APP") for each Upper Midwest state Xcel Energy serves: Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The primary methods Xcel Energy uses to address avian issues for transmission projects include: • working with resource agencies to identify any areas that may require marking transmission line shield wires or using alternate structures to reduce collisions (resource agencies include the MnDNR, USFWS, and the USACE); and • attempting to avoid areas known as major flyways or migratory resting spots. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 59 Xcel Energy's transmission line design standards provide adequate spacing to eliminate such risks, so it is unlikely that any birds will be electrocuted as a result of the proposed Project. In addition to the mitigation Xcel Energy proposes above, the MnDNR recommends two measures to avoid impacts on rare features within the Project site (MnDNR) (see Appendix C.1). These recommended MnDNR measures include the following: • due to the documented presence of Trumpeter Swans, a state -listed threatened species, in close proximity to the proposed Project, use of bird diverters on overhead lines near lakes and rivers, or other areas that may attract large concentrations of waterfowl; and discuss in the Route Permit Application if the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect the Trumpeter Swan and, if so, any avoidance or mitigation measures that will be implemented. Avian collisions are possible in areas where agricultural fields serve as feeding areas, as well as in wetlands and on open water. However, the Project site is not located near agricultural fields but is located near many existing transportation and utility corridors, as well as other infrastructure (e.g. residences). Therefore, these species are likely already acclimatized to human development. Xcel Energy is working with the MnDNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist to determine appropriate and applicable mitigation measures to address these concerns regarding the Project. Mitigation measures specific to those species identified by the MnDNR as threatened or species of concern are also discussed in Section 6.6. 6.6 Rare and Unique Natural Resources A request for a MnDNR NHIS search and comments regarding rare species and natural communities for the Project was submitted to the MnDNR on February 17, 2011. The results of the MnDNR NHIS response dated March 31, 2011 are included in Appendix C.1. The following assessment is based on MnDNR response, a review of the Natural Heritage Database that is licensed to Xcel Energy by the MnDNR, and other state and federal rare species and natural community information. The MnDNR NHIS database was queried to obtain the locations of rare and unique natural resources across the Project Site. Queries to the NHIS database often display species that either do not have a status or are of special concern (referred to as "SPC" in the tables below). Species or communities that do not have a status, or are classified as special concern, have no legal protection in Minnesota. Only potential impacts on non -aquatic species with legal protection (threatened and endangered) are discussed below. Within one mile of the proposed Project routes, the NHIS database identified one rare and unique species. See Appendix C.1. The identified species included the Trumpeter Swan. The Trumpeter Swan is listed as threatened at the state level. The Trumpeter Swan is typically found in shallow marshes and lakes. Additionally, the NHIS database identified one additional species (Bald Eagle), one animal assemblage (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area), one vascular plant (American Ginseng) and two native plant communities (Undetermined Class and Red Oak -Sugar Maple -Basswood Forest Type). Although the NHIS database identified these additional resources they have a State listing status of either special concern or N/A. Due to their State status these additional resources Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 60 have no legal protection in Minnesota. Table 14 summarizes the species found, their habitats, and their state status for the proposed Project. Table 14 Rare and Unique Resources Near the Proposed Project Common Name Scientific ,. of Most Recent Name • • Species Trumpeter Swan Cygnu Not provided 2009 THR S2B Shallow buccinators by NHIS Marshes, and response Lakes Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Not provided 2005 SPC S3B, S3N Near rivers, leucocepbalus by NHIS large lakes response and other areas of large open water American Ginseng Panax Not provided 1995 SPC 53 Rich quinquefolius by NHIS hardwood response forests Animal Assemblage Colonial Waterbird NA Not provided 1998 N/A SNR NA Nesting Site by NHIS response Native Plant Community Native Plant NA Not provided 1995 N/A SNR NA Community, by NHIS Undetermined Class response Red Oak -Sugar NA Not provided 1988 N/A S2 NA Maple -Basswood by NHIS Forest Type response a At the state level, "THR" refers to species listed as threatened, "SPC" refers to species of special concern, and "N/A" refers to native plant communities, geological features, and/or colonial waterbird nesting sites that have no legal status. In addition, Minnesota also assigns a rank to listed species. This rank reflects the known extent and condition of that species. Ranks range from S1 (in greatest need of conservation action in the state) to S5 (secure under present conditions), and SNR (rank not yet assessed). Wetlands will be avoided to the extent possible as discussed above in Section 6.5.3 and the nearest lake (Katrina Lake) is approximately 1,000 feet north from its nearest point to the Proposed Route. Therefore, the Trumpeter Swan is unlikely to be affected. Since the Proposed Route and the Alternative Routes are all within a relatively short distance from each other it has been assumed that the NHIS database would be similar for the Proposed and Alternative Routes. See Appendix G-4. Mitigative Measures To mitigate potential impacts on species occupying wetland communities, structures and poles will be placed so that the conductor spans waterbodies, watercourses, and wetlands to the extent possible. Sediment will be controlled so that it does not reach aquatic and wetland habitats. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 61 To prevent impacts on the Trumpeter Swan, to the extent possible and applicable, Xcel Energy intends to adopt the mitigation measures recommended by the MnDNR (see Appendix C.1), and Xcel Energy will continue to work with the MnDNR to appropriately implement such measures. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 62 7.0 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTES The extent of the area used to compare the Proposed and Alternative Routes vary depending on the applicable siting factors, including: i. aesthetics, cultural values, recreation, public services, tourism, electrical system reliability, flora and fauna were identified within the Project location; u. rare and unique natural resources and archaeological and historic resources were identified within an approximate one -mile radius of the Project location; iii. air quality, water quality, route specific design issues and existing infrastructure were identified within the requested 400 -foot route width of the Project route centerline; iv. residences, noise, or public health and safety were identified within 200 feet of the Project route centerline; and V. wetlands, floodplains, and flora were identified within the 75 -foot -wide easement width or the Proposed Route. For each siting factor, the potential effect of the each route is briefly summarized or it was determined there was no effect for the factor. There are no anticipated effects for several siting factors including: noise, displacement of residents, cultural values, tourism, public services, infrastructure, public health and safety, forestry, air quality, water quality, public water crossings, mining, electrical system reliability, agriculture and loss of prime farmland. For other siting factors, the effects for the Proposed and Alternative Routes are similar, including: archaeological resources, historic resources, floodplains, flora, fauna, rare and unique resources, and forested areas. Table G.2 in Appendix G summarizes Xcel Energy's application of the factors set forth in Minn. R. 7850.4100 for the Proposed and Alternative Routes. In general, in comparison to the Alternative Routes, the Proposed Route has no impacts on these factors, less impacts on these factors or similar impacts to these factors than the Alternative Routes. The primary differences between the Proposed Route and the Alternative Routes are the effects on the following siting factors: recreation, existing rights-of-way, and wetland crossings. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Route has fewer impacts compared to the Alternative Routes as follows: The Proposed and Alternative Routes generally cross the same type of landscape in a predominantly undeveloped open setting. To minimize impacts on these land uses, the Proposed Route parallels the BNSF railroad right-of-way for 57 percent of the route, while Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 follow existing road or railroad right-of-way for 37, 43, 44, and 0 percent of their routes, respectively. Alternative Route 4 follows an existing GRE transmission right-of-way for approximately 3,130 feet (84 percent) of this route; The Proposed Route will cross approximately 2,140 lineal feet of wetland. Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 will cross approximately 1,760, 750, 1,760 and 2,370 lineal feet of Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 63 wetland, respectively. The Proposed Route will affect approximately 2 acres more of wetlands than Alternative Route 2 assuming a 75 -foot -wide route width in each route; • Except for replacing existing transmission Structure 076 which is located within existing right-of-way on Baker Park Reserve property, the Proposed Route is outside of the Baker Park Reserve property. Three of the four Alternative Routes enter the Baker Park Reserve Property and would require new right-of-way, creating new impacts; • Except for the existing Line 0831 conductors, the Proposed Route does not cross the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12 or the Metropolitan Council's sewer line, however three of the four Alternative Routes cross these infrastructures; and • Xcel Energy is in discussions with two private landowners to move the portion of existing Line 0831, that is on their respective residential properties, north onto HFA land. Relocating this portion of Line 0831 is only associated with the Proposed Route. None of the Alternative Routes would relocate existing transmission facilities off residential property. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 64 8.0 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS 8.1 Agency Contacts and Response 8.1.1 Notice to Local Government Units Xcel Energy provided a notification letter to the City of Orono, the LGU for the Project on January 10, 2011. See Appendix C.2. This letter indicated that Xcel Energy intended to apply for a Route Permit for the proposed Project from the Commission. The notification letter to the LGU complies with the notice requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216E.03, subd. 3a. Xcel Energy has not to date received response regarding the Project from the City of Orono after this notification. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the proposed Project from the City. The City subsequently voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(b), and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4 (see Appendix C, C.3). Xcel Energy then initiated the State permitting process for the Project. Xcel Energy has had an opportunity to meet with the City and other LGUs during meetings conducted in June and August 2010. These meetings are discussed further in Section 8.3. 8.1.2 Notice to Other Agencies and Interested Parties Xcel Energy also provided notice of the Project and requested comments in a letter on January 10, 2011, to several non-LGU, agencies and interested parties associated with the Project. The purpose of the letter was to provide notice of Xcel Energy's plan to obtain a Route Permit from the Commission and request for comments on the proposed Project. See Appendix C.2 for the non- LGU mailing list and a copy of this letter. 8.1.3 Natural Resource Conservation Service In a letter dated January 20, 2011, the NRCS Environmental Review and Justice Program indicated that since the Project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act are not applicable to the Project (see Appendix CA) 8.1.4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service In an email dated February 8, 2011, the USFWS indicated that no Federally listed or proposed species and /or designated or proposed critical habitat is present within the action area of the proposed Project. The USFWS did recommend that given the proximity to the Baker Park Reserve and the crossing of the wetland between the proposed Orono Substation replacement and the BNSF railroad right-of-way that bird flight diverters be installed on the shield wire of the proposed transmission line crossing this wetland. Additionally, the USFWS did recommend that if any maintenance work were to take place on the existing transmission Line 0831 within the Baker Park Reserve that bird flight diverters also be placed on the shield wire of the transmission line for the portion that crosses the Baker Park Reserve. (See Appendix C.5). Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 65 8.1.5 Minnesota Department of Transportation In a letter dated October 14, 2010, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") indicated that the proposed location of the new 115 kV transmission line would be an improvement over the existing 69 kV GRE Line BD location, which it indicated would be removed, and that MnDOT does not have any concerns with the scope of the Environmental Assessment for the Project2. (See Appendix C.6). It should be noted that MnDOT misunderstood that the existing GRE 69 kV transmission line is to be disconnected from the existing Orono Substation, that it will not be connected to the replacement substation, and that GRE will re-route this line around the replacement substation. Xcel Energy will discuss this misunderstanding with MnDOT. 8.1.6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Xcel Energy submitted two formal consultations to the MnDNR in letter form requesting comments on the proposed Project. The first letter was sent to the MnDNR in September of 2010 and the second letter was sent in January of 2011. At this time, no response from the MnDNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecological contact has been received for the Project. Xcel Energy also requested a review of the Minnesota NHIS on February 17, 2011, to determine if rare plants, animals, and natural communities or other significant natural features are known to occur within the Project Area (see also Section 6.6 above and Appendix C.1). On March 31, 2011, the MnDNR provided the Natural Heritage Review for the Project. The MnDNR identified one rare and unique species, within approximately one mile of the Project. (see Appendix C.1). As discussed in Section 6.6, the species includes the Trumpeter Swan. The Trumpeter Swan is typically found in shallow marshes and lakes. As discussed in Section 6.5.6, the MnDNR indicated that no rare or unique flora related resources with State protection were present within one mile of the proposed Project. Xcel Energy is currently working with the MnDNR to determine appropriate and applicable mitigation measures (see Sections 6.5.6, 6.5.7, and 6.6) for the Project. 8.1.7 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office In a September 2010 letter, Xcel Energy notified the Minnesota SHPO of the Project and requested comments concerning cultural resources associated with the Project. On October 21, 2010, the SHPO responded via letter that due to the nature of the Project, it recommends that an archaeological survey be completed (see Appendix C.7). In response to the SHPO request, Xcel Energy engaged URS to complete a Phase Ia literature review and prepare a Phase Ia Report for the Project. On April 13, 2011, Xcel Energy submitted a consultation letter with a copy of the Phase Ia Report to the SHPO requesting SHPO written agreement with a Phase Ia Report findings for the Project, which recommended that for the majority of the proposed Project no archaeological or historic resources will be affected by construction or operation of the transmission line Project. However, the Phase Ia Report did identify one area of concern at the proposed Orono Substation replacement site. The Phase Ia 2 Note that the MnDOT response refers to the scope of the Environmental Assessment which was going to be prepared in the local review process, before the City referred the Project to the MPUC. See Section 8.3. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 66 Report recommended that archaeological field surveys be initiated in areas previously undisturbed prior to construction at the Orono Substation replacement site. On May 12, 2011, the SHPO responded to the April 2011 request and it concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase Ia Report (see Appendix C.7). Xcel Energy will continue to work with the Minnesota SHPO to determine the appropriate next steps for the Project. 8.1.8 Metropolitan Council In a letter dated October 26, 2010, Metropolitan Council indicated that the potential visual and noise impacts to the Baker Park Reserve should be evaluated in the EA. Additionally the Metropolitan Council indicated that the proposed transmission line will cross Council forcemain interceptor 8352 which is a 12 -inch outside diameter ductile iron pipe. The Metropolitan Council requested that preliminary plans be sent to Scott Dentz for review and comment prior to construction to assess potential impacts to the interceptor pipe. (See Appendix C.8). 8.1.9 Three Rivers Park District The Three Rivers Park District provided three responses to request for comment regarding the Project (October 26, 2010, November 12, 2010, and January 26, 2011) (see Appendix C.9). In its October letter the Three Rivers Park District indicated that it appeared no new construction from the Proposed Route will affect the Park District Property. Comments in the November letter from the Three Rivers Park District related to the evaluation of the Alternative Routes. The Three Rivers Park District indicated that it had concerns with at least one of the Alternative Routes discussed at meeting between the Three Rivers Park District and Xcel Energy on November 1, 2010. Of concern, was that one of the Alternative Routes discussed was proposed to be located within the Baker Park Reserve and that under Minnesota State Statutes the Park District is charged to operate, maintain, protect, improve and preserve the park system. Further the November letter explained that under the State Statute, diversion of Park District property for any purpose other than those for which the lands were acquired will be strongly opposed by the Three Rivers Park District. In the January letter, the Three Rivers Park District thanked Xcel Energy for informing the District of the proposal to expand and upgrade the Orono Substation and construct the new 115 kV transmission line. 8.2 Identification of Landowners A list of the nine landowners surrounding the Project location is included in Appendix D.1. Addresses have been redacted from the landowner list and comment forms due to privacy concerns. 8.3 Public Participation In developing the route alternatives, Xcel Energy consulted with local, state, and federal agencies associated with the area with which the Project lies. As discussed in Section 8.1, Xcel Energy provided a notification letter to the Project's LGU on January 10, 2011. Xcel Energy also provided a request for comment letter to various agencies that may have interest in the Project on January 10, 2011. Agencies generally responded with specific environmental or other data (e.g., special status Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 67 species, land use maps) and applicable guidelines, rules, and regulations, a summary of which is provided in Section 8.1 above. Xcel Energy will continue to communicate with these agencies throughout the permitting process. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy initially sought local review of the Project from the City of Orono. On August 20, 2010, Xcel Energy applied for a CUP from the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(a), and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 1. On December 13, 2010, the Orono City Council voted to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting of the Project to the Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216E.05, subd. 1(b), and MN Rule 7850.5300 subp. 4. The following summarizes the several meetings Xcel Energy has participated in during the route development and initial permitting processes. • City of Orono Planning Commission meeting on September 20, 2010; • Meeting with Three Rivers Park District on November 1, 2010; • City of Orono City Council meeting on December 13, 2010; • Meetings with surrounding landowners on various dates; and • Meeting with BNSF on March 17, 2011. Comments from the public are included in Appendix D.2. In general, public comments have been related to the following; a concern that the proposed Project will decrease property values of homes within the HFA, EMF risks, environmental issues and mosquito control. Additionally, many of the HFA home owners commented to the City of Orono on their preference that the City maintain local review of the project and not refer it back to the Commission. Xcel Energy has been working with the City, various agencies, and landowners to establish an acceptable route that results in the least impacts practicable on current infrastructure, residences, and future development. On several occasions last winter and spring of 2011 Xcel Energy met or corresponded with the two landowners who own residences where existing Line 0831 crosses their respective properties. The parties discussed options for routing the new proposed 115 kV transmission line that would connect to Line 0831, and the possibility of moving existing Line 0831 from their properties onto adjacent HFA land. At this time, the parties are working toward an agreement to move existing Line 0831 from these properties and re-routing Line 0831 on HFA property which parallels the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Xcel Energy is also working with representatives of HFA concerning this matter. Xcel Energy also met with the landowner west and adjacent to the existing substation site regarding replacement of the substation, placement of transmission structures, site grading and vegetation. Xcel Energy will continue to work with this landowner. Xcel Energy also corresponded and met with BNSF representatives concerning placement of the new 115 kV transmission structures and conductors at least five feet from existing BNSF railroad right-of-way. On May 9, 2011, Xcel Energy submitted to BNSF an "Application for Wireline Crossing or Longitudinal' for the proposed transmission line. On June 2, 2011, BNSF approved Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 68 the Permit Application for Wireline Crossing or Longitudinal to place the new structures at least five feet from the existing BNSF railroad right -of way. 8.4 Required Permits and Approvals The following Table 15 identifies federal, state, and local permits and approvals that could potentially be required for the Project. Table 15 Potential Required Permits jurisdiction • Permit Requirement Federal USACE, Clean Water Required if dredging and filling activities will occur within jurisdictional Act, Section 404 wetlands. If the proposed activities are not eligible for coverage under the Permit General Permit or Letter of Permission, an Individual Permit will be obtained from the USACE. State Commission, Route Required for any transmission line of 100 kV or greater and greater than Permit 1,500 feet in length. MnDNR, License to Required if any work is necessary in public waters. Cross Public Lands and Waters MnDOT, Utility Required to place utilities on Minnesota trunk highway right-of-way. Permit MPCA, NPDES/SDS Required under the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for General Stormwater Construction Activity where construction activities will cause more than Permit for one acre of ground disturbance. Construction Activity MPCA, Section 401 Required if the USACE requires an individual permit for wetland dredging Water Quality and filling activities. Certification Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 69 jurisdiction and RequirementPermit Hennepin County Culvert Required if extending/connecting culverts. (Sometimes also referred to as Extension/Connectio an Entrance Permit.) n Driveway Permit Required for any changes proposed to driveway access or driveway widening along county highways, including field driveways, residential driveways, commercial driveways and public street access. (Sometimes also referred to as an Access Permit.) Moving Permit Required whenever legal dimensions and/or axle weights are exceeded per (Hauling) county regulations. Oversize/ Overweight Required on all county highways. May be required to move over -width Vehicle Permit loads on county, township, or city roads. Utility Permit Required for work proposed in the county highway rights-of-way. Work requiring this permit includes installation and repair of telephone cables, power lines, gas lines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water mains, ditch grading, culvert installation, etc. Wetland Permit Required for activities in wetlands, if needed. Working in the Right- Required if constructing on, across, or under the right-of-way of a county of -Way Permit highway. For the other permits listed in Table 15 above, and any additional permit requirements identified during subsequent agency consultations, Xcel Energy will acquire the necessary authorizations and develop the appropriate plans associated with any permit or authorization (e.g., stormwater pollution prevention management plan prior to construction. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 70 9.0 REFERENCES Anfinson, S. 1990. Mn/Model: An Archaeological Predictive Model for Minnesota. Available online at http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to200/ papl5l/p151.htm. Accessed July 2010. City of Orono. Flood Plain Map. Available online at http: / /docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPart3ANIAP3A6FIoodplains.pdf Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Land Use Plan 2010 Map. Available online at http: / /docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART3BMap3B62030LandUsePlanasrevised 61610.pdf Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Comprehensive Trail System Plan Map. Available online at http: / /docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART4EMAP4E3Trails.pdf Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Parks, open Spaces, Trails and Recreational Areas Map. Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART4EMAP4E2Parks.pdf Accessed February 2011. Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. Sanitary Sewer System Index Map. Available online at http: / /docs. ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART4CMAP4C4SewerSystemIndexMap.p df Accessed February 2011. Accessed February 2011. City of Orono. City of Orono Zoning Map. Available online at http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/MapsforCity/CMPPART3BMAP3BSZoning.pdf Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ecological Classification System. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222/index.html Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Bigwoods Subsection. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Mb/index.html. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. PWI Maps Download. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/download.html. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Animals. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nr/index.html. Accessed March 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated March 31, 2011 from L. Joyal (Natural Heritage Review Coordinator) to D. Daniels (URS Corporation). Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office. Letter dated October 21, 2010, from M.A. Heidemann (Manager, Government Programs and Compliance) to J. Sedarski (Xcel Energy). Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 71 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis and Regulation. Available online at http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/Sound.pdf. Accessed February 2011. Minnesota River Basin Data Center. Glaciation. Available online at http://mrbdc.wrc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/glaciers.html. Accessed February 2011. Scholten, A., S. Joosten, and J. Silney. 2005. Unipolar Cardiac Pacemakers in Electromagnetic Fields of High Voltage Overhead Lines. Toivoen, L., J. Valjus, M. Hongisto, and R. Metso. 1991. The Influence of Elevated 50 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers: The Role of the Lead Configuration and Programming of the Sensitivity. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Available online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/j sf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_ 10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US2748580& geoC ontext=01000US%7C04000US27%7C 16000US27485 80&_street=&_county=orono&_cityTo wn=orono&_state=04000US27&_zip=&_Lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=& pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuld=factsheet 1&ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_SAFF&_ci_nb r=null&gr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_industry= Accessed February and March 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Available online http: / / factfinder. census.gov/servlet/ SAFFFacts?_event= ChangeGeoContext&geo_id= 050 OOUS27053&—geoContext=01000US%7C04000US27%7C 16000US2748580&_street=&_co unty=Hennepin&_cityTown=Hennepin&_state=04000US27&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on &ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuld=factsheet_1 & ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr—name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword =&_industry= Accessed February and march 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County QuickFacts. Available online at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/27053.html. Accessed February and March 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hennepin County. Available online at http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Manuscripts/MN053/0/hennepin.pdf Accessed February 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture. Available online at http: / /www. agcensus.us da.gov/Publications /2007 / Online_Highhghts / County_Pro files /Minnesota /cp27053.pdf. Accessed February 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service — Soil Data Mart. 2008. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online at http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2011. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA. Hosted by the Minnesota DNR Data Deli. 2006. Available online at http://deh.dnr.state.mn.us/. Accessed February 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Counties Designated "Nonattainment." Available online at http://epa.gov/airquahty/greenbk/mapnpoU.html. Accessed October 2010. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 72 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 73 10.0 DEFINITIONS Following are a list of definitions for technical terms used in this Application: Avian Of or relating to birds. Breaker Device for opening a circuit. Bus An electrical conductor that serves as a common connection for two or more electrical circuits; may be in the form of rigid bars or stranded conductors or cables. Conductor A material or object that permits an electric current to flow easily. Corona The breakdown or ionization of air in a few centimeters or less immediately surrounding conductors. Double circuit The construction of two separate circuits at the same or different voltage on the same structures to increase capacity of the line. Electric Field ("EF") The field of force that is produced as a result of a voltage charge on a conductor or antenna. Electromagnetic The term describing the relationship between electricity and magnetism; a quality that combines both magnetic and electric properties. Electromagnetic Field The combination of an electric (E) field and a magnetic (H) field, such as in ("EMF") high frequency radiating fields. For the lower frequencies associated with power lines, EMF should be separated into electric and magnetic fields. Electric and magnetic fields arise from the flow of electricity and the voltage of a line. The intensity of the electric field is related to the voltage of the line. The intensity of the magnetic field is related to the current flow through the conductors. Electromotive Force The force (voltage) that produces an electric current in a circuit. Excavation A cavity formed by cutting, digging, or scooping. Fauna The collective animals of any place or time that live in mutual association. Flora The collective plants of any place or time that live in mutual association. Grading To level off to a smooth horizontal or sloping surface. Grounding To connect electrically with a ground; to connect some point of an electrical circuit or some item of electrical equipment to earth or to the conducting medium used in lieu thereof. Habitat The place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows. High Voltage Overhead and underground conducting lines of either copper or aluminum Transmission Lines used to transmit electric power over relatively long distances, usually from a ("HVTL") central generating station to main substations. They are also used for electric power transmission from one central station to another for load sharing. In Minnesota, a HVTL is a conductor of electric energy and associated facilities designed for and capable of operating at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more either immediately or without significant modification (associated facilities include, but not be limited to, insulators, towers, substations, and terminals). See Minn. Rules 7850.1000, Subp. 9. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 74 Ionization Removal of an electron from an atom or molecule. The process of producing ions. The electrically charged particles produced by high-energy radiation, such as light or ultraviolet rays, or by the collision of particles during thermal agitation. Magnetic Field ("MF") The region in which the magnetic forces created by a permanent magnet or by a current -carrying conductor or coil can be detected. The field that is produced when current flows through a conductor or antenna. Mitigate To lessen the severity of or alleviate the effects of. Neutral to Earth The term NEV is used to describe a measurable level of voltage which may Voltage ("NEV') occur between a metal object and the adjacent floor or earth. Oxide A compound of oxygen with one other more positive element or radical. Ozone A form of oxygen in which the molecule is made of three atoms instead of the usual two. Raptor A member of the order Falconiformes, which contains the diurnal birds of prey, such as the hawks, harriers, eagles, and falcons. Sediment Material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers. Stray Voltage A condition that can occur on the electric service entrances to structures from distribution lines, not transmission lines. More precisely, stray voltage is a voltage that exists between the neutral wire of the service entrance and grounded objects in buildings such as barns and milking parlors. Transmission lines do not, by themselves, create stray voltage because they do not connect to businesses or residences. Transmission lines, however, can induce stray voltage on a distribution circuit that is parallel to and immediately under the transmission line. Substation A substation is a high voltage electric system facility. It is used to switch generators, equipment, and circuits or lines in and out of a system. It also is used to change AC voltages from one level to another. Some substations are small with little more than a transformer and associated switches. Others are very large with several transformers and dozens of switches and other equipment. Ultraviolet Radiation A portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths shorter than visible light. Voltage Electric potential or potential difference expressed in volts. A unit of electrical pressure, electric potential or potential difference expressed in volts. The term used to signify electrical pressure. Voltage is a force that causes current to flow through an electrical conductor. The voltage of a circuit is the greatest effective difference of potential between any two conductors of the circuit. Voltage Drop The difference in voltage between two points; it is the result of the loss of electrical pressure as a current flows through a resistance. Waterfowl A bird that frequents water; especially a swimming game bird (as a duck or goose) as distinguished from an upland game bird or shorebird. Wetland Wetlands are areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water and support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 75 11.0 ACRONYMS ACSS ALUMINUM CORE STEEL SUPPORT APPLICATION MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ROUTE PERMIT APPLICATION BMPS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BNSF BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY CEF CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FINDING COMMISSION MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMPANY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY CON CERTIFICATE OF NEED CUP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DBA DECIBELS EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EFS ELECTRIC FIELDS ELF EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY EMF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS ECS ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FEMA FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY GP GENERAL PERMIT GRE GREAT RIVER ENERGY HFA HUNTINGTON FARMS ASSOCIATION HVTL HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINE ICNIRP INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON -IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION IEEE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS KCMIL THOUSAND CIRCULAR MIL KV KILOVOLT KV/M KILOVOLTS PER METER L LEVEL DESCRIPTORS L10 THE DBA THAT MAY BE EXCEEDED 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME WITHIN AN HOUR L50 THE DBA THAT MAY BE EXCEEDED 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME WITHIN AN HOUR LEF LARGE ENERGY FACILITY LGU LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS LOP LETTER OF PERMISSION MA MILLIAMPERES MCWD MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT MFS MAGNETIC FIELDS Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 76 MG MILLIGAUSS MNDNR MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MNDOT MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MPCA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MPUC MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION NAC NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION NEMA NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION NERC NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION NESC NATIONAL ELECTRIC SAFETY CODE NEV NEUTRAL TO EARTH VOLTAGE NHIS NATURE HERITAGE INFORMATION SYSTEM NIEHS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES NPDES NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM NRHP NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NWI NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY PEM PALUSTRINE EMERGENT WETLAND PEMCD PALUSTRINE EMERGENT SEASONALLY FLOODED PARTIALLY DRAINED/DITCHED WETLAND PLS HISTORIC PUBLIC LAND SURVEY PPM PARTS PER MILLION PPSA POWER PLANT SITING ACT PSCW PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN PWI PUBLIC WATERS INVENTORY SHPO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SWCD SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SWPPP STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN USACE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS USDA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USFS U.S. FOREST SERVICE USFWS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WCA MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT WHO WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Orono Project June 7, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 77 APPENDIX A APPLICANT'S NOTICE LETTER TO COMMISSION OF INTENT TO USE ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING PROCESS MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 �& XcelEnergya March 17, 2011 Dt. Butl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 3.50 5t. Paul, MN 55101 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 ---Via Electronic E'IWYW Re: Notification of Intent to File Route Permit Application Cinder 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 ('Keel 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 Transinission lane 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 OM 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 f -om 69 kV to 115 kV which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the tisk 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/ot 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' cphCG. , 1 se Sedarsld Senior 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 APPENDIX B Figures MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 �t Picnic A11wl/r-. - �. I � „•�!-•'- �^� _ - - 1031' __ } NIOR' RIS '0ABAKER "Cou PARK Coo Y -- - - - - t• + �• + 1 • ;!�H. - i� .�- _ •-_.. -mac ' Ka.tri"a 'ter ' Lake O . so � 9a9 ' - 'qaf� F iCa�pground �� '*�pAt c sm 1061 y tip fvt %� J _ r. �. Yom: n. vn • '� l'r]Si' +..-..FiU1� [ - i r -I IF. R'i1Y' y. .25 11; (H- rY .J witfS 1 C1'Yl ti -TI iP:t R k 97t �OK Lake classen �. (.11011 1�gh S -__ — � � � - � � .. .#. _rte , W � f— _ y �•, .,:;� 999 `� - '- - --.. - - -�,' r ._ ��'rl;y � • -��. _ Vj ±4. .� �.• ,'�;� ;� ill. _ �' .[.f"�j� i ^— Proposed Route `� - �_ • -�� ... T� .- :�e� .---� — Existing Xcel Energy 115 kV Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD 'ers'' �. II - • n�=•• 3` - p� o r 00000 GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed ■■■■■■■ Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD ® Existing Orono Substation Property Existing Substation ti FIGURE B-1 e 7 XcefEnergy• ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT GENERAL VICINITY MAP z000 Topographic Map Source: Hennepin ORONO MINNESOTA USGS Excelsior, Mlnn. County DRN BY: TS DATE: 2/17/11 MPUC Docket No. Feet Quad dated 1997CHK'D BY: DD I DATE: 2/17/11 E002/TL-11-223 To replace -existing structure -07 (Line 08311) r be replaced with) new,structu re 076-1 076-3 (New) �ayzd L-- Jd�/^ od 0 Developed, High Intensity �.. - 0 Developed, Medium Intensity Q Developed, Low Intensity _■ Q 0 (N w Developed, Open Space 7 '7 w �-•- _ 7 � r'' I —' Q Deciduous Forest y1 I a� I Hunt__ 0 Evergreen Forest Q Mixed Forest Cultivated Crops Q Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Q Pasture/Hay Q Grassland/Herbaceous F-71 Shrub/Scrub Proposed Route Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD 000 GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed . Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line k Existing Xcel Orono Substation e U Existing Structure OProposed Structure 300 Existing Orono Substation Property -71 Baker Park Reserve Feet • Hennepin County MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I L FIGURE B-3 Y ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW �eN 6 `P . 6'E 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT L licel}r LAND USE LAND COVER `"'"""""`'` v Landuse Data Source: ORONO, MINNESOTA O USGS National Land DRN BY: TS DATE: 3/24/11 Cover Database 2001 F 1111111W, CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 3/24/11 • Hennepin County MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 ol 74, � mow_. S 4 City of Orono Zoning D Planned Residential Development D One Family Rural Residential - 5 Acres '—' One Family Rural Residential - 2 Acres nuY:.z^a'. :-sx us rv.:s ,�*. r''+c�'wa� aT:fQ:s�e.i >�-sr<� A•R•,�• . - y .y._ Proposed Route Existing Xcel Energy 11 5k Line 0831 .••Existing GRE 69kV Line BD GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed ■ Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Existing Xcel Orono Substation Existing Orono Substation Property Baker Park Reserve I I s 300 Feet 'h'01140i' of rr !� FIGURE B-4 m Y ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW a 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6 L )kWEnergr ZONING ORONO, MINNESOTA DRN BY: TS DATE: 3/24/11 MPUC Docket No. __d r CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 3/24/11 E002/TL-11-223 Vii•' ' � F � H r'l �y'rY�f"7'd +�'. � .• ~���': f ^.Ian.:.::'; 1 �' ... }2ec-......::vr^..5�r3„s-''r�.l. .x�;t�r,F-ter. v{ ;r= ,5 F' Y ...vyp �. J.1 -r hr . a. .. "i vv� - i r 4 E” �r ;fir. I�p�a y: ivY 1- •'rte•;'=n:.+� _ _ _ � w.r, ,u. n W n i K. v. rF'ra ftl' r � .. �• Proposed Route �[ Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 �. � Existing GRE 69kV Line BD •e* GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed i f Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Existing Xcel Orono Substation 0 Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area 300 s ;. Park 1 Existing Orono Substation Property Feet l' 4 - .r t Y. 1: - R:F v�. 7. i f - A F• Y: �i d' kr-.. 1� C-Vy AE. ,.n ,( dn w� SO* Y � .y. l e r. S -TYi _ .'�• f�'�,e _ �'.-•• .. .� III F �• 1� r H -� _ '*1 `ter • 'i yt S 4 ,.+.. h �e t r' F - I e'1 )o IFn 1 �f Y ,I Y� a g.i 1. „�: .�.:-:. Ali' �� ..� � � ! •�. __ y 3' h�:• r FIGURE B-7 Pve N �: Y �� ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW ' 6<h m 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT G xw�r PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS o ORONO, MINNESOTA �T `' '- DRN BY: TS DATE: 3/24/11 460 CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 3/24/11 • Hennepin County MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 • - Cam�'d j ods, f : �.•, MORRIS •Ii BARER • ice._ ., .:::..'F? —� - � __ Tom. �_��, � Q• '�i 4 sF +" _ 'w.�_ CUL] PARK'- Katrina Lake r - �� !fie • �. _-- - -� O �L� _ ;•, - ��- j - it s ' + M that. rseem - - Nn f HE -MAC -036 O (-(I( N P.�.RK _ c. Lake HE-ORC-0430 ; , Cdassc7i HE-ORC-042 a _970_ HE-ORC-052 , _ .J'Uron - - HE-ORC-035 - r �=hSc HE-ORC-0080 ` -4 HE-ORC-007 HE-ORC-055 7 4 HE-ORC-006 HE-ORC-047 HE-ORC-016 HE-ORC-045 HE-ORC-044 HE-ORC-046 FIE=INC=033(D� �'• HE-ORC-015 HE-ORC-013 HE-ORC-058 HE-ORC-014 0 Architectural Property 4 • : _- 1 I Historic Structure L �- _-7 ? .� �q, o • — Proposed Route X025 �•. 1 - - y _ �+rl'.r, • - - Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 ��� _= ;`:• �4a0-' rr — Existing GRE 69kV Line BD — 00000 GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed�,�� ■■■■■- Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD j .. ®Existing Orono Substation Property ��`�. r. • � j•�"�' Previous Cultural Field Inventories Q Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Stubbs Ba -y e XcefEnergy• FIGURE B-9 ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ,...,. •.... 11 ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES & HISTORICAL SITES z000 Feet Topographic Map Source: USGS Excelsior, Minn. Quad dated 1997CHK'D Hennepin County ORONO MINNESOTA DRN BY: TS DATE: 2/17/11 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 BY: DD I DATE: 2/17/11 N i \� I I � No 722 - Scale Proposed Relocation of GRE Line BD I I PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9 ' I� Existing GRE 69kV Line BD _ EAST - WEST REFERNECE LINE Proposed Fence for Replacement Substation Proposed Structure 076-4 Proposed Stormwater Pond - ,. o l,I o 0 WIM ' V7 1� ti � am • "Delineated Wetland Area" Proposed Relocation of GRE Line BD Electrical Equipment Enclosure \ Existing Pole Existing GRE 69kV Line BD EEE \ 7 Wetland Delineation ,p \ 24' Wetland Buffer ^O'bOs \ \� 30 Wetland Buffer Boa \ ® Existing Q Switchgear Existing Drivpu,�., dy 6TH AVE N ---------------- 7 xcelEnergy, FIGURE B-10 ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION PLAN 0 Hennepin ORONO, MINNESOTA County DRN BY: TS I DATE: 3/30/11 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 I� W Z o,J PROPERTY W w LINES FIZ �W O LL Zl w 0 Q � = Y U Oa • "Delineated Wetland Area" Proposed Relocation of GRE Line BD Electrical Equipment Enclosure \ Existing Pole Existing GRE 69kV Line BD EEE \ 7 Wetland Delineation ,p \ 24' Wetland Buffer ^O'bOs \ \� 30 Wetland Buffer Boa \ ® Existing Q Switchgear Existing Drivpu,�., dy 6TH AVE N ---------------- 7 xcelEnergy, FIGURE B-10 ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION PLAN 0 Hennepin ORONO, MINNESOTA County DRN BY: TS I DATE: 3/30/11 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 APPENDIX C PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Appendix C.1 MnDNR NHIS RESPONSE MPUC Docket No. E002/TLr11-223 Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 OEPARTMENTOF Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: lisa.joyal@state.mn.us NATURAL RESOURCES March 31, 2011 Mr. Dustin Daniels URS Corporation, Inc. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Correspondence # ERDB 20110246-0002 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Orono Substation Expansion; TI 18N 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 hiip://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 (NNIS), 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 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/ep2 regioncontacts.httnl). 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 T118N R23W S29; Hennepin County Animal Assemblage Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site) #810 N/A SNR T118N R23W S20, T118N R23W S29; Hennepin County Vascular Plant Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng) #192 SPC S3 TI 18N R23W S19, TI 18N R23W S30; Hennepin County Native Plant Community (This may not represent a complete list. Also see MCBS Native Plant Communities at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us.) Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class #2260 (NPC Code:) N/A SNR TI 18N R23W S19, TI 18N R23W S30; Hennepin County Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory, Forest Type #937 (NPC Code: MHs38c) N/A S2 T 117N R23W S6, T 118N R23W S31; Hennepin County GNR 1998 12140 G3G4 1995-05-18 21574 GNR 1995-05-18 21573 GNR 1988-07-01 8456 Records Printed = 6 Minnesota's endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. For plants, taking includes digging or destroying. For animals, taking includes pursuing, capturing, or killing. Copyright 2011, Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Page 1 of 1 Printed March 2011 Index Report of records within 1 mile radius of.- f:Data Datavalid for one year ERDB #20110246-0002 - Orono Substation Expansion Multiple TRS Hennepin County Rare Features Database: Federal MN State Global Last Observed Element Name and Occurrence Number Status Status Rank Rank Date EO ID # Vertebrate Animal Cygnus buccinator (Trumpeter Swan) #2 THR S213 G4 2009-08-06 28342 T122N R26W S34, TI 16N R24W S9, TI 16N R24W S4, TI 17N R21W S6, T [...]; Carver, Hennepin, Sherburne, Wright County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #2110 SPC S3B,S3N G5 2005-04-04 26998 T118N R23W S29; Hennepin County Animal Assemblage Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site) #810 N/A SNR T118N R23W S20, T118N R23W S29; Hennepin County Vascular Plant Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng) #192 SPC S3 TI 18N R23W S19, TI 18N R23W S30; Hennepin County Native Plant Community (This may not represent a complete list. Also see MCBS Native Plant Communities at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us.) Native Plant Community, Undetermined Class #2260 (NPC Code:) N/A SNR TI 18N R23W S19, TI 18N R23W S30; Hennepin County Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory, Forest Type #937 (NPC Code: MHs38c) N/A S2 T 117N R23W S6, T 118N R23W S31; Hennepin County GNR 1998 12140 G3G4 1995-05-18 21574 GNR 1995-05-18 21573 GNR 1988-07-01 8456 Records Printed = 6 Minnesota's endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. For plants, taking includes digging or destroying. For animals, taking includes pursuing, capturing, or killing. Copyright 2011, Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR 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 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 (vl .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). -O- 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. S 1 = 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-11-223 Appendix C.2: Local Government Units and Other Interested Parties and Agencies Contacted Table C.2 identifies the LGUs and other interested parties and agencies that were provided the January 10, 2011 90 -day Project Notice Letter. The letter included in the proceeding pages is representative of the letter that was sent to each person listed below. TABLE C.2 Local Government Units and Other Interested Parties and Agencies Contacted 'W Agency City of Orono Contact Name Melanie Curtis Title Planning and Zoning Coordinator Addre�� P.O. Box 66 City Crystal Ba State Zip MN 55323 Phone 952-249-4627 Fmail mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - St. Paul District Melissa Jenny Project Manager 190 5th Street E., Suite 401 St. Paul MN 55101-1638 651-290-5367 Melissa.M.Jena usace.arm .mil U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Minnesota Tony Sullins Field Supervisor 4101 Amercian Boulevard E. Bloomington MN 55425 612-725-3548 tony_sullins@fws.gov Minnesota Department of Agriculture Gene Hu son Commissioner 625 Robert Street North St. Paul MN 55155-2538 651-201-6015 gene.laagoson,state.mn_us Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Central Region Melissa Do eralski Regional Environmental Review Ecologist 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul MN 55106 651-259-5738 melissa.d erals ' state.mn.us Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Division of Waters Kate Drewry Area Hydrologist 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul MN 55106 651-259-5845 kate.drew state.mn.us Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Re 'on 3 Joe Kurcinka Regional Director 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul MN 55106 651-259-5800 Fred.Ben so state.mmus Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lisa Jo 1 Natural Heritage Review Coordinator 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul MN 55155 651-259-5109 lisal dm.state.mn.us Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Susan Heffron Environmental Review Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul MN 55155-4194 651-757-2417 susan.heffron state.mn.us Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metro District Stacy Kotch Transportation Program Specialist 2 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul MN 55155-1899 651-366-4635 Stac .Kotch state.mn.us Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metro District Scott McBride Metro District Engineer 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul MN 55155-1899 651-234-7703 scott.mcbride@state.mn.us Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources John Jaschke Executive Director 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul MN 55155 651-296-0878 ' hn.'aschke bwsr.state.mn.us State Historic Preservation Office Mary Ann Heidemann Manager of Government Programs and Compliance 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. St. Paul MN 55102-1903 651-259-3456 ma ann heidemann mnhs.or Natural Resources Conservation Service - Minnesota Don Baloun State Conservationist 375 Jackson St., Suite 600 St. Paul MN 155101 651-602-7900 don.baloun mn.usda. ov Metropolitan Council Peter Bell Chair 390 Robert St. N St. Paul MN 55101 651-602-1390 eter.bellmetc.state.mn.us Metropolitan Council Robert McFarlin District 3 390 Robert St. N St. Paul MN 55101 763-557-9749 robert.mcfarlin metc.state.mn.us Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Eric Evenson District Administrator 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Dee haven MN 55391 952-471-0590 eevenson minnehahacreelc.org Hennepin County Board Jan Callison District 6 Commissioner 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis MN 55487-0241 612-348-7886 'an.calliso co.henne in.mmus Hennepin County Department of Research, Planning, and Development Kristine Martin Director 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis MN 55487-0241 612-596-7639 kristine.martin co.henne in.mn.us Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services Carl Michaud Director 417 N 5th Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis MN 55401-3206 612-348-3777 Hennepin County Transportation Carolyn Fackler, PE Permits Office 1600 Prairie Drive Medina MN 55340 612-596-0336 caro .fackler co.henne in.mn.us Hennepin County Office of the County Administrator Richard Johnson County Administrator 300 S. 6th St. Minneapolis MN 55487-0241 612-348-8228 county.admin@co.hennepin.mn.us Hennepin County SoR and Water Conservation District District Jeffrey Beck Public Relations P.O. Box 26628 St. Louis Park MN 55426 952-935-1600 no email address Three Rivers Park District Sara Watt District 1 Representative 3000 Xenium Lane North P lymouth MN 55441 763-559-9000 Three Rivers Park District I Dell Miller Releations 13000 Xenium Lane North P lymouth MN 55441763-559-6754 The following is an example letter that is representative of the documentation that sent to each person listed in Table C.2. MPUC Docket No. E002/TLr11-223 XcelEnergy RE1PONSIRLE U NATRRE" January 10, 2011 Melanie Curtis Planning and Zoning Coordinator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 414 Nicoilet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 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 '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 29 and the NW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West. The Project area is bounded by State Highway 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the north, County Road 6 (6t" 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''/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'/4 mile and then cross an additional 1/4 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. §§ 21613.243 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 ioseph.g.sedarski(a)xcelenergv.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 Appendix C.3 City of Orono Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 -0 4 CITY of ORONO {_ Municipal Offices ti �t Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Chris Rogers Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 414 Nicollet Mail 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 use permit (CUP) for property located at 3960 Sixth Avenue. We 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 proposal (if any). ✓ $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 mcur6s@cl.orono.mn.us should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.cLorono.mn.us Page 1 of 1 5edarski, Joseph G From: Mike Gaffron [MGaffron@ci.orono.mn.usj Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2A6 PM To: Sadarski, Joseph G Cc: Melanie Curtis Subject: Highway 12 Plan Sheets Attachments: 2005 TH 12 Erosion Control Sheets west of 6.12 intersection.pdf; 2005 Forcemain Relocation Sheets west of 6-12 intersection.pdf; 2005 Inpiace Utility 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 bed & tracks appear to have not been relocated west of the CR6/Hwy12 intersection, which is what I recall. They do show limits of construction and right -ref -way locations. Don't know whether these will resolve some questions, but they are all we have here. Mike Michael P. Gaffron Assistant City Administrator / Long Term Strategy City of Orono (Street Address) 275U Kelley Parkway (Mailing Address) P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay , MN 55323 Phone: (952) 249-4622 Fax: 1952) 249-4616 1/4/2011 -- \ -, �M el, q 0 !+; f \ kESH0 December 16, 2010 Dr. Burl W. Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 1217 1h Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Orono Substation Expansion City Zoning File 10-3486 PUC Docket No. E002/1 -R-10-957 Dr. Haar CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 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 Xcei Orono Substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North and construction of a new 115 kilovolt (W) transmission line (Project). On September 1, 2010, Xcel Energy notified the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of it's intent to seek local review and approval of the Project pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Minnesota Statute § 216E.05, subd. 3, and Minnesota Rule 7850.5300, subp. 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 eligible for local review. Subsequently, Xcel Energy made a partial application to the City for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review and approval, and initiated an Environmental Assessment (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 to notify you the Orono City Council voted on Monday, December 13, 2010, to refer review and permitting of the routing and siting for this Project 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 free to 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 Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.&orono.mn.us Appendix C.4 NRCS Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TLr11-223 United States Department of Hgricuiture o MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 375 Jackson Street, Suite 600 St. Paul, MAN 55101-1854 January 20, 2011 Mr. Chris Rogers Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55441-1993 IN REPLY REFER TO: Excel Energy — Orono Substation Expansion Dear Mr, Rogers: The Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has reviewed the above - referenced project. The project sponsors are not USDA program benefit recipients, thus the wetland conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security act, as amended, are not applicable. It should be noted, however, that actions by a non -USDA participant third party (project sponsor) which impact agricultural wetlands owned or operated by USDA participants, may jeopardize the owner/operator's USDA eligibility. If such impacts are anticipated, the owner/operator should contact the county Farm Service Agency (FSA) office to consider an application for a third party exemption. The following agencies may have federal or state wetlands, cultural resources, water quality or threatened and endangered species jurisdiction in the proposed project, and should be consulted. ■ Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) — Clean Water Act • US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — Endangered Species Act • Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) - Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) • State Historic Preservation Officer/State Archaeologist (SHPO) Finally, if as a result of your proposal you are affecting agricultural lands, and if any federal monies are involved, it is a requirement that a Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) site assessment be appropriately filed, Because of the location and type of activity proposed, this project may impact agricultural lands. If so, you should submit a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD -1006) for each Minnesota county with part one (1) filled out. Along with the AD -1006, send a detailed map of the area impacted. We will then complete the form and mail it back to you. FPPA land evaluations are conducted by local MRCS personnel who review the project for possible effects on unique, prime or statewide important farmland, You can find the FPPA form AD -1046 at htt :Ilwww.nres.usda.gov/pro,r4ms/f al. Please refer Helping People Help the Land An Equal Opporturrily Provider and Employer specific FPPA requests in Hennepin County to Kathryn DesForge, Area Resource Soil Scientist, at (763) 566-2941 or kathryn.desforge@mn.usda.gov. Sincerely, PAUL A. FLYNN Environmental Review and Justice Program cc: Kathryn DesForge, ARSS, MRCS, Brooklyn Center, MN 2 Appendix C.5 US FISH AND WILDLIFE Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 f f - "Sedarski, Joseph G" <Joseph.G.Sedarski@xcelenergy.com> �t -'A 02/09/2011 01:03 PM Good afternoon Mr. Horton: To "'Andrew_Horton@fws.gov"' <Andrew_Horton@fws.gov> cc "'Dustin _Daniels@URSCorp.com <Dustin_Daniels@URSCorp.com>, "Rogers, Christophei <Christopher. C. Rogers@xcelenergy.com >, "Kotz II, Eugi bcc Subject RE: Orono Substation Expansion Project 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 I 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 species becomes available, or new species are listed that may be affected by the project, consultation should be reinitiated. Thank you for your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (612) 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 ao�1N� esorgya n a P OPTFLN Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 October 14, 2010 Xcel Energy ATTN: Joe Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall — MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 SUBJECT: Orono Substation Expansion and 1151IN Transmission Line, P10-036 SW Quadrant of US 12 and 6°i Ave. N. Orono, Hennepin Ave Control Section 2713 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Orono Substation Expansion and 115kV Transmission Line Project, Mn/DOT has reviewed the information and has the following comments: The proposed location of the new transmission line will be an improvement over the existing 69kV GRE Line BD, which will be disconnected, since it will be located farther from the new US 12/County Road 6 interchange. Mn/DOT does not have any concerns with the scope of the EA. if the new transmission line runs along Mn/DOT right-of-way, a long form permit will be required. Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit foams are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsLip/titility. Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, MnDOT's Metro Permits Section, at (651) 23.4.7911. We look forward to reviewing the Environmental Assessment when it becomes available. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel fiee to contact me at (651) 234-7794. Sincerel 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, Area Engineer 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 County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MIsI 55323 Appendix C.7 SHPO Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TLr11-223 14Historical Minnesata Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE October 21, 2010 Xcel Energy Attn: Joe Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mail — MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Orono Substation Expansion and New 11 5k Transmission Line Project T118 R23 S29 SW, S30 SE, S32 NW Orono, Hennepin County PUC Docket Number: E0021LR-10-957 SHPO Number: 2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Due to the nature of the proposed project, we recommend that an archaeological survey be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, we will re- evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring post -glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary standards. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the NRfionai Histnric PrPservation Act of 1P615 and 360FR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 259-3456. Sincerely, Mary Ann Heidemann Manager, Government Programs and Compliance Enclosure: List of Consultants Minnesota Historical Soriety, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651-259-3000 , 888-727-8386 • www.mnhs.org 14 Minnesota Historical 5ocicty STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 12, 2011 Joe Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401-1993 RE: Orono Substation Expansion and Transmission Line Orono, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Phase 1a Literature Review submitted for the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Office by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800). Based on the information provided, we concur with the conclusions and recommendations of your consulting archaeologist that a full field survey needs to be performed at two locations within the project area: the 16 acre parcel proposed for expansion of the Orono Substation, and the landform previously identified as site 21 HE0162, being considered as a location for transmission structures. We look forward to reviewing results of that survey. Meanwhile, please call our archaeologist, David Mather, at (651) 259-3454, if you have any questions on our review. Sincerely, c r r Mary An Hei mann, Manager Government Programs and Compliance Nlrnnesata Flistodcaf Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 551-259-3000 , 888.727-8386 • www,mnhs.arg Appendix C.8 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 y� Metropolitan Council October 26, 2010 Xcel Energy ATTN: Joe Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall — MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Request for Comments on Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 11 5k Transmission Line Project Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments City of Orono Zoning Application # 10-3486 PUC Docket No. E0021LR-10-957 Council Review File No. 20780-1 Dear Mr. Sedarski: The Metropolitan Council (Council) received Xcel Energy's request for comments on the scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA) that will be prepared for the proposed Orono substation expansion and new 11 5k transmission line project. The Orono substation is located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North in Orono, Minnesota. The proposed project would completely rebuild the existing substation to increase its operating voltage from 69kV to 115kV, construct a new 0.5 mile 115kV transmission line to connect the substation to existing I I5kV Line 0831, and remove an unspecified length of existing GRE Line BD — 69kV. The following comments are offered that will need to be addressed 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 EA and the proposed disconnection and removal of power line GRE Line BD — 69kV through Baker Park Reserve 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 feet. To 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 w WW.metrocnu I-lcl[.org 390 Robert Street North • 5t. Paut. MN 55101-1805 • 1651) 602-1000 • Fax 1651) 602-1550 • TTY 16511 291-0904 An Equal OPPPF44160� Fuilitwwr' Appendix C.9 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 ThreeRivers PARK DISTRICT Three Rivers October 26, 2010 Park District Board of Commissioners Mr. Joe Sedarski Senior Permitting Analyst Sara Wyatt 414 Nicollet Mall - MP8 District 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Request for Comments of Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115kV Transmission Line Project Marilynn Corcoran, City of Orono Zoning Application #10-3486 District 2 PUC Docket No. E002/1-11-10-957 Dear Mr. Sedarski Mark Haggerty Three Rivers Park District (Park District) has reviewed the proposed Xcel Energy District 3 project as described in the Xcel Energy letter dated September 23, 2010 and as referenced by the PUC Docket No. E002/1 -R-10-957. As defined in your project description and attached Figure 1, it appears no new construction will affect Park Dale Woodbeck, District property. Vice Chair The Park District will work with Xcel Ener on the decommissioning of the existing Distrix a 9Y 9 9 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 Franzese 763.559.6759 or ddeveau(athreeriversparkdistrict.org, with questions or comments. District 5 Sinc rely, Larry Blackstad, Chair Appointed nald J. DeVeau, Director Department of Planning and Development DJD:lcl Barbara Kinsey Appointed C: Three Rivers Park District Del Miller, Intergovernmental Relations Manager John Barten, Director of Natural Resources Cris Gears Superintendent H:\WP\Lti I tKt,\UtvtAu Z01u\1u-1b-10--J Seaarski-xcei anergy Orono Substation-DJD.doc 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 nreefZivers PARK DISTRICT November 12, 2010 Three Rivers Park District Mr. Joseph G. Sedarski Board of Senior Permitting Analyst Commissioners Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall — MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Sara Wyatt District 1 RE: Proposed Orono Substation Expansion New 115 kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono Zoning Application #10-3486 PUC Docket No. E002/1 -R-10-957 Marilynn Corcoran, District 2 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Three Rivers Park District (Park District) understands that Xcel Energy proposes to expand the Orono substation and construct a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line Mark Haggerty as part of said project. The Park District also understands that in addition to the line District 3 identified in the original proposed substation project, Xcel Energy will evaluate routing alternatives for the proposed transmission line. One alternative transmission line route discussed at our meeting on November 1, Dale Woodbeck, 2010, is proposed within Baker Park Reserve, owned and operated by Three Rivers Vice Chair Park District. Under Minnesota State Statutes, the Park District is charged to District a operate, maintain, protect improve, and p p preserve the park system. Baker Park 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 Rosemary Franzese Statutes and Park District policy, diversion of Park District property for any purpose District 5 other than those for which the lands were acquired will be strongly opposed. Park District Policy XII is enclosed for your reference and use. In order for the Park District Board of Commissioners to consider the diversion of LarryAppoi to Chair public ark property, Appointed P P p p y, all alternatives must be considered and evaluated. This diversion includes, but not limited to, fee title ownership, easement, permit, temporary occupancy permit and temporary access. Barbara Kinsey The Park District insists that Excel Energy evaluate all options for the alternative Appointed 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 identified several components which need to be addressed and evaluated through an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process. Following is a partial list of Cris Gears the primary concerns that Three Rivers Park District desires to be addressed in the Superintendent EAW. These issues may need to be expanded based upon preliminary findings in the EAW. 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 Environmental Assessment 1. Project Title 2. Proposer 3. Identify RGU 4. Reason for EAW S. Project Location 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. Sincerely, onald J. DeVeau, Director Department of Planning and Development DJD:lcl 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 IS Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners rVh reeJfivers PARI4 DISTRICT Sara Wyatt January 26, 2011 District 1 Joseph G. Sedarski Marilynn Corcoran, Senior Permitting Analyst 0151FILt 2 xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401-1993 Mark Haggerty District 3 Dale Woodheck, Vice Chair District 4 Rosemary Frawese ODistrict S Larry Blackstad, Chair Appointed Barbara Kinsey Appointed Cris Gears Superintendent Dear Mr. Sedarski: 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 appreciate the update, and we look forward to hearing about the next steps in the process. Sincerely, Seth Nash Public Affairs Coordinator cc: Sara Wyatt, Commissioner, District 1 Del Miller, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Administrative Center, 3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559.9000 9 TTY 763.559.6719 ■ Fax 763.559.3287 ■ www.ThreeR!versParks.org Appendix C.10 MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Response MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 office of {` en4 secure r 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 95 76 Place East, 5u1re Silo, St. Paul, MN 551a1-2199 =W651.296,4026 tt}: 651.2%.2560 Fax. 6}1.297.7691 www .i umtlu:rCe, sW V.u1 n. us 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. Rules 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 and 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 Commission when it is completed (Minn. Rules 7850.5300, Subp. 5). Electronic filing (eFiling) of the environmental assessment is encouraged (hgps://www.edockets.state.nm.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 on the Commission's general notification list that a permit has been applied for from a local unit of government (Minn. Rules 7850.5300, Subp. 3). Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Ray Kirsch Energy Facility Permitting Office of Energy Security raymond.kirschgstate.mn.us 651-296-7588 cc: Burl Haar, Commission Bob Cupit, Commission APPENDIX D LANDOWNER LIST AND PUBLIC COMMENTS MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Appendix D.1 Landowner List MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Appendix DA: Landowners Table D.1 identifies the landowners affected by the Proposed Project. Table DA Landowners Affected by the Proposed Project Agency Contact Namc TitIc Three Rivers Park District Address 1 Cm, Plymouth statc MN Zip Other (PID #) 55441 38 29-118-23 32 0005 Three Rivers Park District Plymouth MN 55441 38 29-118-23 32 0006 B N & Santa Fe RR Co Property Tax Det Fort Worth TX 76161 38 29-118-23 33 0008 NSP Property Tax Det Minneapolis MN 55401 38 29-118-23 33 0009 B N & Santa Fe RR Co Property Tax Det Fort Worth TX 76161 38 30-118-23 42 0004 Paul & Nancy Fraser Long Lake MN 55356 38 30-118-23 44 0005 Paul Fraser Long Lake MN 55356 38 30-118-23 44 0006 David & Susan Wilson Long Lake MN 55356 38 30-118-23 44 0009 Robert & Mary Sansevere Long Lake MN 55356 38 31-118-23 110003 Kuruvilla Kalliva alil Long Lake MN 55356 38 31-118-23 110010 B N & Santa Fe RR Co Property Tax Det Fort Worth TX 76161 38 32-118-23 2100 6 MN DOT Director R/W Operations St Paul MN 55155 38 32-118-23 22 0002 MN DOT Director R/W Operations St Paul IMN 1 55155 38 32-118-23 22 0003 Brian Kerber I I Long Lake IMN 1 55356 38 32-118-23 22 0007 Appendix D.2 Public Comments MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Page l of l Sedarski, Joseph G From: Sedarski, Joseph G Seat: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:12 AM To: 'Steve.Persian' Cc: Persian, Kathy B., Rogers, Christopher C, Kotz 11, Eugene R Subject: RE: Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115V Transmission Eine Project Hi Steve, Yes, Chris and I are working on this project together and his call does relate to the materials we sent out. I am copying Chris and Gene Kotz, the Xcel Project Manager, on this response. Please contact us with you comments, or if YOU have any questions regarding this project. We look forward to your comments. Best Regards, Joe Joe Sedarski Xcel Energy I Responsible By Nature Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall, MP8, Minneapolis, MN 55401 P: 612.330.6435 C: 612.816,5073 1=: 612.573-1834 E: bsL eph. sedarskia-xcelenergy.com XCELENERGY_COM Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Steve.Persian [rnaiIto:Steve.Persian�7a target.com) Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:38 AM To: Sedarski, Joseph G Cc: Persian, Kathy B.; Steve.Persian Subject: Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115V Transmission Line Project Joseph, Thank you for sending information about the proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115V Transmission Line Project, I've also received a call from Chris Rogers. I'm assuming this call is related to this project. ;f you could, please pass along this note appropriately. My wife (Kathy) and l reviewed the packet of information you provided (dated September 28rh, 2014) and we have a few concerns about the proposed project. Within the next week or so, we'll pass these along and pian to work through these concerns collaboratively. Thanks, Steve Persian 1005 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN. 55356 11/16/2010 Sedarski, Joseeh G From: Rogers, Christopher C Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:42 AM To: Peter Schoon Subject: RE: EMF calcs Peter, Please steep in mind the EMF calculations are figured at worst case. They can vary quite a bit, as we saw with the readings we took from the existing 11 5k line when I came to your horne a few weeks ago. i understand the concerns you and the Homeowners Association have. As requested, we are looking into the alternative of routing the new line on the north side of Hwy '12. Feasibility and impacts, such as the ones you listed below will be analyzed with any alternative routes. Sincerely, Chris Rogers Xcel Energy 1 Responsible By Nature Siting and Land Rights Agent 414 Nicollet Mall MP -8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P: 512.330.5078 C: 512.202.0343 F:012-573-1861 E: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.corn ----Original Message ----- From: Peter Schoon[maitto:Pete ra@systemsupportsolutions.con)] Sent: Monday, October 25. 2010 10:00 AM To: Rogers, Christopher C Subject. RE: EMF talcs Chris, Thanks. The EMF levels look pretty bad. There is extreme resistance expressed by all members to placement of the line thrnLIgh Huntington Farms Home Owners' Association property. Just a whole host of issues for us and folks on the east side of six as well: 1. Substantial property value reductions well in excess of $1 million 2. EMF risks of childhood leukemia and adult brain cancers 3. Environmental issues 4. Wildlife issues 5. Hennepin County Mosquito Control District helicopter issues fi. Possibly Minnetonka Watershed issues I really think now that you will have a better potential to getting something bone if you can go on the north side of 12. Very truly, Peter M. Schoon 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55355 952 745-1-1 1 1 x915 (desk, cell) -—Original Message ----- From; Rogers, Christopher C [ma ilto:Christopher. C. Rogers@xceienergy.caniI Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9-31 AM To: Peter Schoon Subject: RE: EMF calcs Still waiting for Three Rivers Park to get back to me, I'll follow up with there again today. Chris Rogers Xcel Energy j Responsible By Nature Siting and Land Rights Agent 414 Nicollet Mall MP -8 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P: 612,330.6078 C: 612.242.0343 F' 612-573-1861 E: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy.com ----_Original Message ----- From: Peter Schoon [mailto:Peter@systemsupportsoiutions,com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5;29 AM To: Rogers, Christopher C Subject: RE: EMF talcs OK. Thanks. That should be goon for now. What have you learned about the northerly line routing (Baker site) so far? Very truly, Peter M. Schoon, Pres, System Support Solutions, Inc. 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55356 952 745-1111 x115 {desk, cell} Page 1 ❑ f 1 Sedarski, Joseph G From: Melanie Curtis [MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:18 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G; Rogers, Christopher C Subject: FW: Letter from Bruce Malkerson Regartding Land Use Application No. 10-3486 Attachments: Ltr to Orono Mayor and City Council. pdf FYI Melanie Curtis 12 952.249.4627 l ® mcuriis'ir ei.oronn.fnn.us From: Terri J. Smith [mailto:tjs@mgmllp.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:40 PM To: Jim White; Cynthia Bremer; Lili McMillan; Jim Murphy Urn u rphy@goldengate. net); Doug Franchot; 'lili4mayor@gmail,com'; Cynthia Bremer(cynthia.bremer@ogletreedeakins.com); Doug Franchot (doug@fra nchotassociates.com) Cc: Jessica Loftus; Mike Gaffron; Lin Vee; Melanie Curtis; Soren Mattick;'melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com'; 'michaei.kuruvilla@att.net'; 'pwfraser@gmail.com'; 'peter@systemsupport.com'; Bruce D. Malkerson; Howard A. Roston Subject: Letter from Bruce Malkerson Regartding Land Use Application No, 10-3485 Please see the attached letter from Bruce Malkerson. Terri Smith Legal Administrative Assistant to Bruce D. Malkerson MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct Dial 612.455.56511 Fax 512.455,2054 u @mgmllp.cam `YaM mcgmllpcom The information contained in this message is attorney-ellent privileged and confidentlai information intended only for use of the individual or entity to whim it was intended to be sent. If the reader aF this message is not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notifiied that any disseminabon, distribution, or topying of this communication is strictly prohibited, If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 612.344, 1111 or reply e-mail communication and delete the original message. Thank you. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE; As required by U.5. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U,5. Internal Revenue Code. 1/4/2411 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 1900 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH TOWER 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-344-1 1 1 1 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson Direct Dial No. 612.344.1699 Bruce.Malkerson@mgmllp.com December 10, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Orono Mayor Jim White (iwhiteC&ci.orono.mn.us) 3516 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 City Council: Cynthia Bremer (cbremer(d-),ci.orono.mn.us) 1030 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Lili McMillan (lmcmillan@ci.orono.mn.us) 1275 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Jim Murphy Omurphy@ olden ate.net) 30 Orono Orchard Road North Wayzata, MN 55391 Doug Franchot (dfranchot�7cr,ci.orono.mn.us) 2010 Colin Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Land Use Application No. 10-3486 Xcel Energy — 3960 Sixth Avenue North Substation Expansion CUP and Routing Permit Local Review Dear Mayor and City Council: We represent several of the neighbors who live on Hunt Farm Road in the City of Orono. We have just been retained to review the proposal by Xcel Energy ("Xcel") to expand the substation next to the eastern side of the neighborhood and to route a transmission line along the easterly edge of the neighborhood over a large, high quality wetland to Old Highway 12 and City of Orono Mayor and City Council December 10, 2010 Page 2 thereafter northwesterly on the southerly side of Old Highway 12 in or along a large, high quality wetland to a point on a lot within the neighborhood (see enclosed map). We received the Staff Report on this matter at approximately 2:30 p.m. today, when it was first made available, to be reviewed by you next Monday and, therefore, unfortunately, we have to respond late on Friday and send our response directly to you by email and to your home addresses so that hopefully you will have an opportunity to review our comments before the Council meeting on Monday night. We apologize for having to do so. We and our clients strongly recommend and request that the City Council not refer this matter back to the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") for review and approval. In this case, Xcel has sought local review and approval from the City of Orono because the project meets the exemption set forth in the statute as set forth in the City's Staff Report. The City Staff states that the they recommend that you defer the review of this application back to the PUC pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216.E05, subd. I (b) and Rule 7850.5300, subpart 4. The City has no legal duty to do so. We and our clients are concerned that if in fact this matter is referred back to the PUC, then the City will have limited opportunity to make sure that all environmental issues related to this proposed project are adequately addressed in the environmental assessment process. Moreover, and just as important, we and our clients know that the PUC does not have the expertise, and quite frankly, the desire to fully understand the impact of this project on the adjacent neighborhood, the wetlands that will be crossed by the new transmission line, and the substantial adverse impact of the new and larger substation and new transmission line on the value of the numerous homes in the neighborhood. Several of the homeowners have estimated that the reduction in value could be as high as 30% to 40% of the values of those homes if the project is built as currently proposed. As you know, if this matter is not referred back to Xcel, then the City has the opportunity to approve or deny the required conditional use permit. During the analysis of the application for the conditional use permit, the City can hear testimony relating to the relevant issues and determine whether or not the conditional use permit should be granted or denied, or only granted with conditions to minimize the adverse impact on the neighborhood and the wetlands. The conditional use permit standards set forth in the Orono Zoning Code are as follows: See. 78-916. - Granting of permit. (a) The planning commission may recommend and the council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: (1) Consistent with the community management plan; 1138559.DOC- 12/10/2010} City of Orono Mayor and City Council December 10, 2010 Page 3 (2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; (3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; (4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; (5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; (6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; (7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; (8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; (9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; (10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; (11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fames, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; (12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; (13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; (14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and (15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. An additional standard is as follows: Sec. 78-946. - Conditional use permit for essential services. A conditional use permit is required for all structures, including utility poles and rights- of-way, which are an integral part of a system for public transportation as for transmitting power, water, heat, communications, gas or sewage by any public utility. The council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. As you can see by the above standards, it is very important for the Orono Staff, Planning {138559.DOC- 12/10/20101 City of Orono Mayor and City Council December 10, 2010 Page 4 Commission and Council to be involved in the application of these very local standards to this Xcel application once it is finally completed. Only the City Staff, Planning Commission and Council will have the expertise and experience with such important local issues, and quite frankly only those at the City will have the desire to make sure that these standards are adequately applied to this matter. It certainly may be that a conditional use permit will be approved by the City once the applicant goes through the process, but we believe that the City will also require those sort of modifications or conditions of approval that you would typically require in any type of project to make sure that the Ordinance tests for a conditional use permit are, in fact, met by the applicant. We do not believe that the City Staff. the Planning Commission or the Council needs any Vecial_expertise or experience -in matters _relating—to the electrical_capacity of the substation or the transmission line itself. Those are not the issues here. The issues are purely and uniquely lgcal IMd use issues. The City has extensive experience and expertise -in those matters. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the Council meeting on Monday night, but several members of the neighborhood will be present to ask you not to refer this matter away from the City, and to specifically ask you to fulfill your duty, and the duty of the City, to stay directly involved in this matter and vote on the conditional use permit so, to the extent the neighborhood needs protection, the City can work to provide that protection during the review and approval process. We hope you will have a chance to inspect the neighborhood and talk to the neighbors before the Council meeting on Monday night. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, euwzk- 0. MZCA�)�� Bruce D. Malkerson I �' I. A . 4�� Howard A. Roston BDM/HAR/ts Attachment c: Jessica Loftus, City Administrator (iloftusQci.orono.mn.us) Mike Gaffron, Assistant City Administrator (mgaffronAci.orono.mn.us} Linda Vee, City Clerk (lveegci.orono.mn.us) Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator (mcurtis@,ci.orono.mn.us) Soren M. Mattick, City Attorney (smattickgck-law.com) 1138559.DOC- 12/10/2010} City of Orono Mayor and City Council December 10, 2010 Page 5 Melissa Fogelberg melissafogelbergAwellsfargo.com) Michael Kuruvilla (Michael. uruvilI@att.net) Paul Fraser (pwfraser kgmail.com) Peter Schoon (Peter@,systemssoport.com) {138559.DOC- 12/10/2010} Page 1 of 1 Sedarski, Joseph G From: Melanie Curtis [MCurtis e@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2018 92:17 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G; Rogers, Christopher C Subject: FW: Row of ten -story power poles, highline wires and large electrical sub -station expansion FYI — This was sent over the weekend, Melanie Curtis I W 952.249.4627 12 meurtis cz.gi.orono.mn.us From: Peter Schoon [mailto:Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2.53 PM To: Lili McMillan; Doug Franchot (doug@franchotassociates,com); Jessica Loftus; Jessica Loftus; Mike Gaffron; Lin Vee; Melanie Curtis; Jim White; Cynthia Bremer; Jim Murphy Um urphy@goldengate. net); Doug Franchot; lili4mayor@gmail.com; Cynthia Bremer(cynthia.bremer@ogletreedeakins.com) Cc: melissafogelberg@wellsfargo.com; michael.kuruvilla@att.net; pwfraser@gmail.com; 'Bruce D. Malkerson'; 'Howard A. Roston'; 'Peter Schoon' Subject: Row of ten -story power poles, highline wires and large electrical sub -station expansion Dear Concerned Orono Residents and Leaders, Just ran across this... The below link is of interest as it is a good example of a City (City of South St. Paul) granting a conditional use permit to Xcel Energy for a comparable 115KVA power line while requiring mitigation to human and environmental concerns. In this case, Xcel was issued the CUP on condition of the expenditure of $4,610,000 dollars additional ($5,000,000 vs. $390,000). In our case, mitigation could virtually be a wash if the project is just moved a few hundred feet North. htt ://www. oNverlinefacts.com/South%20St%2OPau1%2OResolution.htm But, to have the ability to affect the outcome, Orono, like South St. Paul, would have to "bite the bullet", stay in the loop, and not abdicate authority to the PUC. It is really not an overly complex set of criteria to consider as you will see from the above: referenced decision, and 1 submit it does fall within the City of Orono's normal authority domain. Please don't relinquish your opportunity to defend your city, its environment, and its citizens. This project will not only affect each and every one of us, but our children, grand children, and children's grand children for years, and years, and years to come. Very truly, Jet" R. Schoo4t 994 Hunt Farm Road Orono, MN USA 55356 952 745-1111 x115 (desk, cell) 1/4/2011 Resolution of South St. Paul City of South St. Paul Dakota County, Minnesota Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO.2001 -152 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY d/b/a XCEL ENERGY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UPGRADE OF A 11 5k TRANSMISSION LINE. BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of South St. Paul, Minnesota, as follows: SECTION ONE Recitals 1.01 Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy ("NSP") filed an application for a conditional use permit to upgrade its existing 115kV transmission line within the City of South St. Paul by adding a second I l5kV circuit and rebuilding the transmission line on monopole structures (the "Application") 1.02 A public hawing on the Application was held before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2001, following published and mailed notice as required by law. On June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted its findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation with respect to the Application ("Planning Commission Recommendation"), which was forwarded to the City Council. 1.03 By resolution adopted June 18, 2001, the City Council extended the time to complete processing the Application to August 7, 2001, for the reasons stated in the resolution. A certified copy of the resolution was sent by certified mail to NSP on June 20, 2001, and a receipt therefore was signed by a representative of NSP. 1.04 The following documents and materials were provided to the Mayor and each Council member and constitute part of the record on the Application: • Application; • Supplement to Application, including aerial photo of transmission line route, southeast Metro transmission system diagram, structure drawing, H -frame photograph, computer generated monopole in South St. Paul residential area, Van Hoven reroute, • EQB FIS negative declaration; • Commonwealth Associates Inc. ('EAI") executive summary report for the Transmission Line Steering Committee; • City Planner's report and recommendation to the Planning Commission; • Power Line Task Force May 30,2001, communication to the Planning Commission; • NSP slides presented to the Planning Commission On June 6, 2001; • Power Line Task Force slides presented to the Planning Commission on June 6, 2001; • Minutes of June 6,2001, Planning Commission meeting; • Power Line Task Force June 13,2001 communication; • Minutes of June 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting; and • Planning Commission resolution 2001-01 adopted June 13, 2001. 1.05 At its regular meeting on July 23, 2001, the City Council considered and discussed the Application and the record and heard Pat Cline, Dave Callahan, and Harold Bagley, Applicant representatives, who presented facts http://www.powertinefacts.com/South%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 Resolution of South St. Paul Page 2 of 5 and arguments in favor of the application and Roger Conant, Power Line Task Force, Joseph Turene, Sophie Voigt, and Edward Chapdelaine who presented facts and arguments in opposition to the Application. 1.06 At a special meeting on July 30, 2 00 1, the City Council considered and discussed the Application, and the record. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence contained in the record related to the Application, and the arguments of proponents and opponents of the Application, the City Council makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decision. SECTION TWO Findings of Fact 2.01 Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy ("NSP") filed an application for a conditional use permit to upgrade its existing I I AV transmission line within the City of South St. Paul by adding a second 11 5k circuit and rebuilding the transmission line on monopole structures (the "Application"). 2.62 A public bearing on the Application was held before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2001, following published and mailed notice as required by law. On June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted its findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation with respect to the Application ("Planning Commission Recommendation"). 2.03 By resolution adopted June 18, 2001, the City Council extended the time to complete processing the Application to August 7, 2001, for the reasons stated in the resolution. A certified copy of the resolution was sent by certified mail to NSP on June 20, 2001, and a receipt therefore was signed by a representative of NSP. 2.04 The existing transmission line is located on a 4O -foot wide right-of-way (owned in fee by NSP) for about 3,000 feet within a built-up residential area within the City of South St. Paul. In the rest of the City the right-of- way is 50 feet wide. The right-of-way widths will not be expanded as part of the proposed project. 2.05 The present transmission line was originally constructed in the early 1920's, and modified in later years. Most, if not all, of the houses adjacent to the transmission line were constructed after the transmission line existed and subsequent owners purchased with knowledge of the existence of the line. 2.06 NSP Proposes to construct the existing transmission line and a new 115kV transmission line as a double circuit transmission line, which is required to provide continuous reliable electrical power to customers in the southeast suburban Minneapolis -St. Paul area, including the City of South St. Paul. The project will establish two independent circuits between the Red Rock substation and the Rogers Lake substation, which will prevent loss of electric service in the event of a line failure. CAI concurred in the need for the project. Opponents of the Application questioned the need for the project and its benefit to consumers in the City of South St Paul. However; the Weight of the evidence supports the need for the double circuit line. 2.07 The proposal is to construct the double circuit transmission line on monopoles which will be about 25 feet taller than the existing transmission line structures. The conductors of the existing line are about 25 feet above ground and the nearest are 7 feet from the edge of the 40 -foot wide right-of-way. The lowest conductors of the proposed line would be about 25 feet above ground and about 10 feet from the edge of the 40 -foot wide right- of-way ight- ofway 2.08 The noise level of the existing line at the edge of the 40 -foot wide right-of-way is 20.9 dB(a); it is calculated to be 24.8 dB(a) for the double circuit lines. If the proposed double circuit line was constructed underground there would be no noise. 2.09 Electric and magnetic field strengths (EMF) were measured and calculated for the existing line and the double circuit line on the 40 foot wide right-of-way. The magnetic field for the existing line at the right-of-way edge is 101.3 milligrams (mG); for the double circuit line it will be 25.1 mG. If the double circuit line was constructed underground the magnetic field at the right-of0way edge would be 2.4 mG. http://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Pau1%20Resolution.htrn 4/19/2011 Resolution of South St. Paul Page 3 of 5 2.10 Opponents expressed concern that the new transmission line will result in devaluing property adjacent to the line and make the property unusable or difficult to sell. The FHA will not finance houses adjacent to transmission lines. NSP stated that FHA has financed house sales adjacent to transmission lines upon receiving advice from NSP that the line was constructed according to all applicable codes and requirements. 2.11 A study by Colliers Towle, Inc. of sale price comparisons among houses adjacent to transmission lines and those not adjacent to transmission lines average. Those adjacent to a line sold on the average for 0.5 percent less and took an average of 5.5 days longer to sell. 2.12 Some of the opponents were concerned about adverse health effects to persons living adjacent to the transmission line that may be caused by the electric and magnetic fields of the transmission line. They are fearful of the levels of these fields even though double circuiting will reduce these levels by about fifty percent. 2.13 NSP, on the other hand, refers to the decision of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board concerning this project in which it determined that the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and issued a negative declaration on the need for an environmental impact statement. 2.14 It appears that the scientific community has not conclusively demonstrated a lack of causal relationship between EMF and adverse health effects and that research about this issue continues. The research to date is inconclusive with regard to the issue of transmission lines and adverse health effects. 2.15 The estimated cost of construction of the double -circuit overhead 11 5k transmission line through the residential portion in the City of South St. Paul is $390,000; the estimated cost to underground the same segment is $5,000,000. 2.16 The Proposed construction schedule for the Red Rock to Rogers Lake segment of the project is fall 2001 - winter 2002 Red Rock substation construction, winter 2002 -spring 2003 Rogers Lake substation line foundations and structures construction SECTION THREE Conclusions 3.01 This matter is properly before the City Council pursuant to Subsection 1500.29, Subd. 4, of the South St. Paul City Code of 1992. 3.02 All persons who desired to be heard in favor or in opposition to the Application have been given an opportunity to present evidence and argument. 3.03 There is credible evidence of the need for the project. 3.04 The general characteristics of the residential neighborhood will not change because the configuration of an existing transmission line will only change. The monopoles will be approximately 25 feet higher than the existing H -frame structures and will be the same number. However, the monopoles will be significantly more visible in the local community and will have a greater impact on the landscape than the existing structures. If the proposed double circuit line was constructed underground, the visual impact would be eliminated. 3.05 There will be diminution or impairment of property values and FHA insured loans may not be available because of the presence of the transmission line 3.06 Noise levels will increase by approximately five decibels because of the proposed transmission line. Noise levels will not be a concern if the double circuit line is constructed underground. http://www.powerlinefacts.com/South%20St%20Pau1%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 Resolution of South St. Paul Page 4 of 5 3.07 Because of the uncertainty and inconclusiveness of the effects of EMF on health and welfare, the sensible action in the interest of public health, safety and welfare is to reduce exposure to EMF. While overhead construction of the double circuit line will reduce the magnetic field to 25.1 mG at the edge of the 40 foot right- of-way, undergrounding the double circuit line will reduce the magnetic field to a more acceptable level of 2.4 mG at the right-of-way edge. 3.08 An overhead transmission line would be more susceptible to damage from severe weather conditions and thus a greater threat to public safety than an underground transmission line 3.09 The proposed overhead double circuit transmission tine would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and would seriously depreciate surrounding property values because of the cumulative effects of noise, visibility, EMF and susceptibility to adverse weather conditions. These effects would be either eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level if the double circuit line was constructed underground. In such case there would not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the community nor a serious depreciation of surrounding property values. 3.10 The proposed double circuit line will benefit the southeast metro area as well as the entire NSP system. Costs necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare should be a system -wide cost. The excess cost to bury the double circuit line are for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare and should be borne by the entire NSP system and not by just by the City of South St. Paul or the NSP customers within the City who did not create the circumstances necessitating the construction of the transmission lines underground. SECTION FOUR Decision The City Council grants a conditional use permit to Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy to construct a double circuit 115kV electric transmission line composed of the existing circuit and a new circuit, (the "transmission line") subject to the condition that the transmission line be constructed underground; provided, however, that the excess cost of underground construction be paid on a NSP system -wide basis, and if allocated to the City or to its NSP customers by order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") or other state agency having jurisdiction, this conditional use permit is denied, shall be null and void, and of no force or effect and the transmission line may not be constructed; provided further that construction of the transmission line may not commence until NSP has agreed to a system -wide allocation of the excess undergrounding cost, or the PUC has denied allocation of the excess cost to the City or its NSP customers, and such action has not been appealed. The conditional use permit is also subject to the following conditions: (1) Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy will offer free of charge a lawn and garden easement that is consistent with its utility usage to landowners adjacent to its fee right-of-way strip, that will be appurtenant to their property in perpetuity as long as its terms are complied with. (2) In the event that the State of Minnesota or the Federal Government establishes standards for electric Or magnetic fields that are applicable to the proposed transmission line, Northern States Power Company d/b/a. Xcel Energy shall comply with the standards and shall provide the City with sufficient information to ascertain compliance with the standards (3) Should Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy, after the issuance of this conditional use permit be issued, granted, obtain, consent to or otherwise receive a permit or authorization for the double circuit of the existing I l5k.V transmission line from the City of Inver Grove Heights, the City of Mendota Heights, the City of Sunfish Lake, or the City of Bloomington on a term or terms more favorable to the city than those http://www.powerlinefacts.coiiVSouth%20St%20Paul%20Resolution.htm 4/19/2011 Resolution of South St. Paul Page 5 of 5 contained in this conditional use permit, the City of South St. Paul shall have the right to require Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy to agree to a modification of this conditional use permit to incorporate the same or substantially similar more favorable terms, and Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy by the acceptance of this conditional use permit agrees to promptly agree to the incorporation of such term(s). Passed: August 6,2001 Mayor Approved: August 7, 2001 Isl Kathleen A. Gaylord http:l/www.powerlinefacts.corDISouth%2OSt%2OPaul%2OResolution.htni 4/19/2011 Page 1 oft Sedarski, Joseph G From: Melanie Curtis [MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us} Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:21 PM To: Sedarski, Joseph G; Rogers, Christopher C Subject: FW: Xcel Orono High Voltage Substation and Transmission Importance: High One more. Melanie Curtis I 952.249.4627 I mctarUsCr4ci.orono,mn.us From: melissafogelberg@weilsfargo,com (ma !Ito: mel issafagelberg@welisfargo.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:38 AM To: Lill McMillan; Doug Franchot (doug@franchotassociates.com); Jessica Loftus; Jessica Loftus; Mike Gaffron; Lin Vee; Melanie Curtis; Jim White; Cynthia Bremer; Jim Murphy Omurphy@goldengate.net); Doug Franchot; III!4mayor@GMAIL.COM; Cynthia Bremer(cynthia.bremer@ogietreedeakins.com) Cc: michael.kuruvilia@att.net; Peter@systemsupportsolutions.com; pwfraser@GMAIL.COM; pfogelberg@GMAIL.COM Subject: Xcel Orono High Voltage Substation and Transmission Importance: High Ladies and Gentlemen: I have great concern about the proposed Xcel Orono substation and am, therefore, writing to request that the city accept jurisdiction over Xcei's application for a conditional use permit. It appears to me that the pivotal consideration in approving or denying the application is whether the conditional use would be consistent with the City of Orono Community Management Plan. The Plan includes important considerations such as whether the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area as it is presently used, would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, would be consistent with buildings and site improvement in the surrounding area, would impair use and enjoyment of surrounding property or have a material adverse impact on property values in the area, would take into account the natural and scenic features of the area and minimize environmental impact and would not be detrimental to the general welfare. The factors included in the Man express the values and priorities of the residents of the community. Who is better suited that than the city itself to determine whether the application is consistent with the Community Management Plan? Certainly the Public Utilities Commission does not have the familiarity with the above factors that the city does. Nor does the PUG have a stake in the impact of the substation on the Orono community. As it has been explainer] to me, the substation is being built for the benefit and convenience of Xcel and communities west of Orono. No one in Orono gains any benefit from the substation and power lines. It's not just adjacent homeowners who would be negatively affected by the substation --all residents have an interest in insuring that the Plan is respected so that the quality of life in the community is not harmed. Furthermore, to the extent the substation depresses property values, it also diminishes the tax mase of the city. All of these things should be of substantial concern to the community and, therefore, to the City Council. In nay judgment, the City Council has a responsibility to its citizens not to relinquish control to the PUC. Instead, the council owes if to its citizens to retain control in order to ensure that their interests are carefully considered in the application review process. 1, unfortunately, will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. I am committed to participate in a Wills for Heroes clinic in Hopkins, which 1 cannot change. This is a program administered by the state bar association under which volunteer attorneys write wills and other estate planning documents for first responders. The fact that I am not at tonight's council meeting does not mean the issue on the agenda is not of tremendouU importance. Thank you for your consideration Melissa Fogelberg 1/4/2011 Page 2 of 2 Melissa R. Fogelberg 1 876 Hunt Farm Rd I Orono, MN 553561484-252-1248 This message may contain confidential andlor privileged information. If you are not the addressee at authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. 1/4/2411 Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, December 13, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Consent Agenda 1. Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of November 22, 2010 * 3. Council Work Session of November 23, 2010 * 4. Regular Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 Sale of Bonds 5. Consider the Award of the Sale of General Obligation Street Reconstruction, State -Aid and Capital Improvement Bonds — Resolution Budget Adoption 6. Continuation of 2011 Budget Hearing —Adoption of 2011 Budget and Tax Levy a. Adopt Final 2010 Levy Collectible in 2011 —Resolution b. Adopt 2011 General Fund Budget — Resolution c. Adopt the 2011 Special Revenue Funds Budgets — Resolution Presentation 7. Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Plan Update — Bonestroo LMCD Report — Andrew McDermott, Representative Planning Commission Comments — Kim Kang, Representative Public Comments — (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report 8. #10-3454 City of Orono — Zoning Text Amendment — Conditional Uses in the Residential Zoning Districts — Ordinance 9. #10-3467 Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Street — Variance — Denial Resolution 10. #10-3468 Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Shoreline Drive — Preliminary Subdivision and Commercial Site Plan — Denial Resolution 11. #10-3471 Terry Schneider with Klingelhutz Development on behalf of Woodhill Senior Cottages of Navarre, 2525 Shadywood Road — Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan/Preliminary Plat — Resolution Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, December 13, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us 12. #10-3486 Xcel Energy, 3960 Sixth Avenue North — CUP Substation Routing Permit 13. #10-3489 Susan and Justin Kelley and Claudia and Scott Weisberg, 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road — Lot Line RearrangementNacation of Easement — Public Hearing — Resolution 14. #10-3493 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive — Conditional Use Permit for Columbarium — Resolution City Engineer's Report 15. Request For Payment No. 1, North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Project 16. Request For Payment No. 1, Lift Station No. 12 Improvements 17. Request for Payment No. 2 and Final, Willow Drive South Mill and Overlay Project Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 18. Purchase of Property Room and Evidence Management Software 19. Planning Commissioner Appointments 20. 2011 Fee Schedule — Ordinance 21. 2011 Official Calendar 22. Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2011 23. Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received 24. Non -Waiver of Tort Limits 25. Approve Annual Transfers 26. 2011 Non -Union Employee Compensation Adjustments — Resolution 27. Amend Orono Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) — Resolution 28. Amend Orono Flexible Spending Plan — Resolution 29. Municipal State Aid Bond Resolution 30. City Engineer Rate Schedule 31. Amendment 1 to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement 32. Wayzata Fire Service Agreement 33. Recognition of Officer William "Bill" Persell 34. Recognition of Officer Erick Dyer 35. Recognition of Officer Matt Siltala 36. Recognition of Adrienne Madson City Attorney's Report 37. Hazardous Building Action at 200 Hollander Road — Resolution 38. Licenses & Permits Liquor License Renewals * 39. Bills Adjournment Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, December 13, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 12/13 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 12/14 — Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. - Cancelled 12/24 — HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas, Friday 12/31 — HOLIDAY, Observance of New Year's Day, Friday 2011 01/05 — Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 01/10 — Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 01/10 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 0 1/ 17 — HOLIDAY, Monday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 0 1/ 18 — Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison — Doug Franchot) 01/24 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members James Murphy, Cynthia Bremer, Lili McMillan, and Doug Franchot. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee, Assistant City Administrator of Long -Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 10, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-37 were added to the Consent Agenda and Item No. 9 was deleted from the agenda. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of November 22, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF NOVEMBER 23, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session of November 23, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of December 6, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SALE OF BONDS 5. CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRCTION, STATE -AID AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS — RESOLUTION NO. 5997 Carolyn Drude, Ehlers, reported on the sale of $4,460,000 general obligation street reconstruction, state - aid, and capital improvement bonds. The high bid was 3.1698 percent and the low bid was submitted by Morgan, Keegan & Company at 2.8571 percent. Drude stated overall the City received six bids, which Page 1 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF IRFAN HABIB, 3421-3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Batty stated if they withdraw their application, the property will likely remain as is and not be improved. Given the issue with the variances, the property likely will need to change dramatically and that they will be withdrawing their application. VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mattick recommended the applicant be required to submit his withdrawal in writing and to submit that to the City no later than Wednesday, December 15t1i, otherwise the original motion of denial would stand. Bremer moved, McMillan seconded, Application #10-3468, Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Concordia Street, to require that the applicant submit his request for withdrawal of his application by Wednesday, December 15, 2010. If the written request is not received by that date, the original motion denying the application will stand. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 6001 AND 6002 Terry Schneider, Applicant, was present. McMillan stated she had a concern with the area by the wetland in the southwest corner and asked whether that area should be disturbed during construction and replanted. Curtis asked whether McMillan is referring to the buffer area. McMillan indicated it would be the buffer area and the area adjacent to that. McMillan stated she is unsure exactly what the applicant is proposing Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to improve the area up to the buffer. The applicant has worked with the neighborhood on the landscape plan and a landscape professional has designed the plan. The noxious weeks and invasive weeds should be removed and brought up to the City's standards. McMillan asked if the area of native grass planting is a requirement of the City. Curtis indicated that is not a requirement of the City. McMillan stated she knows the neighbors would like to retain as much of the screening as possible, and pointed out that native grass can create a bigger open area and eliminate some of the screening. McMillan stated she would like to make sure that the City is not forcing the applicant to re -vegetate and replant that area. McMillan noted the City's Code requires removal of buckthorn in buffer areas, and that she personally has an issue with that since it tends to disturb the area. McMillan stated she is not sure what is proposed to be removed and what currently exists as it relates to the trees in the area. McMillan indicated she would like to ensure that large, mature trees are not eliminated and replaced with 6 -inch trees. Page 11 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (11. #11-3471 TERRYSCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OFNAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Curtis stated the City does not have a tree protection requirement outside the 0-75 foot zone and buffer areas. Franchot asked whether the applicant has met with the neighbors and had this plan approved by them. Schneider indicated the neighbors have reviewed the plan and are in favor of it. Schneider stated they have two buffer areas that will remain. One is along Kelly Avenue, which will remain as is, and the other buffer area is next to the wetlands. Some of the trees are actually located in the buffer zone and will be maintained. The buckthorn and other invasive weeds will be removed. The neighbors have agreed to some landscaping outside of the buffer area, which will leave a fairly dense area of screening. McMillan stated she did not want to require the removal of existing hardwoods in order to replant other smaller trees. Schneider stated under the buffer ordinance, they are able to plant certain new trees in the buffer zone. If they exist in the buffer and are not considered a noxious tree, they can stay. McMillan noted there is reduced parking proposed due to the usage. McMillan asked whether future use of the property would be constrained by the limited parking and what would happen if the building is used for something else. Curtis indicated the use would be contained due to the limited parking. There is a provision in the resolution that states this site is approved for the use proposed and that if someone else occupies the building, they would need to come back to have the conditional use permit amended. Gaffron noted Item 6 of the resolution approving the conditional use permit states the following: "This conditional use permit approval is specifically for an assisted living facility, and future conversion to some other permitted or conditional use within the B-4 Zoning District is not guaranteed based on the parking limitations and possible other factors inherent within the approved site plan." Gaffron stated that language places the owners on notice that if the parking cannot handle a different use, they may not be granted a conditional use permit for that new use. McMillan stated technically they may be required to add additional parking if the use changes. Gaffron noted retail parking requirements would be significantly more and they would have to find a way to add additional parking. McMillan asked whether there is something in the resolution governing the maintenance of the filtration system. Gaffron indicated there is and that the Watershed District will also have a covenant concerning the maintenance. Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6001, a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Easements for Properties Located at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 12 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (11. #11-3471 TERRYSCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OFNAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6002, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Properties Located at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH — CUP SUBSTATION ROUTING PERMIT Joe Sedarski, Chris Rogers and Gene Cox were present on behalf of Xcel Energy. Curtis stated in August Xcel Energy began the process of making an application to expand and upgrade their existing substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North. This project includes a complete rebuild of the existing substation and an increase in operating voltage from 69 kilovolts to 115 kilovolts. A new transmission line is also proposed. The final route for the new, overhead transmission line has not yet been determined but will be subject to review and approval. This type of project is typically reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). However, Xcel may seek local review and approval because their project meets the exemption set out in the Statute. The exemption applies to projects involving transmission lines between 100 and 200 kV, and substations with a voltage designed for and operating at 100 kV or more. Both are being proposed on this site. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216.E.05 and MN Rule 7850.5300, Xcel may seek local review and approval from the City via our conditional use permit process for their substation expansion and new transmission line route. Pursuant to MN Statute 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b) and MN Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4, the City has 60 days in which to refer review and permitting back to the PUC. As the application is not yet complete, that 60 -day clock has not begun. City Zoning Code lists public service structures as an allowed conditional use within all districts in the City. Specifically, Section 78-393(6) applies to the RR-lA District where this property is located. Staff initially understood the local review sought by Xcel was only the CUP for the substation expansion. Staff now better understands that accepting Xcel's request for local review includes the substation and approval of the routing for the new transmissions line route. Because the review process cannot be split between the City and the PUC, the City must review either both aspects of this proposal or neither. In the opinion of Staff, the City does not have the appropriate level of expertise needed to fully review the routing of the new transmission lines. Based on the City Attorney's discussions with the PUC, we believe the City's comments and recommendations on the application, specifically related to land use, screening, setbacks, etc., will be implemented in the PUC's review and approval of the project. The City does not have a history of reviewing this type of application and Staff would recommend the City defer the review of this application to the PUC pursuant to 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b), and Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Michael Kuruvilla, 760 Hunt Farm Road, stated he is president of the Hunt Farm Road Homeowners Association. Kuruvilla stated an application is being put forward but that the homeowners association has concerns since this is located at their back door. Page 13 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) expansion and that the people of the City Council and Staff are the experts on the Community Management Plan. The homeowners association is requesting the City Council not relinquish their responsibility to the citizens by referring this to the PUC. This expansion would diminish their property values. The homeowners association is not going to tell Xcel where to build but they would like Xcel to consider alternative routes. Peter Schoon, 994 Hunt Farm Road, indicated he was shocked by this project. The proposed towers and substation are rather monumental. Schoon displayed some pictures of their neighborhood with some 110 foot poles superimposed on the pictures. Schoon pointed out that one of these towers would be in his back yard. The poles are also rather substantial in diameter and would be within 120 feet of the current smaller wood poles in his back yard. Xcel is proposing a row of thee towers across the wetland. These towers would negatively impact the wetlands, the wildlife in the area, their quality of life, and from an aesthetic point of view, the equipment would destroy the area. Schoon indicated a number of different types of wildlife live in the area and he has a substantial number of photographs of the wildlife in the two and a half acre area. The noise output is approximately 60 bp, which is equivalent to running a vacuum cleaner. Schoon stated this is a land use issue and that he would request the City Council retain their authority over this issue and not surrender it to the state. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and the existing power lines. Peter Dassel, Hunt Farm Road, stated he just moved into his house in October and that he has had to replace the septic system, new roof, and he is now facing this issue. Dassel stated the impact to his property is not as great as some of the other neighbors, but that the City cannot abdicate the wetland issues to the states. Mattick indicated Staff is recommending that this application go to the PUC. The City would provide some input on the various issues, but that the PUC would decide the route. Dassel questioned whether this is the best route and, based upon the impact to the wetlands, there should be some alternatives. Xcel needs to demonstrate avoidance and minimization of the wetlands and in his opinion there are other options out there that are not being considered. Dassel suggested that perhaps a different parcel of land be considered for this expansion. Dassel stated based on a visual look, if the towers were located on the north side of 12, there would be less impact on the wetlands than on the south side of Highway 12. Dassel stated that impact could be borne out by a wetland delineation, which unfortunately cannot be accomplished until the spring sometime. Dassel requested the City Council give closer scrutiny to what is being proposed and the impacts to the neighbors. Bremer noted MN Rule 78.50, Subpart 6, would allow review by the City, but that in her view the City does not have enough regulations on the books currently to deal with all aspects of this project. Bremer asked what type of regulations the City has currently to deal with this type of project. Page 14 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) Mattick stated Rule 78.50 speaks for itself and that the City needs to have something in place to regulate it. The City has it listed as a conditional use, but beyond that, the criteria to govern it would be the City's general CUP regulations as it relates to routing or sighting. Mattick noted the PUC would have a whole separate list of regulations than what the City has. The PUC would require an environmental assessment and other things that are not currently in the City's ordinances. Mattick noted he has spoken with the PUC and they have indicated it is the City's call on whether they want to review the application. Orono has very few review criteria specific to the sighting or routing of the towers, which poses a problem for Staff. There is nothing in the City's ordinances regarding the height of the towers or the separation of the towers to give guidance to Staff. Mattick stated the City Council does have the option to review the application if they are comfortable that there are enough regulations currently on the books to provide guidance to Staff on how to proceed. Bremer noted an environmental assessment would be required and asked what that would entail. Mattick stated it would look at the impact of the project on the wetland and things of that nature. White asked whether alternative sites would be listed in the assessment. Mattick indicated they would not be. Based on the size of the project, Xcel does not need to produce a certificate of need. Mattick pointed out that the PUC handles these sorts of things routinely and that there are legitimate questions that need to be asked but that he is not sure if Staff would be able to answer those questions. Mattick stated this is basically an approve or deny type of application based on the City's current regulations. Bremer asked if the application is complete at this point and whether the 60 day time period has commenced. Mattick stated they have received an application but it is not complete at this point. Mike Kuruvilla commented the City Attorney has not seen the plan and the neighbors have not seen the plan and that a decision should not be made until that is done. The substation would fall under the City of Orono's land use plan. White requested Mr. Kuruvilla ask a specific question regarding the project. Kuruvilla stated the substation would come under the City's land use plan. White noted that Mr. Kuruvilla has already pointed out that the City Council and the citizens are the best judges of the City's land use plan. White indicated the City Attorney is advising the City Council on the best way to proceed given the City's current regulations. Mattick stated he is not suggesting that substations and routes do not affect the land because they do, but that the PUC would address that. The local authorities have the option on minor projects to review the application. The PUC administers these and reviews these differently than a city would. The City would consider this a conditional use and Xcel would be granted a conditional use permit if they meet all of the Page 15 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) City's criteria, which is pretty vague at this point. Mattick pointed out that this is not a typical land use application and that the PUC is not confined to your typical CUP criteria. Mayor White asked whether Xcel currently has a right-of-way easement along the highway. Chris Rogers indicated it would require additional easements. Rogers stated the plan depicted on the overhead shows the existing line in blue, which is a 115 kV line. The red line is the proposed route. Mayor White asked whether the easements would be obtained from the state. Rogers stated the route being proposed would have the poles pretty much along the railroad right-of-way and would involve obtaining private easements. The north/south route is basically a triangular shape and would run on Xcel property until it turns in a northwesterly direction. White pointed out on the overhead the piece of property owned by Xcel. Rogers indicated it is a 16 -acre piece of property and consists largely of woods. Dassel noted the easements would need to be obtained through condemnation proceedings against the homeowners association. White concurred that Xcel would need to acquire an easement from the private landowners. Murphy commented that this is similar to the Highway 12 project given the impact on the neighbors. Murphy asked for clarification on the proposed route. Gene Cox stated the blue line is the existing 115 kV line and that the proposed line would go along the route depicted by the red dots. The existing line is currently at capacity. Commencing at Mr. Schoon's property, the three poles would be converted to a single pole structures with a concrete foundation. At that point there would then be a monopole design which will traverse the route of the red dots to the substation and back out. The monopole structures will have wires on each side since they are looping it into the substation and back out. The blue line would become a continuous loop that is severed at the red dot located on Mr. Schoon's property. Rogers stated the last red dot is an existing three pole structure that currently exists on Mr. Schoon's property and Xcel would propose bringing the route in a northeasterly direction to almost the buffer area. The red line would be shifted northeasterly and further away from the private properties, which will help save trees and other vegetation. Murphy asked what the three -pole structure is exactly. Cox indicated it is actually three separate structures and that the existing blue line that goes through Mr. Schoon's property would consist of A -frame structures. Murphy asked what other alternatives were considered. Page 16 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) Rogers stated they need to get from Point A, which is the substation, to Point B, which is the 115 kV line. Roger indicated they are willing to meet with Mr. Schoon and Mr. Kuruvilla again to discuss alternative routes. One of the options considered was to take it through Baker Park. Xcel did meet with Three Rivers Park in early November and Three Rivers Park has issued a two page letter outlining their criteria. That letter has been provided to Mr. Schoon and Mr Kuruvilla. The other alternative is to run it between Highway 12 and the railroad tracks, but that is not ideal since there is a force main located in that area as well as other utilities. Rogers stated if the proposed route is followed, it would not be in the wetlands on Mr. Schoon's or Mr. Kumvilla's property but would be closer to the railroad. Murphy asked how much taller the new poles are. Cox indicated the existing structures are between 60-70 feet and the new poles would be approximately 15 feet higher. The tallest structure would be the corner structure because they are transitioning from the A -frame structure into a vertical design. Bremer asked why Xcel made application to the City rather than to the PUC. Sedarski indicated one factor is the small size of the project and the other factor is to go to the City in the hopes that there will be local support for the project. The proposed route will impact relatively few property owners. Sedarski noted Xcel also has other projects scheduled around the same time. Bremer asked what is incomplete about the application. Sedarski indicated part of the process is to introduce the project to the public and to obtain public comment on the environmental assessment and the route alternatives. The PUC would not require Xcel to look at alternative routes. Xcel, however, does review that at as a matter of course. Sedarski noted Xcel is not done with the environmental assessment. Rogers indicated plans for the substation expansion and transmission lines have not yet been finalized and submitted. Sedarski pointed out they did send letters to the affected landowners and they are in the process of collecting comments. Xcel has completed a wetlands delineation and that has been approved by the Watershed District. Murphy asked what the general time line is for the project. Cox stated the time line will be based on the permitting process they end up following. Cox stated this is a local project and the substation is a distribution substation, which would feed both commercial and residential properties. Cox stated permitting would typically be a six to eight month long process and construction would start sometime in 2012 depending on when the permitting process is complete. Sedarski noted the six to eight month process would be if they go before the PUC. McMillan asked what area would be upgraded as part of this project. Page 17 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) Cox stated it would be essentially a 15-20 mile perimeter around the substation. The existing line is at capacity and does not have full protection because it does not have a shield wire. The I I5kV line would provide for better voltage support, superior reliability and protection. Currently there is only one source of power to the area and with the upgrade, if one side of the service goes down, the other side would be able to provide power, which increases the reliability of the system. Mayor White asked what noise level is generated. Sedarski stated they do monitor the noise as part of the EA process and Xcel will be providing those numbers. Dassel asked why this project would not require a full environmental impact statement. Sedarski stated this process is not part of the environmental quality board where the environment assessment is used to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required. Xcel is requesting permitting from the City and the City has 60 days to decide whether to accept the application. In the environmental assessment there is information on the wetlands, and Xcel will review all the impacts and do whatever mitigation is necessary. Xcel follows certain construction techniques that are designed to minimize the impact to the wetlands and would do the construction during the winter. Dassel noted impacts can also be felt outside the wetlands, such as runoff. Sedarski indicated the environmental assessment will provide the design. McMillan asked what the PUC process would entail. Sedarski stated the process before the PUC would involve a similar process as the City's except for an environmental assessment being completed. Xcel would still hold a public meeting with the residents, which is not required under the PUC rules. Once application is filed, it typically takes six to eight months with the PUC. The PUC offers two options for review. The ultimate review process with the PUC does not require Xcel to look at alternate routes but the full permitting process does, which is the only difference between the two processes. McMillan asked why this project does not require the full permitting process. Sedarski indicated the voltage and the distance determines which process should be followed. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. Mayor White commented that in his view the City does not have the expertise or established criteria to handle this type of application. McMillan indicated she is in agreement with Mayor White. Murphy stated he is sympathetic to the concerns of the residents, but that in his view it would take a lot of time and energy on the part of the City to deal with this application and that Xcel will probably get what Page 18 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTHA VENUE NORTH, Continued) they want anyway. Murphy encouraged the residents to take their comments to the PUC, and suggested that the City work with the citizens as much as possible. Mattick stated the City does have the opportunity to provide comments to the PUC on the application. Michael Kuruvilla stated he would like Xcel to know that the residents are not against Xcel but that this is not a good spot for the substation or the transmission lines. Franchot stated he is in agreement that the City should stand strong with the residents, but that he is unsure whether the City should handle this or turn it over to the PUC. Franchot stated he would like the answer to be that the City can do a better job on this application than the PUC, but that he is not sure whether that is really the case. Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, Application #10-3486, Xcel Energy, 3960 Sixth Avenue North, to accept Staffs recommendation and refer this matter to the Public Utilities Commission. Murphy commented it is likely that Xcel will come in below the maximum decibel level but that it will still seem noisy to the neighbors. Murphy again encouraged the residents to provide their comments to the PUC. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Bremer Opposed. 13. #10-3489 SUSAN AND JUSTIN KELLEY AND CLAUDIA AND SCOTT WEISBERG, 2980 AND 2990 SUSSEX ROAD — LOT LINE REARRANGEMENTNACATION OF EASEMENT — PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION NO. 6003 Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a lot line rearrangement for the properties located at 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road. The applicants would like to move the current lot line 53 feet to the south. Due to an error in publication timing for the vacation of easements, the Planning Commission's public hearing only applied to the lot line rearrangement. The City Council will hold the public hearing for the vacation as well as review the lot line rearrangement. The appropriate utility companies were notified. They have provided comments on the vacation and only one, Xcel Energy, had a line which required a new easement. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6003, a Resolution Approving a Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation for Properties Located at 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 19 of 27 Date Application Received: 8/23/10 Date Application Considered as Complete: INCOMPLETE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 81 Date: 1 December 2010 Item No. 1A Department Approval: Administrator Approval. Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: Planning & Zoning Coordinator Item Description: Land Use Application #10-3466 Xcel Energy — 3960 Sixth Avenue N — Substation Expansion CUP & Routing Permit Local Review List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Xcel Fact Sheet & Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Applicable Minnesota Rules and Statutes Summary: In August, Xcel Energy began the process of making an application to expand and upgrade their existing substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North. This project includes a complete rebuild of the existing substation and an increase in operating voltage from 69 kilovolts ("kV'� to 115 kV. A new transmission line is also proposed. The final route for the new, overhead transmission line has not yet been determined but will be subject to review and approval. This type of project is typically reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) however Xcel may seek local review and approval because their project meets the exemption set out in the Statute. The exemption applies to projects involving transmission lines between 100 and 200 kV, and substations with a voltage designed for and operating at 100 kV or more. Both are being proposed on this site. Pursuant to MN Statute §216.E.05 and MN Rule 7850.5300, Xcel may seek local review and approval from the City via our CUP process for their substation expansion and new transmission line route. Pursuant to MN Statute §216.E05, subdivision 1(b) and MN rule 7850.5300, subpart 4, the City has 60 days in which to refer review and permitting back to the PUC. As the application is not yet complete that 60 day clock has not begun. City Zoning Code lists public service structures as an allowed conditional use within all districts in the City. Specifically Section 78-393(6) applies to the RR -1A District where this property is located. Staff initially understood the local review sought by Xcel was only the CUP for the substation expansion. We now better understand that accepting Xcel's request for local review includes the substation and approval of the routing for the new transmission line route. Because the review process cannot be split between the City and the PUC, the City must review either both aspects of this proposal or neither. In the opinion of staff, the City does not have the appropriate level of expertise needed to fully review the routing of the new transmission lines. Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 8] #10-3486 Page 2 of 2 Based on the City Attorney's discussions with the PUC, we believe the City's comments and recommendations on the application, specifically related to land use, screening, setbacks, etc, will be implemented in the PUC's review and approval of the project. The City does not have a history of reviewing this type of application. Staff recommends the City defer the review of this application to the PUC pursuant to §216.E05, subd. 1(b) and Rule 7850.5300, subp. 4. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Council decline the local review. Pursuant to MN Statute §216.E05, subd 1(b) and MN rule 7850.5300, subp 4, Council should refer Xcel's application back to the State to follow the PUC's review process. Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages Council XceiEnerct sM Exhibit A Y PROPOSED ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEV 11 5K TRANSMISSION LINE. FACT SHEET PROJECT NEED: Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, plans to expand and upgrade its Orono Substation and build a new 115 kilovolt ("kV") overhead transmission line connecting the planned substation to an existing 115kV transmission line. The substation upgrade to 115kV and new transmission line will increase electric system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and will allow for additional load growth in the future. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a The existing Orono Substation operates at 69kV and will be removed and replaced by a 115kV substation located adjacent -to the current location, all within property owned by Xcel Energy. ■ Once -the new 115kV substation and associated transmission line work is completed, the 69kV substation components will be removed. Approximately % mile of new double circuit 115kV transmission line will be routed out of the new substation north over Xcel Energy property, and then approximately'/ mile northwesterly over privately owned land to connect to an existing 115kV transmission line. ® Proposed structures for the new transmission line will be 80-100 feet tall single steel poles with davit arms placed on concrete foundations. New easements will need to be obtained for the transmission line portion crossing over private property. 0 Xcel Energy is seeking local review and approval of the project from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the City of Orono has agreed to take local jurisdiction for permitting the project. Xcel Energy has applied for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") with the City of Orono as required for the project. 03 Once the CUP is approved by the City and State permitting requirements are met, construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2011 with completion of the new substation and transmission line by late 2012. CONTACTS: Joe Sedarski, Sr. Permitting Analyst, Xcel Energy Tel: (612) 330-6435 e-mail: joseph.g.sedarskipxcelenergy.com Chris Rogers, Sr. Land Rights Agent, Xcel Energy Tel: (612) 330-6078 e-mail: christopher.c.rogers@xcelenergy com September 1, 2010 Item #12 - CCAgenda -12/13/2010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 8] Item #12 - CCAgendC-d'�1h4fffV0 File #10-3486 [TotceXg i 61t 8 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2010 216E.05 216E.05 LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS. Subdivision 1. Local review. (a) Notwithstanding the requirements of sections 216E.03 and 216E,04, an applicant who seeks a site or route permit for one of the projects identified in this section shall have the option of applying to those local units of government that have jurisdiction over the site or route for approval to build the project. If local approval is granted, a site or route permit is not required from the commission. If the applicant files an application with the commission, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived its right to seek local approval of the project. (b) A Iocal unit of government with jurisdiction over a project identified in this section to whom an applicant has applied for approval to build the project may request the commission to assume jurisdiction and make a decision on a site or route permit under the applicable provisions of this chapter. A local unit of government must file the request with the commission within 60 days after an application for the project has been filed with any one local unit of government, If one of the local units of government with jurisdiction over the project requests the commission to assurne jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the project transfers to the commission. If the local units of government maintain jurisdiction over the project, the commission shall select the appropriate local unit of government to be the responsible governmental unit to conduct environmental review of the project. Subd 2. Applicable projects. Applicants may seek approval from local units of government to construct the following projects; (1) large electric power generating plants with a capacity of less than 80 megawatts; (2) large electric power generating plants of any size that burn natural gas and are intended to be a peaking plant; (3) high-voltage transmission lines of between 100 and 200 kilovolts; ((4)1 substations with a voltage designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more; (5) a high-voltage transmission line service extension to a single customer between 200 and 300 kilovolts and less than ten miles in length; and (6) a high-voltage transmission line rerouting to serve the demand of a single customer when the rerouted line will be located at least 80 percent on property owned or controlled by the customer or the owner of the transmission line. Subd. 3. Notice of application. Within ten days of submission of an application to a local unit of government for approval of an eligible project, the applicant shall notify the commission that the applicant has elected to seek local approval of the proposed project. History: 2001 c 212 art 7 s 15; 2005 e 97 art 3 s 19 Copyright C 2010 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota, All Rights Reserved. Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 81 REVISOR 7850.5300 7850.5300 LOCAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED FACILITIES. Subpart 1. Local review. An applicant who seeks a site or route pen -nit for one of the projects identified in subpart 2 has the option of applying to those local units of government that have jurisdiction over the site or route for approval to build the project. If local approval is granted, a site or route permit is not required from the commission. If the applicant files an application with the PUC, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived its right to seek local approval of the project. Subp. 2. Eligible projects. An applicant may seek approval from a local unit of government to construct the following projects: A. a large electric power generating plant with a capacity of less than 80 megawatts; B. a large electric power generating plant of any size that burns natural gas and is intended to be a peaking plant; C. a high voltage transmission line of between 100 and 200 kilovolts; D. a substation with a voltage designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 100 kilovolts or more; E. a high voltage transmission line service extension to a single customer between 200 and 300 kilovolts and less than ten miles in length; and F. a high voltage transmission line rerouting to serve the demand of a single customer when at least 80 percent of the rerouted line will be located on property owned or controlled by the customer or the owner of the transmission line. Subp. 3. Notice to PUC. Within ten days of submission of an application to a local unit of government for approval of an eligible project, the applicant shall notify the commission in writing that the applicant has elected to seek local approval of the proposed project. Within the same ten-day period, the applicant shall mail notice to those persons on the general notification list that a permit has been applied for from the local unit of government for the project and shall provide a description of the project and the name of a person with the local unit of government to contact for more information. Subp. 4. Referral to PUC. A local unit of government with jurisdiction over a project identified in this section to whom an applicant has applied for approval to build the project may request the PUC to assume jurisdiction and make a decision on a site or route permit. A local unit of government shall file the request with the commission within 60 days after an application for the project has been filed with any one local unit of government. If one of the local units of government with jurisdiction over the project requests the commission to assume jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the project transfers Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 $3 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 81 2 REVISOR 7850.5300 to the commission and the applicant shall file under the applicable provisions of parts 78 50. 1000 to 7850.5600 for a permit from the commission. Subp. 5. Environmental review. A local unit of government that maintains jurisdiction over a qualifying project shall prepare an environmental assessment on the project. The local unit of goverrunent shall afford the public an opportunity to participate in the development of the scope of the environmental assessment before it is prepared. Upon completion of the environmental assessment, the local unit of government shall publish notice in the EQB Monitor that the environmental assessment is available for review, how a copy of the document may be reviewed, that the public may comment on the document, and the procedure for submitting comments to the local unit of government. The local unit of government shall provide a copy of the environmental assessment to the PUC upon completion of the document. The local unit of government shall not make a final decision on the permit until at least ten days after the notice appears in the EQB Monitor. If more than one local unit of government has jurisdiction over a project, and the local units of government cannot agree on which unit will prepare the environmental assessment, any local unit of government or the applicant may request the commission to select the appropriate local unit of government to be the responsible governmental unit to conduct an environmental review of the project. Subp. 6. No local authority. In the event a local unit of government that might otherwise have ,jurisdiction over a proposed large electric power generating plant or high voltage transmission line determines that it has no ordinances or other provisions for reviewing and authorizing the construction of such project or has no capability of preparing an environmental assessment on the project, the local unit of government shall refer the matter to the PUC for review. Subp. 7. Matters excluded. When the Public Utilities Commission has issued a Certificate of Need for a large electric power generating plant or high voltage transmission line or placed a high voltage transmission line on the certified HVTL list maintained by the commission, the local unit of government shall not address questions of need, including size, type, and timing; questions of alternative system configurations; or questions of voltage. Statutory Authority: MS s 116C.66; 216E.16 History: 27 SR 1295; L 2005 c 97 art 3 s 19 Posted: September 18, 2009 Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Item #12 - CCAgenda - 1211312010 File #10-3486 [Total Pages 81 t ORONO City Code Reference See. 78-393. Conditional uses. Within any RR -IA one -family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (6) Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings, such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures that have been approved by the city at required public hearings for public improvements projects shall not require a conditional use permit, but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the city to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. APPENDIX E PHASE Ia LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE RESPONSE MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Xcel Energy UESPONS{BLE BY NATURE' April 't 3, 2011 Mary Ann Heidemann State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. St. Paul, MN 55102-1903 414 Nlcollei Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Re: Xcel Energy — Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono, Township 118N, Range 23W, Sections 29, 20 and 32, Hennepin County, MN SHPO Number: 2010-497 MPUC Docket Number: E0021TL-11-223 (formerly E0021L.R-10-957) ❑ear Ms. Heidemann: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy), owns and operates the Orono Substation and related electric transmission facilities in the City of Orono; Hennepin County, Minnesota, Xcel Energy will be jointly submitting a Route Permit Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission �MPUC) to expand the existing Orono Substation facility and construct approximately 0.6 miles of new 115 kilovolt (W) transmission line to connect the expanded substation to existing Xcel Energy transmission Line 0831 (the Orono Project). The Orono Project is needed to increase the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation to the transmission system 115 kV voltage, which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. Xcel Energy engaged URS Corporation (URS) to complete a Phase la Literature Review for the Orono Project (see enGlosure). Please review the attached Phase la Literature Review Report and recommendations and respond with an agency consultation letter at your earliest convenience. if you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 6'12-330-6435. . Sedarski Permitting Analyst Enclosure (2 copies) cc: Project Elle 14 Minnesota Historical 5ocicty STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 12, 2011 Joe Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401-1993 RE: Orono Substation Expansion and Transmission Line Orono, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Phase 1a Literature Review submitted for the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Office by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800). Based on the information provided, we concur with the conclusions and recommendations of your consulting archaeologist that a full field survey needs to be performed at two locations within the project area: the 16 acre parcel proposed for expansion of the Orono Substation, and the landform previously identified as site 21 HE0162, being considered as a location for transmission structures. We look forward to reviewing results of that survey. Meanwhile, please call our archaeologist, David Mather, at (651) 259-3454, if you have any questions on our review. Sincerely, c r r Mary An Hei mann, Manager Government Programs and Compliance Nlrnnesata Flistodcaf Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 551-259-3000 , 888.727-8386 • www,mnhs.arg REDACTED Phase Ia Literature Review for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project Hennepin County, Minnesota SHPO Number: 2010-4976 MPUC Docket Number: E002/TL-11-223 (Formerly E002/LR-10-957) April, 2011 Report Title: Phase Ia Literature Review for the Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 W Transmission Line Project, Hennepin County, Minnesota Report Prepared by: URS Corporation 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612.370.0700 Report Author: Scott M. Buskey Report Date: April 2011 Submitted to: Joseph Sedarski, Senior Permitting Analyst Xcel Energy, Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall, MP8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612.330.6435 Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description...............................................................................................................1 1.2 Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................................4 1.3 Project Location....................................................................................................................4 1.4 Cultural Resource Study Area Background....................................................................... 7 2.0 Methods..............................................................................................................................................8 3.0 Literature Review Results..............................................................................................................9 3.1 National Register of Historic Places.................................................................................... 9 4.0 Minnesota State Site Files............................................................................................................10 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites........................................................................10 4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Structures.........................................................................13 4.3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys........................................................13 5.0 Other Resources.............................................................................................................................14 5.1 General Land Office Maps................................................................................................14 5.2 George B. Wright................................................................................................................14 5.3 J. William Trygg Composite Maps....................................................................................14 5.4 Historic Aerial Maps...........................................................................................................14 5.5 Historic Topographic Quadrangles..................................................................................15 6.0 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected.........................................................................16 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................19 8.0 References........................................................................................................................................21 List of Tables Table 1 Previously Identified Cultural Resource Properties Near the Project ..........................12 List of Figures Figure1 General Vicinity Map............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Proposed Route Location......................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Proposed Expansion to Orono Substation........................................................................ 6 Figure 4 Archaeological & Historical Sites......................................................................................11 Figure5 Alternative Routes...............................................................................................................18 List of Appendices Appendix A SHPO and Xcel Energy Correspondence Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Xcel Energy, Inc. ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company") proposes to expand and upgrade the existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation, construct approximately 0.4 miles of new double circuit 115 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and construct approximately 0.2 miles of single circuit 115 kV transmission line within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono located west of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The project is referred to as the Orono Substation Expansion Project (the "Project"). Figure 1 shows the general vicinity of the proposed Project. The Project involves expanding and upgrading the existing 69-13.8 kV Orono Substation (a distribution substation) to a 115-13.8 kV transmission substation and constructing approximately 0.19 miles of single circuit and approximately 0.4 miles of double circuit 115 kV overhead transmission line. The Proposed Route for the transmission line associated with the Project will originate at the proposed Orono Substation expansion, and initially remain on Xcel Energy property. See Figure 2. At the point the Proposed Route exits the proposed substation expansion area and extends approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16 -acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of-way approximately 1,795 feet before turning southwest for an additional 475 feet where it will connect to existing Structure 78 that supports transmission line 0831. The Project is needed to increase the operating voltage of the existing Orono Substation to the transmission system 115 kV voltage, which will improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. Xcel Energy will file a Route Permit Application (the "Application") with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") for a Route Permit for the Project (see MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223). For new construction of structures and transmission line, Xcel Energy proposes a 400 -foot route width, 200 feet on either side of the centerline of the proposed new line. Ground disturbance associated with the Project would generally be limited to excavation of foundations to secure the 11 5k line structures and construction of the planned expansion of the substation within existing Xcel Energy property. The height of the structures will range from 70 to 105 feet. The spans between structures typically range from 300 to 500. The overall spacing of the structures will be comparable to other Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line structures, which can vary based on soil conditions, engineering requirements and land use constraints. Depending upon the final route location, the Project may cross over a small waterbody, wetlands and transportation corridors (e.g. railroad and highway). The proposed Orono Substation expansion and a portion of the proposed new transmission line will be located within the 16 -acre Xcel Energy owned property where the existing Orono Substation is located. The 16 -acre Orono Substation site is locate in the southwest corner of the U.S. Highway 12 and 6th Avenue North intersection within the municipal boundaries of the City of Orono. Although utilizing Company property for Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 1 placement of the proposed new transmission line and expansion of the existing substation is important to Xcel Energy, some new easement acquisition for the proposed new transmission line is anticipated. As part of preparation of the Application for the proposed Project, and on behalf of Xcel Energy, URS Corporation ("URS") is assessing the potential Project related impacts on cultural resources. This Phase Ia Review Report ("the Report") presents the methods and findings of a cultural resources literature review for the Project. The purpose of this literature review is to identify all previously recorded archaeological sites and historic properties within one -mile of the Project area. The Project area is defined as the 400 -foot -route width of the Proposed Route for the planned new transmission line and the expansion area of the planned Orono Substation facility and is considered the area of potential effect (APE) for potential impacts on cultural resources. In addition, this review serves to provide a brief cultural history for the Project area as well as assess the potential for the presence of previously unidentified cultural sites. Scott Buskey of URS conducted the research and wrote the literature review report. URS's GIS Department prepared the Project graphics. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 2 MORRIS i{ + AMR— ,--�CrOU PARK`t-{� _ T . x�� j jt KatTt7d[l -�•. Lake • 1 960 _ _ 1 ,;+pgrovnd n ew F'• �" A' r_ -Cd18P _DY _ ;� QRQK 30 �i'41itkNS V.r f: t i Existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation Site Lake Classes. riggh _ t � � � i � .: '.-�� � ' . ,�9 � T � • � � � TOA 36 _r{ _ __ _ _ ��, --�_� - ,�_ — - - - - –•-•• 'dam I� r y• - - •• x..23' { f f -.. �.r, - - 01:.J1 A '- 95a, � J�l FIGURE 1 e eQ Kce1Ener9y• ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT GENERAL VICINITY MAP 2000 Topographic Map Source: Hennepin ORONO MINNESOTA USGS Excelsior, Minn. County DRN BY: TS DATE: 2/17/11 PROJECT NO. FIG. NO. Feet Quad dated 1997 CHK'D BY: DD I DATE: 2117/11 31810889 1 1.2 Jurisdiction At this time, there are no federal regulatory triggers that require compliance with federal historic preservation laws, specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ("NHPA"), as amended. Environmental review of the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the MPUC. Xcel Energy will provide in the Application to the MPUC a description of the effects of the Proposed Route and Orono Substation expansion on archaeological and historic resources to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact statement under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850.1900, Subp. 3(D). Also, Minnesota state historic preservation laws protect human burials of all types (see Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act [Minn. Stat. § 307]), and archaeological sites and historic properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") or the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites (see Minnesota Historic Sites Act [Minn. Stat. 5 138.661-138.6691]). 1.3 Project Location The proposed Project is located within Hennepin County, Minnesota. Figure 1 shows an overview of the general vicinity of the Project and the Proposed Route is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the planned expansion of the existing Orono Substation facility. The Project is wholly located within the municipal boundaries of in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a new linear transmission line that generally will run north and west for an approximate 3,136 feet and the expansion of the existing substation site. The fenced area of the existing Orono Substation is approximately 0.1 acres. The proposed 115 W Orono Substation encompasses an area of approximately 1.2 acres within the existing Xcel Energy 16 -acre site, and includes the existing 0.1 acre site. The proposed transmission line will originate at the proposed expanded Orono Substation, and initially remain on Xcel Energy property. At the point the Proposed Route exits the proposed substation expansion area, it extends approximately 866 feet northwesterly and north within the 16 - acre substation site and along Xcel Energy's western property line to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (`BNSF") railroad right-of-way. At this point the Proposed Route extends westerly across adjacent Huntington Farm Association ("HFA") property paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of-way approximately 1,795 feet before turning southwest for an additional 475 feet where it will connect to existing transmission Structure 078 that supports Xcel Energy transmission Line 0831. Xcel Energy is currently in the process of evaluating siting/routing information and collecting comments and input from the Local Government Unit ("LGU"), regulatory officials, the public, and other interested parties. The Proposed Route location shown in Figure 2 is preliminary and subject to change through this process. In order to study the cultural background of the Project location and better understand the potential for impacts to cultural resources, a 1 -mile buffer around the Project location was used to gather information. The Project area plus the 1 -mile buffer is called the Cultural Resources Study Area (or "Study Area"). Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 4 Existing Structure Proposed Structure Proposed Route Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line L7 -j Requested Route Width (400' Total) 0 Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Substation Site Park Boundary Proposed 75 Ft Right -of -Way Q Proposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels % J`77 (New) T 078 Line 0831) r 1 d To be,r�eplaced. 00 076-1 New To replace existing structure .: '. 077 (Line 0831) \� To be replaced with new structure 076-1 •<' 076-2 (New).,- w n 076-3 (New) - : ��: h -•ti �{Vis. -� �'` - '% s , 076 4 (New) •, . ?a;a`ta�"''!� +++•''r�•I'F' 076-5 (New) ,..; 1. 4 1 [ r +a jjjjjjjjjj9� r FIGURE 2 Xcef&iergy: ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT PROPOSED ROUTE LOCATION 450 Aerial Image Source: Hennepin ORONO MINNESOTA Aerial Express ECW Image County DRN BY: TS DATE: 3/7/11 PROJECT NO. FIG. NO. Feet dated Sept. 15, 2009 CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 3/7/11 31810889 2 16 rn e a a° Z C F ZVF OWN Z�co QOn Z 0: U) OW=F NQCL Z0W LuZ 1.122OF Z N U'ZNZm m2g2 1-0 �LO F.x OYw N C�a 0 0: CL CM )Iapa UUVHOUO �w ° I — d z�Z� N w 3� o� �.4 Z O I N ° w xa N L1� U w A N F- o Z r �a Z C O G U I J o W F- 0 z Z C F ZVF OWN Z�co QOn Z 0: U) OW=F NQCL Z0W LuZ 1.122OF Z N U'ZNZm m2g2 1-0 �LO F.x OYw N C�a 0 0: CL CM )Iapa UUVHOUO �w ° I 0 I m I m I N ° J w I rY I � I Z C F ZVF OWN Z�co QOn Z 0: U) OW=F NQCL Z0W LuZ 1.122OF Z N U'ZNZm m2g2 1-0 �LO F.x OYw N C�a 0 0: CL CM )Iapa UUVHOUO 1.4 Cultural Resources Study Area Background The proposed Study Area is located in western Hennepin County to the northwest of the Lake Minnetonka Area and is part of the Central Lakes Deciduous South Archaeological Region (Anfinson 1990). The physical relief in this region was formed by the retreat of the vast ice sheets at the end of the Wisconsin glaciation. It is assigned to the Pine City Moraine Association relating to the Grantsburg sub -lobe of the Des Moines lobe and is a gently undulating landscape comprised of glacial till. Till from the earlier St. Croix moraine of the Superior lobe underlies the Pine City Moraine contributing to a uniquely lacustrine landscape and the soils which subsequently formed in the area consist of loamy and clayey tills. Presently, the climate of the Study Area is continental with wide seasonal variations in temperature. Annual precipitation in the region is sufficient to support a variety of agricultural crops as well as lands suitable for pastoral use. At the time of Euro -American arrival, the vegetation in the region was part of the Big Woods environment. Big Woods environments can be described as forests of elm, sugar maple, basswood and oak that once covered much of south-central Minnesota. The modern vegetation assemblage near the Study Area consists of parcels of land in agricultural use, and mixed deciduous hardwoods. Human occupation in the region dates back to the beginning of the Holocene period 12,000 years ago. The earliest inhabitants were Paleoindians (10,000 — 6,000/5,000 B.C.), who were highly mobile, widely scattered, hunting and gathering bands. Archaeological evidence representing the Paleoindian period in Minnesota is scarce, largely represented by the isolated finds of large, finely crafted chipped -stone projectile points. The Archaic period (6,000/5,000 — 400/200 B.C.) in Minnesota follows the Paleoindian period and is typified by a shift in subsistence strategies to a more diversified hunting -and -gathering. Excavated Archaic sites demonstrate greater sedentism and population growth, as well as the development of more advanced Ethic technologies and a diverse tool kit. The Woodland period (400/200 B.C. — A.D. 1650) is characterized by several important adaptations, including adoption of pottery, use of the bow and arrow, and the widespread construction of earthen mounds. The Mississippian/Oneota tradition (ca. A.D. 1000 — 1700) in the upper Midwest and Minnesota is largely represented by local expression of cultural manifestations by Woodland peoples. The Historic period in Minnesota began in the late seventeenth century with the arrival of Euro - American fur traders, explorers, missionaries, and soldiers. The American Indian population inhabiting the region at the time of contact was the Dakota. Subsequent treaties with the Tribes in the region opened the land for Euro -American settlement in the mid -1800s. The westward migration of people from the East Coast as well as new immigrants, primarily from northern Europe, follows a pattern of settlement common throughout Minnesota and the Midwest. It is common in the historic record to find settlements of groups along ethnic lines in the region, and in the Study Area, people from Sweden and Germany were the most populous. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 7 2.0 METHODS The purpose of performing a cultural resources literature review is to identify previously recorded cultural properties and assess the potential for additional properties needing field survey within the APE prior to construction. On September 23, 2010, Xcel Energy sent the SHPO a letter with Project information and requested comments from the SHPO concerning the Project (see Appendix A). In an October 21, 2010, letter to the Company, the SHPO indicated that it reviewed the Project (see Appendix A). Due to the nature of the Project, the SHPO recommended that an archeological survey be conducted that meets the requirements of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. The SHPO also indicated that if the Project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, the SHPO will re-evaluate the need for the survey. URS personnel followed the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") guidelines for conducting cultural resources literature reviews in Minnesota. (Anfinson 2005). A site file search was requested for both archaeological sites and historic properties from the SHPO database coordinator Tom Cinadr prior to visiting the SHPO office on March 8, 2011. Several visual resources were used in the process of evaluating both the current and historic land uses of the study area. Topographic and Quaternary maps were used to examine the Study Area in terms of landscape evolution and how it relates to settlement and land use patterns. Modern and historic aerial photographs were used to evaluate historic properties in the Study Area. Additionally, General Land Survey ("GLO") maps, Trygg maps, and county plat maps were examined as a part of better understanding the historic development of the Study Area. Online resources documenting the history of Hennepin County, and the townships of Independence, Medina, and Orono were used to gather information pertaining to the Study Area. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 8 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS 3.1 National Register of Historic Places A search of the NRHP website and the records at the SHPO revealed that there are 1,582 properties in Hennepin County listed on the NRNP. None of the properties listed are located within the cultural resources Study Area for the proposed Project. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 9 4.0 MINNESOTA STATE SITE FILES 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites A total of 15 archaeological sites have been previously recorded within one mile of the alignment of the Study Area (see Figure 4). Of the 15 archaeological sites, thirteen are pre -contact and consist of. six Ethic scatters, two artifact scatters, three single artifact finds, and two American Indian earthworks. The remaining two sites consist of post -contact historic structural ruins with associated artifact scatters. None of the previously recorded sites are listed in the Nation Register Considered Eligible Findings ("CEF") by the SHPO. A total of 19 previously recorded historic architectural properties were identified within the Study Area (see Figure 4). Of the 19 historic architectural properties none are listed on the NRHP or CEF. A summary of the inventoried archaeological and architectural sites is provided in Table 1. Because the Project is located in close proximity to Lake Minnetonka which is a highly sensitive archaeological area, and within one mile of documented Native American earthworks, it has the potential to contain additional pre -contact cultural resources. However, much of the proposed Project and transmission line route lies near or within wetland areas making traditional survey methods nearly impossible in these locations. Under these circumstances, where traditional survey methods prior to the start of construction are difficult to undertake, URS recommends that Xcel Energy has an unanticipated discovery plan in place prior to the start of construction. The unanticipated discovery plan should outline procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered prior or during construction. The two American Indian earthworks (21HE0184, and 21HEam) located within the cultural resources study area warrant special discussion as they are protected under Minn. Stat. Section 307.08 of Minnesota's "Private Cemeteries" Act. While it is known that not all earthworks contain human burials, they are protected as such until authenticated by the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). Neither of the earthworks located in the cultural resources Study Area have been authenticated. Of the two sites, one is located approximately - away from its nearest point to the Proposed Route width and the other is approximately - away from its nearest point to the Proposed Route. Given the distance between these sites and the proposed construction activities, no impacts are anticipated. Based on recent aerial photographs, it appears that an existing transmission line passes along the northern boundary of site 21HE0184, and a portion of site 21HEam may have been destroyed by residential development. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 10 FIGURE 4 Figure 4 has been eliminated from Appendix E of the Route Permit Application due to the sensitive nature of information included within the figure. This information is not readily available for use in a public document. MPUC Docket No. L,002/TL-11-223 TABLE 1 Previously Identified Cultural Resource Properties near the Project Type of Historic Propi Inventory Number Description NRH—P Status_��' Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological 21HE0155 21HE0158 21HE0159 21HE0161 21HE0162 21HE0163 not eligible Unevaluated Unevaluated Unevaluated not eligible not eligible Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological 21HE0165 21HE0166 21HE0167 not eligible not eligible Unevaluated Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological 21HE0177 21HE0178 21HE0184 21HE0288 Unevaluated not eligible Unevaluated structures moved Archaeological 21HEh not eligible Archaeological 21HEam Unevaluated Architectural HE -INC -033 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-006 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-007 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-008 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-013 structure moved Architectural HE-ORC-014 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-015 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-016 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-035 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-042 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-043 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-044 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-045 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-046 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-047 Unevaluated Architectural HE-ORC-052 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-055 not eligible Architectural HE-ORC-058 Unevaluated Architectural HE -MAC -036 not eligible Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 12 4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Structures Nineteen historic properties have been inventoried within the Study Area as part of various cultural resources inventories. Several rural properties within the Study Area were recommended for further evaluation during the previous resource studies but have not been subjected to such studies as of the completion of this literature review. None of the historic properties are located within the 400 foot Proposed Route width, with the nearest being approximately - away, and will not be impacted by construction activities. 4.3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys The reports for eight cultural resources inventories in the Study Area were reviewed. Another report submitted in 2003 was unable to be located during the March 2011 visits to the SHPO. A 1988 Reconnaissance NRHP Survey of 26 Municipalities in Hennepin County for the SHPO covered portions of the cultural resources Study Area documenting several standing structures. Several structures were recorded as potentially eligible for listing in the NRNP; however, none of the properties recorded for the 1988 report relating to this Project will be adversely impacted. Two reports document the Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Studies of 1993 and 1994. The Project location was covered within one of 8 segments where a 500 foot wide survey corridor was implemented. None of the sites recorded within these reports and relating to this Project are listed as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The 106 Group conducted Phase II evaluations of two structures relating to reconstruction of County State Aid Highway ("CSAH") 6 in 1994. Both of the previously identified properties were found to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In 1995, a final report was submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society as part of the Trunk Highway Cultural Resource Program (Mather et. al. 1995) summarizing the results of surveys for several alternatives relating to improvements to U.S. Highway 12. Several archaeological sites were recorded as part of this survey, including 21HE0162, which falls within one of the Alternate Routes for this Project but outside of the 400 foot Proposed Route width. In 1997, the 106 Group submitted a Phase I report for the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 6 from Townline Road to U.S. Highway 12. The extreme southern extent of the 16 acre substation parcel was covered as part of this survey with a result of no findings. Phase II evaluations were conducted prior to improvements to U.S. Highway 12 in 1998 on two sites outside of the proposed 400 foot route width and existing substation site for the Project, but within the one mile cultural resources Study Area. BRW, Inc. found both sites to be not eligible for listing in the NRNP; however, a reported undocumented Euro -American burial at site 21HE0288 was recommended for monitoring during construction activities. Site 21HE0288 is approximately - away from the proposed Project. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 13 5.0 OTHER RESOURCES Historical documents, detailed below, were reviewed in order to identify possible previously undocumented historic sites that might be impacted by the proposed Project. 5.1 GLO Maps Minnesota's Original Public Land Survey Maps were viewed online through the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office ("MnGeo") website. The Project location was surveyed in 1854 and 1855 under the jurisdiction of the Surveyor General of Iowa and Wisconsin as a means of dividing the western lands into grid -shaped townships and sections. None of the GLO maps representing the Project location show any cultural features within the proposed Project's 400 foot route width or existing Xcel Energy Orono Substation 16 -acre site. In addition, the description of environmental and topographic conditions indicates that much of the area was swamp or marshland at the time of Euro American arrival. 5.2 George B. Wright In the late nineteenth century, George B. Wright published an atlas of Hennepin County which is available for viewing online through the University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. The Medina page presents the Project location in detail, showing the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad as the only cultural feature, which is currently the BNSF Railroad. 5.3 J. William Trygg Composite Maps The Trygg maps were created in 1950 and combine information from the GLO Survey plats and field notes and miscellaneous other early sources into a series of 46 sheets covering Minnesota and portions of Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa. Aside from a road and trail to the south of the Project location, no cultural features are identified in the area. 5.4 Historic Aerial Photographs URS reviewed aerial photographs of the cultural resources Study Area online from the University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library (U.S. Department of Agriculture). The 1937 aerial shows the rural landscape with agricultural fields and farmsteads as well as small, scattered stands of woods. Subsequent aerials (1940, 1951, 1960, and 1971) showed little change from the 1937 photo. Several of the farmsteads visible on the aerial photos correspond with current residences depicted on modern aerials. In addition, structures relating to previously identified historic properties are able to be compared to existing structures on modern aerial photographs. Of note is the location _ Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 14 5.5 Historic Topographic Quadrangles URS reviewed historic topographic 15 minute quadrangles available online from the Historical Map Archive at htW://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/us states/minnesota/topo/index.html. The Minnetonka quadrangle (1907) and the Rockford quadrangle (1909, 1950) show no unidentified cultural features in the Project location while illustrating the changing landscape. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 15 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED Xcel Energy identified and analyzed four Alternative Routes for the Project, which are identified as "Alternative Route 1", "Alternative Route 2", "Alternative Route 3" and "Alternative Route 4" (collectively, "Alternative Routes"), and are further described below. See Figure 5. In evaluating the Alternative Routes, Xcel Energy focused predominantly on the use of Xcel Energy property and on the location of existing transportation corridors and alignment of the existing distribution and transmission lines because they best satisfy the routing criteria. The Alternative Routes follow existing rights-of-way and property lines to the extent feasible. All of the Alternative Routes were rejected due to various routing and siting issues specific to each Alternative. Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the Proposed Route (see Figure 5). At this point, Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more westerly course for approximately 550 feet, where it connects to an existing Structure. Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure 5). At this point Alternative Route 2 continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 W transmission Line 0831. Alternative Route 2 would traverse the previously identified site 21HE0162. Evaluation of site 21HE0162, a pre -contact lithic scatter, was undertaken in 1994 as part of a cultural resources inventory for proposed improvements to U.S. Highway 12 (Mather et. al. 1995). The report authors determined that the site did not possess integrity or research potential due to extensive disturbance and no further work was recommended if the proposed highway project was constructed using the preferred alternative. Alternative Route 3 and the Proposed Route share the same route from the point the routes leave the proposed substation expansion to approximately 1,000 feet west of the point both routes turn westerly along the BNSF right-of-way (see Figure 5). At this location Alternative Route 3 extends both to the north and to the west to make connections with Xcel Energy's existing 115 W transmission Line 0831. The northerly connection includes a 329 foot span across the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, and enters into Baker Park Reserve property making the northern connection to transmission Line 0831 at existing Structure 76. The westerly connection of Alternative Route 3, south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, spans across HFA land, and for an additional approximate 384 feet to connect to Xcel Energy's existing 115 W transmission Line 0831 at Structure 77. Alternative Route 4 exits the proposed substation upgrade northwesterly for approximately 100 feet over Xcel Energy property before turning southeasterly for an additional approximate 160 feet. Alternative Route 4 then parallels the GRE Line BD for the remainder of the route. Alternative Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 16 Route 4 would continue east for approximately 607 feet prior to turning north. Upon turning north Alternative Route 4 would continue north for approximately 2,873 feet leaving Xcel Energy's property and crossing over the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12 and entering Barker Park Reserve. The majority of Alternative Route 4 would be constructed along an existing transmission line corridor. However, a 350 foot span requiring new right-of-way through Baker Park Reserve would be required where the existing transmission line and the Alternative Route 4 deviate. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 17 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no historic landmarks, historic properties, districts, or landscapes within the Project location that are listed on the NRNP, or determined or recommended for listing on the NRHP. Because the Project's Proposed Route is adjacent to existing transportation and utility corridors for the majority of the route, the potential affect to historic structures is considered to be minimal. One of the rejected Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route crosses a single archaeological site _ Based upon the findings of this Report and current plans for the proposed Project, URS recommends field survey at two locations for the Proposed Route. The first survey area is a portion of the 16 acre parcel where the expansion to the Orono Substation is proposed. The area is a small portion of the parcel that has not been surveyed and is adjacent to a structure viewed on historic aerial photographs. This survey area is recommended for previously undisturbed areas. The second survey area is a landform that previously identified site 21 HE0162 occupies _ The second survey area will only be necessary if the landform previously identified is considered for placement of new transmission structures. URS believes that field survey at previously undisturbed areas within these two locations is warranted because the proposed Project is situated in an area that is considered to have high potential to contain archaeological sites, combined with the fact that there are several previously identified cultural resources in the cultural resource Study Area. The remainder of the Proposed Route would be constructed along existing transportation and utility corridors, tying in to an existing transmission line and associated structures. These areas are considered to be previously disturbed and no field survey is warranted. To summarize the literature review findings, no previously identified property listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and the Minnesota Register of Historic Sites is located within the Project location. One previously identified archaeological site, 21HE0162, is located - The site was evaluated in 1994 and received a not eligible determination. The potential for impacting unrecorded archaeological resources within the Project location is considered to be high due to number of previously recorded sites and the Project's proximity to the archaeologically sensitive Lake Minnetonka. To assure that any undiscovered cultural resources are recognized and protected during ground disturbance associated with the Project, URS further recommends that Xcel Energy have an unanticipated discovery plan in place. This plan would provide guidance to Xcel Energy Project Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 19 personnel in the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction activities. URS understands that Xcel Energy will file for a Route Permit from the MPUC for the Project, and that cultural resource matters will be taken into consideration in this permitting process. The recommendations provided here are based on standard predictability models for discovery of archaeological resources in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and in accordance with relevant MPUC regulations, the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act, and the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act. In the event that there is federal involvement in the Project, such as federal permitting, licensing or funding, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, must be followed. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 20 8.0 REFERENCES Anfinson, Scott 2005 SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. Ketz, Dr. Ann 1994 Phase II Evaluations of Two Barns CSAH 6 Reconstruction From Townline Road to T.H. 12, Orono and Independence, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Ketz, Dr. Ann 1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey for CSAH 6 Reconstruction From Townline Road to T.H. 12, Orono and Independence, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 106 Group for the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Malmquist, Chandra, Scott O'Mack and Jackie Sluss 1998 Phase II Cultural Resources Investigation Along Trunk Highway 12, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Mather, David, Patrick Nunnally and Shawna Kruger 1994 Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report MnDOT S.P. 2713- 64 For Channelization and Turn Lanes Along T.J. 12 Between Orono and Long Lake, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Mather, David and Patrick Nunnally 1995 Final Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report. Trunk Highway Cultural Resource Program. Peterson, Leslie D., Kent A. Skaar and Wanda Watson Radford (editors) 1994 Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Study, Annual Report 1993. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Roberts, Dr. Norene A. 1988 Reconnaissance National Register of Historic Places Survey of 26 Municipalities in Hennepin County. For the State Historic Preservation Office. Trygg, J.W. 1964 Composite Map of United States Land Surveyors' Original Plats and Field Notes. Sheet 7. J.W. Trygg, Ely, Minnesota. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency 1937, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1971 Aerial Phtotgraphs for Agricultural Stability and Conservation. Available online from the John R. Borchert Map Library University of Minnesota, http://map.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/index.html. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 21 United States General Land Office (US GLO) 1855 General Land Office Survey Maps. Originally produced in 1855 by the United States Land Office, Dubuque Iowa. Viewed Online at http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/index.htrnl Wiltberger, Christine, Bruce Penner, Garneth Peterson, Evelyn Tidlow and Mike Justin 2003 Phase I Archaeological Investigation and Phase I and II Architectural History Investigations of the Proposed Reconstruction of TH 7 and TH 15 in Hutchinson, McLeod County, Minnesota Wright, George B. 1873 Long Lake, St. Paul & Pacific RR. In Atlas of Hennepin County 1873. Published by George B. Wright & G.J. Rice. Viewed Online at http: / /www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US /478462/Long+Lake++St+Paul+++Pacific+ RR/Hennepin+County+ 1873 /Minnesota/ Wright, H. E., Jr. 1972 Physiography of Minnesota. In Geology ofMinnesota. A Centennial Volume, edited by P. K. Sims and G. B. Morey, pp. 561-580. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul. Orono Project Phase Ia Literature Review April, 2011 MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 22 APPENDIX A SHPO and Xcel Energy Correspondence Minnesota Historical Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE October 21 , 2010 Xcel Energy Attn: Joe Sedarslti, Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall -- MPS Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Orono Substation Expansion and New 11 5k Transmission Line Project T118 R23 S29 SW, S30 SE, S32 NW Orono, Hennepin County PUC Docket Numher: E002/LR-10-957 SHPO NUMber: 2010-4976 Dear Mr. Sedarski: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Due to the nature of the proposed project, we recommend that an archaeological survey be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, we will re- evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring post -glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary standards. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Histnrir. Preservation Act of i q66 and :36C;FR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651 ) 259-3456. Sincerely, Mary Ann Heidemann Manager, Government Programs and Compliance Enclosure. List of Consultants Minnes oh, Hl statical Solely, 345 1[ellogg 8vuleVard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651-259-3000 • 888-727.8396 • www.mnlis.nr�j Xcel Energy y 0 t % f a N 8 lril[ 911 Nl,l II I!!' September 23, 2010 [Name] [Address] 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 65401-1993 RE: Request for Comments of Proposed Orono Substation Expansion and New 115kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono Zoning Application #10-3486 PUC Docket No. E002/LR-10-957 Dear [Name]; Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy), is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Orono to expand the existing Orono Substation and construct a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to connect the expanded substation to an existing Xcel Energy 115kV transmission Line 0831 (see Figure 1). The expansion and upgrade will include a complete rebuild of the existing substation, an increase in operating voltage from 69kV to 115kV, and a new 115kV transmission line (Project). Attached is a fact sheet with additional Project information. The purpose of this letter is to request your cora-rents on the Project and on the scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA) that will be prepared for the Project. The EA is required as part of the approval process for the Project. A draft of the table of contents of the EA is attached for your reference. The EA will address items listed in the attachment. Should you have other questions, comments or suggestions regarding the contents of the EA, please provide those to me at the address indicated below. The following provides further information regarding the Project. Orono Substation The Orono Substation is located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County, MN 55356. The Project site consists of approximately 16 acres and is located in the SW `/4 of the SW' /4 of Section 29 and the NW 'Id of the NW '/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 (6t" 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 Need The Project is needed to increase system reliability and reduce the risk of overloads. The increase in voltage from 69kV to l 15kV is needed to improve Iocal reliability and to allow for additional load growth in the future. [name] September 23, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Project Description The existing Orono Substation has been in service since 1990 and is situated on land owned in fee by Xcel Energy. All proposed substation upgrade components will be located within existing Xcel Energy property, Xcel Energy also proposes to build a new transmission line to connect the Orono Substation to the existing 1151cV Line 0831 located approximately 'Ii* mile northwest of the Orono Substation. The new 115kV transmission line route will run north fiorn the Orono Substation across Xcel Energy property for approximately '/a mile and then cross an additional `/4 mile of private property as shown on the attached map (see Figure 1). Local Governmental Unit The City of Orono (City) is the local governmental unit (LGU) for the Project. While the Project is required to be approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the Project qualifies for local review. Xcel Energy is requesting local review and approval from the City via the CUP process. City staff has indicated they are willing to review and grant a CUP for the Project. On August 20, 2010, Xcel Energy submitted a CUP application to the City for review and approval of the Project. On September 20, 2010, the City Planning Commission net to discuss the Project, review EA requirements, and request public comment on the scope of the EA. The EA will be prepared over the next month and will be available for public review and comment in November. Should you have comments on the Project or scope of the EA, please provide them to me within 30 days at (512) 330-5435, email at Joseph,g.sedarskiLa)xcelenerpy.com or the following address: Xcel Energy ATTN: .toe SedarsIci, Senior Permitting Analyst 414 Nicollet Mall — MP8 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Thar you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, XCEL ENERGY Joseph Sedarslci Senior Perri-duing Analyst cc: Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, City of Orono - wlenc. Enc: Figure Fact Sheet Draft Table of Contents for Project Environmental Assessment N ', + .'��'• �, 111 `4 1 w fit :;. - `Three RlversvRark'Disrie� m Laker Bark Reserve YI 41. Lu :i Proposed in & Out + 115 kV Transmission Line s �q t 4 i ;nraRrriERnI,srar6s; IPQWER,C0 ar�hjpd : - -- - ---=04 d Proposed ; Orono Substation 115 kV �. y Existing Orono . - Substation i 69 kV ice, •jr . I � i I �: ■ r a't. kith AMP_ ��� —'� _ gra Aw,� op Ir"'; nA Legend Existing Xcel Energy Line #0831 _. �•.>Is:'� i ORO -MED -- 11 5k Northern States Power Land j - li Existing GRE Line BD -- 69kV Z .`� {to be disconnected} Hennepin County Parcel .r d o too 200 aaa Figure 1 Feet 0 NSP -MN Transmission Structure Proposed In & Out Tap Proposed Orono 115 kV Transmission Line Proposed Orono {2 circuits} Substation Projec ® OTE: Proposed transmission line Substation {115 kV} � Approximate Wetland XaelEne r"9`y• nd substation expansion locations Existing Orono Boundary oisawnER `rni: �rurmanc� ie Substation {69 kV} re approximate. to °clef°��°°ero°��°��°� c°enga Ona I5 not rvananl+.d. 'C) XceiEnergyslo PROPOSED ORONO SUBSTATION EXPANSION AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE FACT SHEET PROJECT NEED: Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, plans to expand and upgrade its Orono Substation and build a new 115 kilovolt ("kV") overhead transmission line connecting the planned substation to an existing 115kV transmission line. The substation upgrade to 115kV and new transmission line will increase electric system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and will allow for additional load growth in the future. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ■ The existing Orono Substation operates at 69kV and will be removed and replaced by a 115kV substation located adjacent to the current location, all within property owned by Xcel Energy. ■ Once the new 115kV substation and associated transmission line work is completed, the 69kV substation components will be removed. Approximately '/ mile of new double circuit 115kV transmission line will be routed out of the new substation north over Xcel Energy property, and then approximately 1/ mile northwesterly over privately owned land to connect to an existing 115kV transmission line. ■ Proposed structures for the new transmission line will be 80-190 feet tall single steel poles with davit arms placed on concrete foundations. ■ New easements will need to be obtained for the transmission line portion crossing over private property. Xcel Energy is seeking local review and approval of the project from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and the City of Orono has agreed to take local jurisdiction for permitting the project. ■ Xcel Energy has applied for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") with the City of Orono as required for the project. ■ Once the CUP is approved by the City and State permitting requirements are met, construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2011 with completion of the new substation and transmission line by late 2012. CONTACTS: Joe Sedarski, Sr. Permitting Analyst, Xcel Energy Tel: (612) 334-6435 e-mail: ioseph.g,.sedarski(cDxcelenergy.com Chris Rogers, Sr. Land Rights Agent, Xcel Energy Tel: (612) 330-6078 e-mail: christogher.c.rogersa-xcelenergy.com September 9, 2010 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Orono Substation Upgrade and New 115kV Transmission Line Project City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota MPUC Docket No. E00211 -R-10-957 City of Orono 5epfember 2010 Table of Contents List of Acronyms within this document........................................................ i 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................ 1.1 Proposed Project and Project Need .................................................. 1.2 Project Location, Description and Schedule ...................................... 1.3 Project Cost Estimate........................................................................ 2.0 Regulatory Framework.............................................................................. 2.1 Permit Requirement........-................................................................. 2.2 Environmentai Assessment Requirement .......................................... 2.3 Public Participation/Scoping of Environmental Assessment .............. 2.4 Zoning Permit..... ........ - .... .................................... 3.0 Engineering Design, Right -of -Way Acquisition & Construction ............ 3.1 Engineering Design........................................................................... 3.2 Right -of -Way Acquisition................................................................... 3.3 Construction and Maintenance Procedures ....................................... 3.3.1 Construction ............................ ........ ........................................ 3.3.2 Maintenance.......................................................................... 4.4 Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation .......................... 4.1 Description of Environmental Setting...... ........................................... !1.2 Effects on Human Settlement............................................................ 4.2.1 Displacement.......................................................................... 4.2.2 Noise ...... ......... ............. ............................ ...................._... 4.2.3 Aesthetics............................................................................... 4.2.4 Cultural Values....................................................................... 4.2.5 Recreation.............................................................................. 4.2.6 Public Services....................................................................... 4.2.7 Transportation........................................................................ 4.2.8 Socioeconomics...................................................................... 4.3 Effects on Public Health and Safety .................................................. 4.3.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) ........................................ 4.3.2 Electric Fields......................................................................... 4.3.3 Magnetic Fields.. ....... .............. .......................... 4.3.4 Stray Voltage.......................................................................... 4.4 Effects on Land-based Economics .................................................... 4.4.1 Agriculture............................................................................... 4.4.2 Mining and Forestry ............................................ ................ 4.4.3 Tourism..... ..... ................................----................ 4.5 Effects on Archaeological and Historic Resources... ... ..................... 4.6 Effects on the Natural Environment................................................... 4.6.1 Air Quality. ..-•----•................................................................. 4.6.2 Water Quality.......................................................................... 4.6.3 Flora and Fauna ................... .............................. 4.6.4 Rare and Unique Natural Resources ....... ............... 5.0 Required Regulatory Permits and Approvals ........................................ Figures Figure 1 General Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Map Figure 3 Proposed Structure Diagram Figure 4 Proposed Structure Photo Figure 5 Construction Access Route Map Figure 6 City of Orono Zoning Map Figure 7 DNR Public Land and Waters Map Figure 8 Wetland Map Tables Table 1 Common Noise Sources and Levels Table 2 Calculated Electric Fields (kVlm) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Design Table 3 Calculated Magnetic Fields (MiIIigauss) for Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Design Table 4 Required Regulatory Permits and Approvals Appendices Appendix A Notice Lists Appendix B EA Scoping Letter and Public Comments Appendix C Agency Correspondence List of Acronyms Used in this Document ACRONYMS BMPs Best Management Practices Commission Minnesota Public Utilities Commission dB dB(A) Decibel Decibel, A -weighted DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessment EMF Electromagnetic fields EQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board kV Kilovolt kVlm Kilovolts per meter MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NAC Noise Area Classification NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ROW Right-of-way SHPQ State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USACE United States Anry Corps of Engineers USFVVS United States Fish and Wildlife Service APPENDIX F WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT AND MINNEHAHA CREEK WATER DISTRICT RESPONSE MPUC Docket No. L,002/TL-11-223 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono Substation Expansion Project Orono, Minnesota July 2, 2010 Prepared For: XcelEnergy- Prepared By: W Xcel Energy, Inc. 7 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 0 0 0 Westwood Wetland Delineation Report Orono Substation Expansion Project Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Prepared for: Xcel Energy, Inc. 414 Nicollet Mall, MP 8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Prepared by: Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937-5150 Project Number: 20101134.00 July 2, 2010 Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 CONTENTS Listof Exhibits........................................................................................................................... ii Listof Appendices..................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...........................................................................1 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY..............................................................1 4.0 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................2 4.1 Mapping....................................................................................................................2 4.2 Delineated Wetland Descriptions...............................................................................3 4.3 Wetland Buffers.........................................................................................................3 5.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................4 6.0 LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................................5 7.0 CERTIFICATION..............................................................................................................6 i Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Site Location and USGS Exhibit 2: National Wetlands Inventory Exhibit 3: Soils Exhibit 4: Public Waters Inventory Exhibit 5: Delineated Wetland Boundary Map APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Sheets Appendix B: Wetland Classification Systems I Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project June 24, 2010 1.0 PURPOSE This delineation report, the attached exhibits, and data forms constitute the wetland delineation report for the existing Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono substation site located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota 55356 (heretofore referred to as the Site). The wetland delineation was conducted to assist Xcel Energy, Inc. with planning expansion of the existing Orono substation facility. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). This delineation report provides the required documentation for wetland boundary determinations in conformance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2008). On behalf of Xcel Energy, Inc., Westwood respectfully requests that the MCWD, as the LGU, provide written confirmation that the delineated wetland boundary shown on the attached Delineated Wetland Boundary map (Exhibit 5) is acceptable for local administration of the WCA. Please consider this report a formal Wetland Boundary and Type Determination request pursuant to Minn. Rules 8420.0405. Westwood also requests that the USACE provide written confirmation that the delineated wetland boundary (Exhibit 5) is acceptable for Clean Water Act permitting purposes. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Site is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 29 and the NW '/a of the NW 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Exhibit 1). The property is bounded by State Highway 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the north, County Road 6 (6th Avenue North) to the south and east, with a residential property boundary to the west. The approximately 16 -acre Site consists of an existing substation in the southwest corner of the property that is surrounded by open meadow with scattered trees. The remainder of the Site is comprised of wetland. Adjacent land use consists of large -lot, single-family homes to the west and south, wetland to the north, and a highway interchange to the east. 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Prior to delineating wetland boundaries in the field, Westwood reviewed National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping (Exhibit 2), the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) for Hennepin County (2007) (Exhibit 3), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Public Waters and Wetlands Inventory (PWI) for Hennepin County (Exhibit 4), and aerial photography for the site location. On June 10, 2010, Westwood delineated the wetland using the level two routine determination method set forth in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the supplemental methods set forth in the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (US Army Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 Engineer Research and Development Center, 2008). Methods included establishment of sampling transects in a representative transition zone of the identified wetland. Each transect consisted of one sampling point in upland and one point in wetland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology data were recorded on data forms and are included in Appendix A of this report. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent coverage visually estimated within a 30 -foot radius of the sample point location for the tree and vine layers, a 15 - foot radius for the shrub layer, and a five-foot radius for the herbaceous layer. Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine; 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al. 1979) (see the Classification Systems Table in Appendix B). Common names and scientific names for vegetation identified in this report and on the attached data forms generally correspond with the nomenclature used in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1988). Wetland boundaries were located using a Trimble GeoXT sub -meter accuracy global positioning unit (GPS). Wetland boundary points were then post processed using Trimble Pathfinder Office software to ensure sub -meter accurate GPS coordinates. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Mapping NWI mapping (Exhibit 2) depicts one Type 3 (PEMCd) wetland on the northern and eastern portions of the Site and is consistent with the delineated wetland boundary. The NRCS SSURGO for Hennepin County indicates that the soils listed below are mapped within the Site (Exhibit 3). Klossner soils (depressional), Hougton and Muskego soils (depressional), and Hamel -Glencoe (depressional) complex soils are listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of Minnesota, revised December 1995. All others are indicative of uplands. The distribution of hydric soils in NRCS mapping is consistent with the delineated wetland boundary. Soil May Unit Name Hydric? Klossner soils, depressional, 0 to 1% slopes (L49A) Yes Houghton and Muskego soils, depressional, 0 to 1% slopes (L50A) Yes Hamel -Glencoe, depressional, complex, 0 to 3% slopes (L132A) Yes Lerdal loam, 1 to 3% slopes (L35A) No Lester -Kilkenny complex, 6 to 12% slopes, eroded (L41 C2) No Hamel overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4% slopes (L36A) No Angus -Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6% slopes (L40B) No Angus loam, morainic, 2 to 5% slopes (L37B) No The MnDNR PWI (Exhibit 4) for Hennepin County depicts the north part of Public Water Wetland (27-916W) covering most of the Site, with a second part off of the Site to the 2 Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 south, south of County Road 6. The MnDNR PWI apparently overstates the area covered by wetland 27-916W within the Site as it is depicted in areas designated as upland during the field review. E-mail correspondence with MnDNR Area Hydrologist John Gleason on June 23, 2010 found that an Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) was established for wetland 27-916W in September, 1998. The OHW for the north part of 27-916W (within the Site) is 963.1 mean sea level (msl) and 963.9 msl for the south part. 4.2 Delineated Wetland Descriptions Westwood completed a wetland delineation on the Site and identified one Type 3 (PEMCd) shallow marsh (Wetland A), approximately 13.5 acres of which lies within the property boundary (Exhibit 5). The wetland extends west of the subject property and is part of a larger wetland complex from which it was historically severed by Wayzata Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad grade to the north and County Road 6 to the south. Two transects were completed along the southern wetland boundary. Dominant wetland vegetation included reed canary grass, common reed grass and cattail with lesser amounts of box elder, spotted touch-me-not, stinging nettle, black willow, red - osier dogwood, quaking aspen, river -bank grape, Virginia creeper, and sedge. Upland vegetation was dominated by Canada goldenrod, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, box elder, and prickly ash with lesser amounts of common buckthorn, tatarian honeysuckle, leafy spurge, smooth sumac, bird's -foot trefoil, Canada thistle, and scattered spruce and pine trees. Soils at the wetland sample point locations were generally 10YR 2/1with approximately 5% 10YR 4/4 concentrations. Soils met the A4 field indicator for hydric soils (Hydrogen Sulfide). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology included a high water table and saturation observed within 12 inches of the soil surface. Soils at upland sample locations were without redoximorphic features and no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. Detailed data collected for this wetland are provided on the attached data forms in Appendix A. 4.3 Wetland Buffers According to current MCWD Rule D, wetlands greater than five acres in size require a 35 - foot buffer. MCWD Rules for wetland protection are currently being revised. Assuming the proposed draft Wetland Protection Rule is adopted and implemented, the buffer width will be determined based on the functions and values of the wetland using the MCWD's Functional Assessment of Wetlands (MCRAM) or the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM). According to Becky Houdek with MCWD, Wetland A was classified as a Manage 2 wetland in 2001 using the MCRAM. As a Manage 2 wetland, base buffer widths would be 30 -feet with a minimum applied buffer width of 24 -feet should a permit application be submitted after the Wetland Protection Rule is implemented. Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Westwood delineated and flagged one Type 3 (PEMCd) wetland within the Site totaling approximately 13.5 acres. The delineated wetland corresponded to an NWI-mapped PEMCd wetland and areas of mapped hydric soil (Klossner, Houghton and Muskego, and Hamel -Glencoe). The PWI mapping of DNR Public Waters Wetland 27-916W indicated Wetland 27-916W extending into areas that were determined to be upland as a result of the field delineation. Westwood recommends that the MnDNR be requested to verify that the OHW of 27-916W does not extend beyond the delineated boundary. This can be done as part of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) review of the delineation. Westwood requests that MCWD, as the LGU, provide written confirmation to Xcel Energy, Inc. that the delineated wetland boundaries shown on the attached Wetland Boundaries map (Exhibit 5) are acceptable for local administration of the WCA and MCWD Rules. A completed WCA Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form accompanies this request to facilitate the WCA wetland boundary and type determination request. Westwood also requests that the USACE provide a preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD) and formal wetland boundary determination for Wetland A. A completed Request for Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Review form accompanies this request to facilitate the wetland boundary and preliminary jurisdiction determination request. In Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Cowardin, L.M. , V.M. Carter, F.C. Golet , and E.T. LaRoe . 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp. Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1971. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 67 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-12. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-27. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. http://www.usace. army. mil/CEC W/Documents/cecwo/reg//lants/196_intro.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F. (eds.). USDA, NRCS, Fort. Worth, TX. 5 Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project July 2, 2010 7.0 CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the wetland delineation completed for this Site is consistent with current wetland delineation practices and guidelines. I have the specific qualifications, education, training, and experience to complete wetland delineations and determinations in accordance with federal and state requirements. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES . 4j Kelly S. Kunst, WDC, PWS Environmental Scientist NIN Certified Wetland Delineator 1114 6 Exhibits Xcel Energy, Inc. Orono Substation Expansion Project Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota © 2010 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Y. l�_ ....l '`"tip_ '3ios ;, •..' 'PerkinsvilleRd Y = _� ,,,� _ Syca_more,Tr _ .., 1 A. --> 1Ra. •• of _ LkL{ t IL 11n N a1;�}, .�' 1 I k� mss, � '� ��- �� ��a+{ � eon• -��,t �}w�� � - ..° � ��"'^'�-�u^�-�.��#_ ..ter '.k •__� 5 ir5 I 'x-;' f �- :. N.— I \14 �tR a � y . y�,,��` ��i1�i. �I{s '� :R l�j '4�h` C1f� '��'�• �,'� 'M1. ��'�I}�'� :i- - -+4' #'.?Adr q. LZ V9 F./f— } `i a- r ,5k'I ' a "` ,;,% ti -,I `— '?{Y ,? xx-, �,.. rk+'. Q' (� tit• ' v rJ Y„ al it _f ``e�. �.p + 4 01 ., � _ �� � •� �� f*'�4�o i ;};,•: 13{� !1 ' �— i.'" ' L' '. "� I' L rli'S 4 , i . C�}'f : 'lI .'{t f f •55'` yryk' Q f 1 �', ,t„ -.J ' k{. 1 ,f •!On /i' Li., .I -. L+I15Y I,' •�' }k- k :— ,.• + }..� { { I kl _. .r Irl I;s.f, : k f .. Wete ', ,11 M171' . LLQ' fr'r. �,'� i��,. ��,• '.,=. �.� � �.-_;; � '.�llr 4a } ��:. _ _._ I �.'.,r �'��'. ... ,�v_� '.Bayside nr^ County. Hwy 195', Rd �r'x _ } raF .High L"a)+f�: , : {� x Christine '.' 'I 5 r1 _ ' •, • , f'A#k•._-'j Dr - .k;� *'{"� ;..:t— Eileen s,�{�+x^'�' k jJ + ° M1,•:-. — �'i'1,, a _.. T Eileen�, y,.' * • v '+,j 'si''',e 'ti•` �, •.} �. t" ''SL ' 4) Legend ,�� _ Site Location t '`Y 3 f: ` �; V- Rd a ex i r 5 Sus Data Source(s): USGS DRG Mosaic, 24K 2002, MnDOT BaseMapRoads (2004), Westwood 2010. Orono Substation Expansion . Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Orono, Minnesota 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 6==K====] Feet PHONE 952-937-5150 N 0 2,000 Site Location/USGS Topography FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5137-51 50 Scale Bar Westwood www.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 1 Data sooree(s): USFWS NW7 (1989), Westwood 2010. W Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood wvwv—tvvoodps.com Orono Substation Expansion Orono, Minnesota N 0 500eet National Wetlands Inventory AScale Bar EXHIBIT 2 @2010 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. L40B W L36A L36A W L40B L23A L22C2 L40B L25A L41 D2 L64A L16A L24A L23A L9A L22C2 L37B �ayZat� L36A _ley L36A L64A L35A L37B L50A L36A L49A L37B L36A L50A L41 D2 L41 C2 Soil Type e Hydric: L49A: Klossner soils, depressional, 0 to 1 % 40B slopes L50A: Houghton and Muskego soils, depressional, 0 to 1 % slopes L35Ad °e L40B L132A:Hamel-Glencoe, depressional, complex, +x ,"r L132A 4. L24A 0 to 3% slopes ey L132A Non -Hydric: L35A: Lerdal loam, 1 to 3% slopes ' L36A: Hamel overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4% ` LaoB L36A slopes 1_3713: Angus loam, morainic, 2 to 5% slopes _ 41 C2 1_4013: Angus -Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6% slope L49A ti L40115 L41 C2: Lester -Kilkenny complex, 6 to 12% slopes, eroded USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey: "All hydric" means that all components listed for a given.. � SS ` Legend map unit are rated as being hydric, while "not-'r-,L+3A hydric" means that all components are rated as Site Location t not hydric. "Partially hydric" means that at least L132A # 7 1c2 one component of the map unit is rated as hyric,= i� t Soil Unit and at least one component is rated as not L35A' Hydric Soils r L49A Lr40 Data Sonrce(s): USDA NRCS, SSURGO database for Hennepin County (2006), AEI Imagery (2009), Westwood 2010. Orono Substation Expansion W Westwood Professional5eNices, Inc. Orono, Minnesota M7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 6=m===]Feet PHONE 952-937-5150 N O 400 NRCS Digital Soil Survey FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5137-51 50 Westwood w westwoodp,. rn EXHIBIT 3 a 3L Dala S- cc(s): Orono Substation Expansion W Westwood Professional5eNices, Inc. Orono, Minnesota 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 N MnDNR Public Waters & Wetlands FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Feet Westwood www—t—dps.com 0 500 EXHIBIT 4 3a © 2010 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Transect Al GRE69kV BD Transmission Line � it 11 :E r CSAH 6 Legend GPS -Located Wetland Boundary Site Location Dala Source(s): AEI Imagery (2009), Westwood 2010. Transect A2 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive W Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 9g7: FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood www.w.stwoodps.com Transect A2 i r * �7 Existing Substation r .• Orono Substation Expansion Orono, Minnesota N Delineated Wetland Boundary A�� Feet 0 200 EXHIBIT 5 9g7: yG' 4 T�17 Shy, ! 111110 * 5966 � i r * �7 Existing Substation r .• Orono Substation Expansion Orono, Minnesota N Delineated Wetland Boundary A�� Feet 0 200 EXHIBIT 5 Appendix A Wetland Delineation Data Forms Xcel Energy Orono Substation Expansion Project Hennepin County, Minnesota WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region ProjecUSite: Orono Substation City/County: Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/10/2010 Applicant/Owner: Xcel EneMy State: MN Sampling Point: Al Wet Investigator(s): Kelly D. Kunst Section, Township, Range: S. 29 & 32, T118, R. 23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): none local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Hamel -Glencoe de ressional NWI or VVWI classification: PEMCd Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: Wetland is partially drained, apparently due to catchment area changes. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Status _Species? Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer negundo 60 Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.00 (AIB) 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) Prevalence index worksheet: 1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3. FACW species 155 x2= 310 4. FAC species 2 x3= 6 5. FACU species 0 x4= 0 = Total Cover UPi_ species 5 x5= 25 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column Totals: 162 (q) 341 (g) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 95 Y FACW 2. Bromus inermis 5 N UPL Prevalence Index = B1A = 2.10 3 Erigeron annuus 2 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is 550% X Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4. 5. 6. — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 8. — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. 10 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 102 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No 2 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Al Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features PrimaryIndicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Lac Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 X High Water Table (A2) CL 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3: Histosol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) %< Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) X Geomorphic Position (D2) Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetiand Hydrology Indicators: PrimaryIndicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (135) —Thin Muck Surface (C7) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) ,._,_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: Orono Substation City/County: Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/10/2010 Applicant/Owner: Xcel Energy State: MN Sampling Point: Al Up Investigator(s): Kelly D. Kunst Section, Township, Range: S. 29 & 32, T118, R. 23W Landform (hillsrope, terrace, etc.): none Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): ~2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Lerdal loam/Hamel-Glencoe (depressional) NWI or WWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X !s the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 } % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer Re uRrIO 15 Y FACW That Are OB L, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.00 (A/B) 5. 15 = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plat size: 15 } 1. Xanthoxylum americanum 10 Y UPL Total % Cover of. Multiply, _by 2. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 15 x 2 = 30 FAC species 25 x3= 75 3. 4. 5. FACU species 4 x4= 16 10 = Total Cover UPL species 80 x5= 400 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 } Column Totals: 124 (A) 521 (g) 1, Bromus inermis 70 Y UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.20 2. Poa pratensis 25 Y FAC 3 Solidago canadensis 2 N FACU Hydro h p ytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Cirsium arvensis 2 N FACU _ Dominance Test is >50% 5. _ Prevalence Index is :53.01 — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 6. 7. 8. — 9. 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 99 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 } 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Present? Yes No X Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Al Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators minimum of one is required: check all that apply) (inches) Color moist % _ Color (moist) % Tyke Loc Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 211 100 High Water Table (A2) CL 20-26 10YR 211 95 10YR 313 5 C M CL Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil indicators: Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Ai) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ FAG -Neutral Test (135) Stratified Layers (A5) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Type: Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres an Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) — Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (135) —Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAG -Neutral Test (135) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X includes ca ills fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region -- Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: Orono Substation City/County: Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/10/2010 ApplicantlOwner: Xcel Energy State: MN Sampling Point: A2 Wet Investigator(s): Kelly D. Kunst Section, Township, Range: S. 29 & 32, T118, R. 23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): none Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Hamel -Glencoe (depressional) NWI or WWI classification: PEMCd Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No within a wetland? Yes No Remarks: Wetland is partially drained, apparently due to catchment area changes. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer ne undo 15 Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2, Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.00 (A/B) 15 = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) 1. UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species 2 x 1 = 2 FACW species 115 x2= 230 3. 4. FAC species 5 X3= 15 5. FACU species 0 x4= 0 = Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column Totals: 122 (A) 247 (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacee 100 Y FACW Prevalence Index = BIA = 2.02 2. Urtica dioica 5 N FAC 3 Typha angusfifolia 2 N OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4, FACU X Dominance Test is >50% 5. X Prevalence Index is X3.0' 6. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 7 8 9. 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 107 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No 2 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: A2 Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators minimum of one is required: check all that apply) {inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 211 100 X High Water Table (A2) CL 18-24 N2.51 100 X Saturation (A3) C Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (At) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes—X No Type: Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) X High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (Bl 3) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (131) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (65) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) — Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 12 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes—X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: Orono Substation CitylCounty: Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/10/2010 Applicant/Owner: Xcel Energy State: MN Sampling Point: A2 Up Investigator(s): Kelly D. Kunst Section, Township, Range: S. 29 & 32, T118, R. 23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): none Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 10% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Lerdal loam/Hamel-Glencoe de ressional NWl or WWI classification: PEMCd Are climatic! hydrologic conditions an the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil of Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 } % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer negundo 25 Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.00 (AIB) 5. 25 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 } Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Xanthoxylum americanum 5 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. 08L species 0 x 1 = 0 3. FACW species 25 x2= 50 4. FAC species 40 X3= 120 5• FACU species 62 x4= 248 5 = Total Cover UPL species 25 x 5 = 125 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column Totals: 152 (,4) 543 (B) 1. Solida o canadensis 60 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.57 2. Poa pratensis 40 Y FAC 3 Euphorbia esula 20 N UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indlcators: 4. Cirsium arvensis 2 N FACU _ Dominance Test is >50% 5. _ Prevalence Index is :53.01 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 6. 7 9. 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 122 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 } 1- Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation ?resent? Yes No X = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: A2 Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Prima Indicators minimum of one is required; check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % _Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 211 100 High Water Table (A2) CL 18-24 10YR 2!1 95 10YR 414 5 C M CL 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (Al 0) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (if observed): X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No_X Type: Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima Indicators minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (63) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (134) — Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) ` Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) __.. Gauge or Well Data (D9) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) __.. Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No_X includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Interim Version Appendix B Wetland Classification System Wetland Delineation Report — Orono Substation Expansion Project June 16, 2010 Cowardin Wetland Classification System Source: Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al. 1979). System Symbol Subsystems System Specific Classes Symbology Sample Lacustrine L (1) Limnetic (2) Littoral RB, UB, AB, OW, RS, US, EM, SYMBOLOGY EXAMPLE SYSTEM Palustrine P None RB, UB, AB, US, ML, EM, SS, FO, OW Type 6: Shrub swamp PSSA, PSSC, PSSF, PSSG, PSS1, PSS5, PSS613 Type 7: Wooded swamp SUBSYSTEM /--f-CLASS Type 8: Bog (1) Tidal Lower (2) Lower Perennialt2EM X Riverine R (3) Upper Perennial RB, UB, SB, AB, RS, US, EM, OW SUBCLASS, WATER REGIME (4) Intermittent (5) Unknown Perennial UPLAND {NON -WETLAND} n �R20WH ��~ LINEAR DEEPWATER HABITAT) - Classes Special Modifiers Water Regimes Rock Bottom RB b — beaver d — Partially drained/ditched f —Farmed h — diked/impounded r — artificial substrate s —spoil A — Temporarily flooded B — Saturated C — Seasonally flooded D —Seasonally flooded/well drained E — Seasonally saturated F — Semi -permanently flooded G —Intermittently exposed Unconsolidated Bottom UB Streambed SB Aquatic Bed AB Rocky Shore RS Unconsolidated Shore us Emergent EM Open Water OW x — excavated H — Permanently flooded J —Intermittently flooded K — Artificial) flooded yoo B _ Pr,n,ari3y represents upland areas. but may mciude unoassif edwetlands such as man modified areas, non photo Fdenut,able areas and: or unintentional omissions Moss Lichen ML Scrub Shrub SS Forested FO Circular 39 Wetland Classification System Source: Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) Type and Definition Approximate Cowardin Equivalents Type 1: Seasonally flooded basin PEMA, PFOA, PUS Type 2: Wet meadow PEMB Type 3: Shallow marsh PEMC, PEMF, PSSH, PUBA, PUBC Type 4: Deep marsh L2ABF, L2EMF, 1_2EMG, L2US, PABF, PABG, PEMG, PEMH, PUBB, PUBF Type 5: Shallow open water L1, L2ABG, L2ABH, L2EMA, L2EMB, L2EMH, L2RS, L2UB, PABH, PUBG, PUBH Type 6: Shrub swamp PSSA, PSSC, PSSF, PSSG, PSS1, PSS5, PSS613 Type 7: Wooded swamp PF01, PF05, PF06B, PFOC, PFOF Type 8: Bog PF02, PF04, PF07B, PSS2, PSS3, PSS4, PSS713 Figure 1: Wetland Classification Systems W 10 _0� Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application Local Government Unit (LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Blvd, Dee haven, MN 55391 Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Xcel Energy, Inc. Xcel Energy Orono Substation. Application Number. Expansion 8/4/10 W10-08 Type of Application (check all that apply): ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan' ❑ Banking Plan summary ana uescriptzon or proposeu project (attacn aciaitionat sheets as necessary): Xcel Energy has applied for approval of a wetland boundary at the parcel located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North in the City of Orono (PID 429-118-23-33-0009). The delineation was performed. by Westwood Professional Services on June 10, 2010. The delineation report is attached. The boundary will be reviewed in the field by MCWD staff. 2. APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Catherine Bach District Technician Comments must be received by (minimum 15 business -day comment period): September 1, 2010 Address (if different than LGU) Date, time, and location of decision: 18202 Minnetonka Blvd A decision will be made following field review Deephaven, MN 55391 of the delineation and completion of the comment period. Phone Number and E-mail Address Decision -maker for this application: 952-471-0590 ext. 226 ® Staff cbach@minnehahacreek.org ❑ Governing Board or Council &AWL.Signature: Date: J BWSRForms 11-25-09 Page 1 of 3. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski - stacey.lijewski@co.hennepin.mn.us ® BWSR TEP member: Lynda Peterson - lynda.peterson@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ❑ DNR TEP member: ® DNR Regional Office: Melissa Doperalski - melissa.doperalski@dnr.state.mn.Lis ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable): ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): Xcel Energy, Joe Sedarski (Xcel Energy) - ose h. .sedarski x celeliergy.com ® Consultant: Westwood Professional Services, Kelly Kunst - kelly.kunst@westwoodps.com ® City: City of Orono, Christine Mattson - cmattsonnci.orono.mn.us ❑ Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Melissa Jenny - melissa.m.jenn_y @usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator wetland bank plan applications only): 4. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas[\VCA—areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR—TEP--Contacts.pdf ➢ Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Re ig_on: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol, Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol, Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Bemidji, MN 56601 Grand Ra ids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN. 56073 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: littp://files.dnr,state.inn.us/abcyutdnr/diir—regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www.mvp.usace.anny,mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-163.8 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy -of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 5. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the application, list any other. attachments: BWSRForms 11-25-09 Page 2 of 2 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Xcel Energy, Inc. Xcel Energy Orono Substation Application Number Expansion 814110 W10-08 ❑ Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan technical evaluation Fanel F dmjzs and Recommendation ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION . Date of Decision: 9114110 ® Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): The wetland boundary delineated by Westwood Professional Services at 3960 Sixth Avenue North in the city of Orono (PID# 29-118.23-33-0009) on June 10, 2010 was reviewed in the field on August 20, 2010 by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff. The wetland area was identified as a type 3 PEMCd (shallow marsh) wetland. The dominant vegetation within the wetland consisted of cattail and reed canary grass, with lesser amounts of box elder. The boundary with upland was characterized by a slight change in elevation & a transition to primarily non-hydrophytic vegetation. The boundary as flagged in the field and labeled in the delineation report submitted on August 4, 2010 is accepted by the MCWD. This decision is valid for 3 years. A project on this property may require a permit from the MCWD. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-471-0590. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account 4 Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Name Title Catherine Bach Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 Signature Date Phone Number and E-mail acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: ❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LOU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Catherine Bach District Technician Signature Date Phone Number and E-mail 9114110 952-471-0590 x 226 ebach@minnehahaereek.org THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MMNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: ® Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $ fee (if applicable) to: petition and $500 filing fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director 18202 Minnetonka Blvd Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Deephaven, MN 55391 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski - stacey.hjewski@co.hennepin.mn.us ® BWSR TEP member: Lynda Peterson - lynda.peterson@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP member: Jack Gleason - john.gleason@dur.state.mn.us ® DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) — rv� tse� ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable):• ® Applicant and Landowner (if different) X(eA "� Jx Sed �a�I�P "k -J, S:ed x5V-i 4 ❑ Members of the public who requested notice.. Consultant: Westwood Professional Services (Kelly Kunst) - kelly.kunst@westwoodps.com City of Orono (Christine Mattson) - cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager M vAi5c a, , y0ust'ue ,u F-1 BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland ba�decisions only) trz•i 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/worlcareas/WCA areas. df ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/Wea/DNR TEP ®contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd, 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 Bemidji, MN 56601 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.drir.state.nm.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.myp.usace.Lmy.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP -R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 �Vi 0 v5 A , UlVr . APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF APPLICATION FACTORS MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Appendix G.1 Supplemental Information to Section 4.3 MPUC Docket No. L,002/TL-11-223 Supplement to Section 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the Proposed Route (see Figure F-1, Appendix F). At this point Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more westerly course for approximately 550 feet to existing Structure 077 of Line 0831. Alternative Route 1 is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of transportation (railroad and highway) and utilities for approximately 38 percent of the length of this route. Approximately 38 percent of Alternative Route 1 is within the Orono Substation Site with the remainder of the route (24 percent) taking a direct route across HFA land to existing Line 0831 and Structure 077. Approximately 90 percent of the route crosses undeveloped, open land and approximately 10 percent of the route crosses forest land (see Section 6.3). The route crosses land zoned primarily for residential purposes (see Section 6.2.2). One residence is located within 200 feet of the Alternative Route 1 centerline. Cultural resource site information is the same as that for the Proposed Route (i.e., 34 sites are located within one mile, as described above) (see also Section 6.4). Alternative Route 1 does not cross any PWI watercourses. However, Alternate Route 1 spans approximately 1,840 feet of PWI wetland (see Section 6.5.4). Alternative Route 1 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill one main objective of the Project, that being to minimize impacts to residences. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Xcel Energy is working with the two landowners whose properties are currently crossed by existing Line 0831 to remove the Line 0831 from the properties and move the line north of their respective property lines onto adjacent HFA property. Alternative Route 1 also requires the clearing of some mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. Supplement to Section 4.3.2Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure F-1, Appendix F). At this point Alternative Route 2 continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 (see Figure F-1). The existing tower (Structure 076) located at this connection point lies within 30 feet of a paved bike path within Baker Park Reserve. Alternative Route 2 was rejected due to the number of transportation crossings (e.g. the BNSF railroad, U.S. Highway 12), the location of an existing Metropolitan Council sewer line located between the railroad and highway, and potential disruption to the bike path and impact to Baker Park Reserve property (see Figure B.7 in Appendix B). In comparison, the Proposed Route does not cross the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12, or enter the Baker Park Reserve property. Although Structure 076 lies within Baker Park Reserve and will be replaced as part of the Project, the Proposed Route for the new transmission line is proposed to be placed within Baker Park Reserve. Alternative Route 2 is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of transportation (railroad and highway) and utilities for approximately 45 percent of the length of the route, with the remainder of F.1-1 the route paralleling property lines. Approximately 15 percent of the route crosses undeveloped, open land and approximately 40 percent of the route crosses forest land (see Section 6.3). The route crosses land zoned primarily for residential purposes (see Section 6.2.2), although nearly half of this route is within the Baker Park Reserve. No residences are located within 200 feet of the Alternative Route 2 centerline. Cultural resource site information is the same as that for the Proposed Route (i.e., 34 sites located within one mile, as described above) (see also Section 6.4). Alternative Route 2 does not cross any PWI watercourses. However, Alternative Route 2 spans approximately 1,755 feet of PWI wetland (see Section 6.5.4). Alternative Route 2 follows utility, road, and railroad corridors for 45 percent of the route, compared to a greater percentage (57 percent) associated with the Proposed Route. Alternative Route 2 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill two main objectives of the Project, those being: i) maximizing the use of existing transportation rights-of-way and transmission line alignments; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed Route. Supplement to Section 4.3.3 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 3 and the Proposed Route share the same route from the point the routes leave the proposed substation expansion to approximately 1,000 feet west of the point both routes turn westerly along the BNSF railroad right-of-way (see Figure F-1, Appendix F). At this location Alternative Route 3 extends both to the north and to the west to make connections with Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831. The northerly connection includes a 329 foot span across the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12, and enters into Baker Park Reserve property making the northern connection to transmission Line 0831 at existing Structure 076. Similar to the Proposed Route, this northern connection would require that existing Structure 076 be replaced by a steel single pole. The westerly connection of Alternative Route 3, south of the BNSF railroad and U.S. Highway 12, spans across HFA land, and spans a residential lot for approximately 384 feet to connect to Xcel Energy's existing 115 kV transmission Line 0831 at Structure 077. The existing 115 kV line between the two connection points that spans the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 in Alternative Route 3 would be removed from service. However, a new span for the northern connection to Line 0831 would cross over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12. Alternative Route 3 is within or adjacent to the existing rights-of-way of the transportation (railroad and highway) for approximately 43 percent of the length of the route compared to a greater percentage (57 percent) associated with the Proposed Route. Approximately 77 percent of the route crosses undeveloped open land, as opposed to 86 percent for the Proposed Route, and approximately one percent of the route crosses forest land (see Section 6.3). The route crosses land zoned primarily for residential purposes (see Section 6.2.2). One residence is located within 200 feet of the Alternative Route 3 centerline. Cultural resource site information is the same as that for the Proposed Route (i.e., 34 sites located within one mile, as described above) (see also Section 6.4). Alternative Route 3 does not cross any PWI watercourses. However, Alternate Route 3 spans approximately 2,168 feet of PWI wetland (see Section 6.5.4). Alternative Route 3 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it does not fulfill one main objective of the Project, that being minimize to impacts to residences. As discussed in section 4.2.2 Xcel Energy is working with two residential landowners to remove the existing 115 kV transmission F.1-2 line from their residential lots within the HFA and move it north onto HFA land. Alternative Route 3 also requires the clearing of some mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. Supplement to Section 4.14Altemative Route 4 Alternative Route 4 was evaluated for the potential to parallel the existing GRE 69 kV transmission Line BD right-of-way (see Figure F-1, Appendix F). Alternative Route 4 exits the proposed substation expansion area northeasterly for approximately 100 feet over Xcel Energy property before turning southeasterly for an additional approximate 160 feet. Alternative Route 4 then parallels the GRE Line BD for approximately 3,130 of the route. Alternative Route 4 would continue east for approximately 607 feet prior to turning north. Upon turning north Alternative Route 4 would continue to follow the GRE Line BD north for approximately 2,523 feet leaving Xcel Energy's property and crossing over the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and entering Barker Park Reserve. At this point the GRE Line BD turns east. Alternative Route 4 would continue north for approximately 350 feet across the Baker Park Reserve requiring new right-of-way that would not be co -located with other utility rights-of-way. Alternative Route 4 is the longest of the four routes evaluated for the Project. Alternative Route 4 is within or adjacent to the existing GRE 69 kV Line BD right-of-way for approximately 84 percent of the length of the route, with the remainder of the route within Xcel Energy property and Baker Park Reserve lands. Approximately 99 percent of the route crosses undeveloped, open land and approximately one percent of the route crosses forest land (see Section 6.3). The route crosses land zoned primarily for residential purposes (see Section 6.2.2), although approximately 32 percent of this Alternative Route is within the Baker Park Reserve. All but 300 feet of the route is within the City of Orono municipal boundaries. The remaining 300 feet is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Medina. No residences are located within 200 feet of the Alternative Route 4 centerline. Two improved paths within the Baker Park Reserve are crossed by this alternative route. Cultural resource site information is the same as that for the Proposed Route (i.e., 34 sites located within one mile, as described above) (see also Section 6.4). Alternate Route 4 does not cross any PWI watercourses, however, Alternate Route 4 spans approximately 3,480 feet of PWI wetland (see Section 6.5.4). Alternative Route 4 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill two main objectives of the Project, those being: i) minimizing impacts to environmental and sensitive resources; and ii) minimizing the impacts to Baker Park Reserve, when compared to the Proposed Route. Additionally, Alternative Route 4 requires crossing the BNSF railroad, the Metropolitan Council sewer line and U.S. Highway 12 unlike the Proposed Route. F.1-3 Appendix G.2 Detailed Description of Alternative Routes MPUC Docket No. L,002/TL-11-223 TABLE G.1 Detailed Description of Alternative Routes Route Distance Transportation . .. Public Waters Crossing Alternative Route 1: Orono Substation to Existing 115 kV Line 0831 south of U.S. Highway 12 (1,950 feet west of Orono Substation) Northeast out of substation on Xcel Energy Property 100 feet No features crossed Northwest to Xcel Energy's west property line 311 feet No features crossed North along Xcel Energy's west property line to BNSF right-of-way 455 Unnamed Wetland Northwest along BNSF right-of-way and within HFA property 835 Unnamed Wetland Westerly across HFA property 550 Unnamed Wetland Total Length 2,251 Alternate Routive 2: Orono Substation to Existing Xcel Energy 115 kV Line 0831 north of U.S. Highway 12 (1,970 feet west of Orono Substation) Northeast out of substation on Xcel Energy Property 100 feet No features crossed Northwest to Xcel Energy's west property line 311 feet No features crossed North to Baker Park Reserve 781 feet U.S. Highway 12 BNSF Railroad Unnamed Wetland Northwesterly across Baker Park Reserve 974 feet Unnamed Wetland Total Length 2,166 feet Alternative Route 3: Orono Substation to Existing 115 kV Line 0831 north and south of U.S. Highway 12 (1,950 feet west of Orono Substation) Northeast out of substation on Xcel Energy Property 100 feet No features crossed Northwest to Xcel Energy's west property line 311 feet No features crossed North along Xcel Energy's west property line to BNSF ROW 455 feet Unnamed Wetland Northwest paralleling BNSF right-of-way and Across private lands 1,000 feet Unnamed Wetland North to Xcel Energy's existing Structure 076 of Line 0831 and west to Xcel Energy's existing Structure 077 of Line 0831 713 U.S. Highway 12 BNSF Railroad Unnamed Wetland Total Length 2,579 feet Alternative Route 4: Orono Substation to Existing 115 kV Line 0831 north of U.S. Highway 12 (3,170 feet north of Orono Substation) TABLE G.1 Detailed Description of Alternative Routes Route Distance Transportation . .. Public Waters Crossing Northeast out of substation on Xcel Eenrgy Property 100 feet No features crossed Southeast on Xcel Energy Property 162 feet No features crossed East on Xcel Energy Property 607 feet Unnamed Wetland U.S. Highway 12 North across Baker Park Reserve to Xcel Energy's 115 kV transmission line 2,873 feet BNSF Railroad Two Baker Park Reserve Paved Trails Unnamed Wetland Total Length 3,742 feet Appendix G.3 Figure G.1 - Alternative Routes MPUC Docket No. L,002/TL-11-223 W. Alternative Route 1 - - - Alternative Route 2 �77�p I i y T p 4 Alternative Route 3 � Alternative Route 4 Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD 100000 GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD i OAF ' t Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line �. �;- a ilr.,..' , . �: ��.�+- � �:• � Existing Xcel Orono Substation s, � �,,'�„ �.�� . �•� "' ,;;� Existing Orono Substation Property Park 'fin :.•��,:.r_. � _�; tC 1 Q Proposed Substation Expansion Existing Structure 077 (Line 0831) Existing Structure 076 (Line 0831) '.. sem.'.. 1 - 1 1 1 •. �, c«S �-' � 17�p 7"`�+'� _- •r- ,sir '' .... '.tea. t7��J'. ',•S.,�..'-r . �' `''�~ .f '''4 20 • ?:.MW - c .i rX p MPUC Doc7eN E002/TL- FIGURE G-1 e � XCefEnergy. ORONO SUBSTATION REPLACEMENT AND NEW 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 400 Aerial Image Source. Hennepin ORONO MINNESOTA Aerial Express ECW Image County DRN BY: TS DATE: 37/11 PROJECT NO. FIG. NO. Feet dated Sept. 15, 2009 CHK'D BY: DD DATE: 3/7/11 31810889 G-1 Appendix GA Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Appendix GA: Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes This table summarizes Xcel Energy's Application of the factors set forth in Minn. R. 7850.4100 for the Proposed and Alternate Routes. Table G.2 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes Comparison of Issue Proposed Route Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 4 Routes Effects on Human Settlement Structures within 0 2 0 2 0 Similar impact — 200 feet of the route features will be centerline avoided Displacement Proposed Route No impact No impact No impact No impact Less impact on two removes existing residential properties transmission facilities with Proposed Route from two residential properties Noise No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Aesthetics Viewshed will include Viewshed will include Viewshed will include Viewshed will include Viewshed will include Alternate Routes 2, 3 transmission lines transmission lines transmission lines transmission lines transmission lines and 4 will require and poles and poles and poles and poles and poles transmission line and poles to be placed in Baker Park Reserve Cultural Values No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Recreation No impact No Impact Transmission lines Transmission lines Transmission lines The Proposed Route and poles will be and poles will be and poles will be does not require the placed within Baker placed within Baker placed within Baker transmission line be Park Reserve Park Reserve Park Reserve placed in Baker Park Reserve Public Services No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Effects on Public Health and Safety Public Health and No impact from No impact from No impact from No impact from No impact from Similar impact — Safety noise or EMF noise or EMF noise or EMF noise or EMF noise or EMF none Table G.2 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes Comparison of Issue Proposed Route Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 4 Routes Effects on Land-based Economics Agriculture No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Forestry No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — No impact none Tourism No impact No impact No impact No Impact No Impact Similar impact — none Mining No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Effects on Archaeolo 'cal and Historic Resources Archaeological 14 sites within 14 sites within 14 sites within 14 sites within 14 sites within Similar impact — Resources Project area Project area Project area Project area Project area none Historic Resources 18 sites within 18 sites within 18 sites within 18 sites within 18 sites within Similar impact — Pro'ect area Project area Project area Project area Project area none Effects on the Natural Environment Air Quality No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Water Quality No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Similar impact — none Public Water Painter Creek The Proposed Route Crossings crossing overhead will span Painter with transmission No impact No impact No impact No impact Creek, but no work line will be done within the creek bed Wetlands 0.40 mile of wetland 0.33 mile of wetland 0.14 mile of wetland 0.33 mile of wetland 0.45 mile of wetland The Proposed Route spanned; 2 wetland spanned; 1 wetland spanned; 2 wetland spanned; 1 wetland spanned; 2 wetland will cross less crossings within 75- crossings within 75- crossings within 75- crossings within 75- crossings within 75- wetland than foot -wide easement foot -wide easement foot -wide easement foot -wide easement foot -wide easement Alternate Route 4 but will cross slightly more than Alternate Routes 1, 2 and 3. Floodplains Located within Located within Located within Located within Located within Similar impact mapped floodplain mapped floodplain mapped floodplain mapped floodplain mapped floodplain Flora No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Flora within one mile of Project Table G.2 No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Flora within one mile of Project of Provosed and Alternative Routes No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Flora within one mile of Project No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Flora within one mile of Project No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Flora within one mile of Project Similar impact - None Fauna Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of Threatened) was Threatened) was listed within one mile Threatened) was Threatened) was Threatened) was Threatened) was Similar impact listed within one mile of the Project listed within one mile listed within one mile listed within one mile listed within one mile of the Project of the Project of the Project of the Project of the Project Rare and Unique Natural Resources Use of Existing 7 Existing Transportation, Pipeline, and Electrical Transmission Systems or Rights of -Way Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Swan (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of (State Status of Threatened) was Threatened) was Threatened) was Threatened) was Threatened) was Similar impact listed within one mile listed within one mile listed within one mile listed within one mile listed within one mile of the Project of the Project of the Project of the Project of the Project is ortation, Pipeline, and Electrical Transmission Systems or Ri hts-of-Wa Approximately 1,795 Approximately 835 Approximately 974 Approximately 3,480 Approximately 3,480 feet, or 57 percent of feet, or 38 percent of feet, or 45 percent of feet, or 93 percent of feet, or 93 percent of route route route route; however, route crosses Baker Park Reserve The Proposed Route will abut a greater percent of existing utility or transportation rights- of-way than Alt. Routes 1, 2 and 3. Alt. Route 4 abuts a greater amount of utility right-of-way; however, it is located in Baker Park Reserve. Table G.2 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes Comparison of Issue Proposed Route Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Route 4 Routes Electrical System Reliability Electrical System Provides reliability to Provides reliability to Provides reliability to Provides reliability to Provides reliability to Similar benefits Reliability system system system system system Cost of Constructing, Operating, and Maintaining the Facility That are Dependent on Design and Route Costs 1 $1,200,00.00 Adverse Human and Natural Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided General Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Similar impacts potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; potential need for potential need for potential need for potential need for potential need for tree removal tree removal tree removal tree removal tree removal Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources General Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Pole placement, Similar impacts potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting potentially resulting in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; in wetland impacts; potential need for potential need for potential need for potential need for potential need for tree removal tree removal tree removal tree removal tree removal Appendix B: Maps Xcel Energy Proposed Route Baker Park Reserve Route Alternative Existing Xcel Energy 11 5k Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD • GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line _ j Requested Route Width (Approximately 40Y Total) 0 Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Substation Property Park Boundary Proposed 75 Ft Right -of -Way OProposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels Existing Infrastructure to be Removed Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Figure B-1: General Vicinity Map Proposed �^ 115 kV Single Circuit Transmission Line • i .� 076 (Line _ s : Tobe repl r rte.. 076-1 (New) To replace existing structurE Proposed 115/115 kV Double Circuit Transmission Line .. ? N, Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Figure B-2: Wetlands and Waterbodies Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Figure B-3: Zoning x'077 (New) 076 (Line 0831) a _ To be replaced _ Y 078'(Line- �_ d beireplaced •.. �._y �� X076=1z(New) To-realamexisting structure 077 Xcel Energy Proposed Route Baker Park Reserve Route Alternative Requested Route Width (Approximately 400' Total) Existing Xcel Energy 11 5k Line 0831 Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Existing GRE 69kV Line BD • • • • • GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Orono Substation Q Existing Orono Substation Property Approximate Location of Orono Shoreland Overlay District City of Orono Zoning Planned Residential Development One Family Rural Residential - 5 Acres One Family Rural Residential - 2 Acres '077 (L To be rel b �a � Alt -076-1 t ur cture 076-1 2(New) .O&MIM2l� ti \ al 07&3 (New) •4ir ii -. _ ! Ys1'i'l."C',}7i�.l3CS'ST:�r'GST: ef'i.` i�i''.�w'TF. ii'P:{'.3CYf>9:.•]LT<3a'�ra.......-1 .�— �••—_ - .. _.... 1 e i 300 Feet Aerial Image Source: ' N Aerial Express ECW Image I :6th pie dated Sept. 15, 2009 , Project Location •y� ,A. I . r r vNcr cy I I Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Figure B-4: Locations of Known Rare and Unique Resources L F" WW'N FN Cit of k 3 RNI� �., i y f �' ''�„ rCoun HwCJ.V ti ount i W-, "I"Y #.. ' �a�y -: City. ky�yrr 'r.': F g., -•.d -'•� A. E Main St' - ,.F=.: .� ' ark Res ry �r way2a • tae F"3f C N 6th �JeN.. „B�roaitm`oou,Dr: VUatertowrn,R'd 12 Luxton City ofIN°ary T° Orono i, ,' �:.,;.. ,-, -. ass... �; `...��. •� J\\��-� , � a ate w rto4 ,a• �..... ti .. F.....: bounty ��-`;.�.r' Park ,^ :•; : �•• -;.,. KA W, fns — Xcel Energy Proposed Route x a e` — Baker Park Reserve Route Alternative a's � .rY•- .:�. „r"a,9 �,1 - Y;� s�,:' r Existing Xcel Energy 11 5k Line 0831 � I i'rri t Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line � Existing GRE 69kV Line BD .;n ;. • • • • • GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed 2,000` — — Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD s=• { ; Y:: r: Existing Xcel Orono Substation's Hennepin?"• O City p Feet County and Township Boundaries Aerial Image Source: Parks Aerial Express ECW Image Locations of Observed Rare or Unique Resources dated Sept. 15, 20098 Project Lo anon ti d s NI I I No Scale Proposed Relocation GRE Line BD PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I� Existing GRE 69kV Line BB— _ EAST- WEST I REFERNECE LINE Proposed Fencel for ReplacemenTr Substation I 0 = Y Project Location Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Figure B-5: Orono Substation Expansion Plan Proposed Structure 076-4 \\ Proposed Stormwater Pond Proposed Structure 076-5 112 ■Illllllllllrllllll���.�llllllll�.�.�1. fll■ �■�iiii��►�w©ice. �■ - -Existing Fence(to be remove L FI z 0 w PROPERTY J w LINES Z w w ZI --------------- "Delineated Wetland Area" Ised Relocation of Line BD Electrical Equipment Enclosure \ f— Existing Pole F— Existing GRE 69kV Line BD X11 � \Existing Wetland Delineation 24'Wetland Buffer 30 Wetland Buffer ----------------------- 6TH-AVE-a---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix C: Orono Substation Views HUNTINGTON FARM - ASSOCIATION EXISTING GRE 69kV TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE PP. i PROPOSED1 DOUBLE CIRi STRUCTURE PR L l l� EXISTII TRANS STRUC PF FL TF EXI: DIS' LINE PPM 6TH AVE NOR C.R. 6 VIEW LOOKING NORTH NORTH - PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-4 APPROX. HT=95' /- SHIELD WIRE OPTIONAL BERM ELEV.=986.0 PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-5 APPROX. HT=95' PROPOSED STEEL DEADENDS (4) APPROX. HT=67' EXISTING GRE 69kV TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES .PROPOSED SHIELD POLE APPROX. HT=100' PROPOSED TRANSFORMER NO. 1 - FENCE PROPOSED STEEL BOX STRUCTURE W/SHIELD SPIKE APPROX. HT=60' i PROPOSED SUBSTATION i FENCE LIMITS L----------------------------------------------------->j SOUTH 73> 6TH AVE NO. / C.R. 6 BEHIND EXISTING BERM EXISTING BERM ELEV.=1005.0 1 r, LEGEND VIEW LOOKING EAST W/BERMSCALE: SHRUB TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=8') DECIDUOUS TREE APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=30') V - 1 "=40' CONIFER TREE APPROX. H - 1"=40' At MID-HEIGHT=30') 0 EXISTING TREE NOV. 21, 2011 PROPOSED TREE SOUTH 73> 6TH AVE NO. / C.R. 6 BEHIND EXISTING BERM EXISTING BERM ELEV.=1005.0 1 r, WEST EXISTING 6TH AVE NORTH / C.R. 6 PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-4 APPROX. HT=95' PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-3 APPROX. HT=95' EXISTING BERM ELEV. 1005.0 PROPOSED STEEL BOX STRUCTURE (2) W/SHIELD SPIKE APPROX. HT=60' I I I � I � PROPOSED SUBSTATION a --—————————————————————————— --------------------------= FENCE LIMITS LEGEND VIEW LOOKING NORTH SHRUB TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=8') SCALE: DECIDUOUS TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=30') V - 1 "=40' H - 1"=40' CONIFER TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=30') NOV. 21, 2011 0 EXISTING TREE PROPOSED TREE EXISTING STEEL 69kV DEADEND STRUCTURE FKuru6tu FENCE EXISTING GRE 69 kV TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE APPROX. HT=60' EAST EXISTING 6TH AVE NORTH / C.R. 6 NORTH PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-4 APPROX. HT=95' PROPOSED 115/115 kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE 076-5 APPROX. HT=95' PROPOSED STEEL DEADENDS (4) APPROX. HT=57' PROPOSED SHIELD POLE APPROX. HT=100' EXISTING GRE 69kV TRANSMISSIONSTRUCTURES • i, PROPOSED STORMWATER 171 • it 'i I I ' "' �� �` �. • + ; oil, i PROPOSED SUBSTATION _ r, FENCE LIMITS SOUTH VIEW LOOKING EAST LEGEND SCALE: V - 1 "=40' SHRUB TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=8') DECIDUOUS TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=30') NOV. 21, 2011 CONIFER TREE (APPROX. MID-HEIGHT=30') EXISTING TREE PROPOSED TREE SOUTH Appendix A: Scoping Decision MINNESOTA DE PARTMENT OF COMMERCE In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project. INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT PUC DOCKET NO. E002/TL-11-223 The above matter has come before the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Commerce (Department) for a decision on the scope of the environmental assessment (EA) to be prepared on the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project proposed by Xcel Energy. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Xcel Energy proposes to construct the Orono Substation Expansion and new 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project). As proposed, the Project would replace the existing 69 kV Orono Substation with a new 115 kV substation at the same location, but with a larger footprint. The Project would connect the expanded substation to the existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission line 0831 through a new double circuit 115 kV transmission lines of approximately 2,040 feet. The Project, as proposed, would also remove approximately 1,030 feet of 115 kV transmission line and replace it with approximately 1,100 feet of new single circuit 115 kV transmission line. While not part of the Route Permit requested by Xcel Energy, approximately 400 feet of the existing Great River Energy 69 kV transmission line BD would be rerouted around the new Orono Substation. Xcel Energy proposes to use steel single -pole structures with spans of approximately 300 to 500 feet between poles; structure heights are anticipated to range from 70 to 90 feet for the single - circuit structures to 75 to 115 feet for the double -circuit structures. Xcel Energy is requesting a route width of approximately 400 feet, or 200 feet either side of the proposed alignment shown in the Application maps. The anticipated right-of-way for the new transmission line would be 75 feet. The Project is located entirely within the city of Orono in Hennepin County. Xcel estimates the total Project cost to be approximately $5.3 million dollars. In its application, Xcel Energy included a description of four alternative routes that were considered, but ultimately rejected. Xcel Energy indicates that the Proposed Route, when compared to the alternatives, minimizes impacts to existing residences, provides greater This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e. large print or audio) by calling 651-296-0391 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by dialing 711. Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 opportunity to share or parallel existing railroad rights-of-way, minimizes transportation crossings, and minimizes impacts to the Baker Park Nature Preserve.' PURPOSE Xcel Energy indicates in its route permit application that the proposed project is intended to improve local and system reliability, reduce the risk of overloads, and allow for additional load growth in the future. REGULATORY BACKGROUND A high-voltage transmission line route permit application for the project was filed by Xcel Energy on June 7, 2011, and accepted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) on June 30, 2011. The route permit will be reviewed under the alternative review process, pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statues 216E) and Minnesota Rules 7850.2800 to 7850.3900. Under the alternative permitting process the Commission has six months from the date the application was accepted as complete to make a decision on the route permit. SCOPING PROCESS Scoping is the first step in the process after application acceptance. The scoping process has two primary purposes: 1) to ensure that the public has a chance to participate in determining what routes and issues are studied in the EA, and 2) to help focus the EA on the most important issues surrounding the route permit decision. This scope identifies potential human and environmental issues that will be addressed in the EA. The scope also presents an anticipated schedule of the environmental review process. Public Scoping Meeting EFP staff held a public information and environmental assessment scoping meeting on August 10, 2011, at the Orono City Hall in Orono, Minnesota. The meeting provided members of the public an opportunity to learn about the proposed project and the state's high-voltage transmission line route permitting process, review the applicant's route permit application, ask questions, provide comments, and identify potential impacts and route alternatives to be considered in the scope of the environmental assessment. Approximately seven members of the public attended the meeting. A court reporter was present at the public meeting and transcribed questions asked and comments made by the public, as well as responses from EFP staff and Xcel Energy. In total, ' Xcel Energy, Northern States Power Company Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Route Route Permit — Orono Substation Replacement and New 115 W Transmission Line Project, Appendix G , June 7, 2011. eDocket 20116-63311-08 2 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 three people provided oral comments and/or asked questions about the proposed project. Topics and issues raised by the public at the meeting included: visual impact, structure heights, possible future expansion, extent of the cleared area, alternate substation locations, and a route alternative through Baker Park Preserve to minimize impacts to residences.2 Public Comments A public comment period, ending on August 26, 2011, provided the public an opportunity to submit comments to EFP staff via e-mail, fax, U.S. Mail or online on issues and alternative routes and alignments for consideration in the scope of the EA. Four comment letters were received by the close of the comment period .3 Xcel Energy also submitted a comment letter on September 7, 2011, addressing alternative routes and substation sites proposed during the scoping period .4 A letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) raised issues such as the wetland impacts, tree removal, impacts to the Baker Park Preserve and potential impacts to trumpeter swans. The DNR also indicates a preference for the Proposed Route or Route Alternative 1 described in the application, as it appears, based on the information contained in the application, that these routes would result in the fewest environmental impacts. DNR did recommended further coordination to minimize impacts to Painter Creek and use of bird flight diverters to minimize the risk of bird collisions. The city of Orono submitted comments outlining issues they wanted to see addressed in the EA. These issues include: aesthetic impacts, relationship of the Project to the land use and planning, project purpose and need, impacts to vegetation and habitat, impacts to cultural and sensitive ecological resources, impact to wetlands and water resources, plans for management of stormwater runoff, traffic, noise and air pollution, and cumulative potential effects from the Project. The letter did not propose any alternative routes or identify a preferred alternative. Xcel Energy's letter proposed use of Y -frame structures at two locations and requests that the EA evaluate the proposed Y -frame structures. Michael Kuruvilla, a resident of the Huntington Farm neighborhood and president of the Hunt Farm Home Owner's association, submitted comments expressing concern with the location of the substation, impacts to wetlands, health and safety impacts from the Project, and economic impacts to landowners from the Project. Mr. Kuruvilla proposed four additional substations locations; these locations are addressed below. The scoping meeting comment report and each comment letter are available for viewing and downloading on the project website maintained by the Commission at: 2 Public Information and Environmental Scoping Meeting Comments, eDocket Id. 20119-66024-01. 3 Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments. eDocket Id. 20119-66024-02. 4 Xcel Energy Comment Letter on Scope of Environmental Assessment. eDocket Id. 20119-66015-01. 3 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=32082 or on the eDockets website at: hlWs:Hedockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/search.isp, select "11" for Year and "223" for Number. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED Having reviewed the matter, consulted with EFP staff, and in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7850.3700, I hereby make the following scoping decision: The issues outlined below will be identified and described in the environmental assessment for the proposed Orono 115 kV project. The assessment will describe the project and current setting of the proposed project area. It will also provide information on the potential impacts the proposed project could have as they relate to the topics outlined in this scoping decision document, including possible mitigation for identified impacts, identification of irretrievable commitment of resources and permits from other government entities that may be required. I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Project Description B. Purpose of the Transmission Line C. Project Location D. Route Description 1. Route Width 2. Right -of -Way E. Project Cost II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. Certificate of Need B. High -Voltage Transmission Line Route Permits C. Environmental Review Process III. ENGINEERING AND OPERATION DESIGN A. Transmission Line Conductors B. Transmission Line Structures C. Substations IV. CONSTRUCTION A. Transmission Line and Structures B. Substations C. Restoration and Cleanup D. Operation and Maintenance E. Property/Right-of-Way Acquisition and Displacement 4 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES A. Environmental Setting B. Socioeconomic and Cultural Setting C. Human Settlement 1. Noise 2. Aesthetics ( including existing trees and right-of-way clearing, pole heights, substation) 3. Existing Utilities (pipelines, propane tanks, septic systems) 4. Property Values D. Public Health and Safety 1. Electric and Magnetic Fields 2. Implantable Medical Devices 3. Stray Voltage 4. Air Quality Associated with the Transmission Facility E. Recreation 1. Parks (city, county, regional, state, and federal) 2. Trails F. Transportation and Public Services 1. Roads and Highways 2. Emergency Services 3. Airports G. Interference 1. Radio (AM/FM and Short-wave) 2. Television (satellite and digital) 3. Global Positioning Devices 4. Cellular Phone 5. Wireless Internet H. Archaeological and Historic Resources I. Land Use (land-based economies) 1. Mining 2. Commercial 3. Tourism 4. Agriculture 5. Forestry 5 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 J. Zoning and Land Use Compatibility/ State and Local Government Planning 1. Residential 2. Shoreland K. Water Resources 1. Lakes, Creeks, Streams, Rivers, and Other Waterways 2. Wetlands (including description and function) 3. Riparian Areas 4. Floodplains L. Soil and Groundwater M. Flora and Fauna 1. Wildlife Management Areas 2. Scientific and Natural Areas 3. State, Federal, and Regional Parks and Forests 4. Avian Line Markers/Diverters 5. Vegetation Removal N. Threatened/Endangered/Rare and Unique Natural Resources VI. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In addition to the Proposed Routes proposed by Xcel Energy in its route permit application, the environmental assessment shall address the following alternative route: Baker Park Preserve Alternative The application identified two routes that crossed portions of the Baker Park Preserve; these were ultimately rejected by Xcel Energy in favor of the Proposed Route. During the scoping process, members of the public requested further evaluation of a route alternative that minimized impacts to private property by shifting the route burden to public lands. The Baker Park Preserve Alternative to be evaluated in the EA is the same as Alternative Route 2 described in Appendix G of the Route Permit Application. The Baker Park Preserve Alternative (Figure 1, attached) follows the same route as the Proposed Route for the first 866 feet out of the substation, but continues northward for approximately 326 feet across the BNSF Railroad, U.S. Highway 12, and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. Highway 12 right-of-way, the route enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park Reserve. From here the route continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831. The route would then cross back over to the south side of U.S. Highway 12. 6 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Alternatives Proposed but not Evaluated in Detail This section will also describe the alternative substation sites that were proposed in scoping but not evaluated in the EA. VII. IDENTIFICATION OF PERMITS The environmental assessment will include a list and description of permits from other government entities that may be required for the proposed project. ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The scope of the Orono Substation Expansion and New 115 kV Transmission Line Project EA will not consider the following: A. No -build alternative. B. Issues related to project need, size, type, or timing. C. Any route or substation alternatives not specifically identified in this scoping decision document. D. Policy issues surrounding whether utilities or local -government should be liable for the cost to relocate utility poles when roadways are widened. E. The manner in which land owners are paid for transmission rights-of-way easements, as that is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES NOT CHOSEN FOR FURTHER EVALUATION None of the proposed alternative substation sites were chosen for further evaluation in the EA. Alternative Substation Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 were proposed by Michael Kuruvilla in order to minimize impact on homeowners and the surrounding environment. Xcel proposes to expand an existing 0.1 acre site to approximately 1.2 acres within its 16 acre parcel. The substation site is zoned as "RR-lA," allowing 1 home per 5 acres." Xcel Energy addressed the proposed substation sites in a letter filed September 7, 2011. A map accompanying the Xcel Energy filing shows the location of the proposed alternative sites. The alternative substation sites and the site-specific reasons they were not included can be summarized as follows: Alternative Substation Site 1: This site is comprised of three small parcels owned by MnDOT between U.S. Highway 12 and Sixth Avenue South and is zoned the same as Xcel Energy's current substation site. These parcels are not large enough for development of the proposed substation of 1.6 acres and additional area necessary for setbacks. The actual developable area of these parcels is likely to be further reduced based on observed wetlands on the parcels and possible additional setbacks or buffers from U.S. Highway 12. The estimated length of transmission line from this site is approximately 0.54 miles, or approximately 0. 15 miles more than Xcel Energy's proposed route. 7 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Alternative Substation Site 2: This site is comprised of three parcels owned by the Park Gun Club. This site is zoned as "Rural Residential, one home to 2 acres." The Park Gun Club is a nonconforming use in that location and is prevented from making any changes to their current use, including the layout of their shooting range. It does not appear that there is sufficient space within the parcel to locate both the gun club with its current layout and the substation, resulting in a likely displacement of Gun Club. Orono zoning does not permit gun clubs within the city; the club would not be able to re -locate within Orono. Anecdotal information indicates that gun clubs are very difficult to locate within metropolitan areas. The estimated length of transmission line from this site is approximately 0.76 miles, or approximately 0.4 miles more than Xcel Energy's proposed route. Alternative Site 3: This site is owned by the city of Orono. The site is zoned as "RR -1B," allowing one home per two acres. This 39 acre property was donated to the city in 2000 for use as a passive natural environmental park; the donation specified restrictive covenants limiting improvements to the park to allow only for passive recreational uses. The city's 2030 Land Use Plan identifies this site as "Park, Recreation, and Open Space." The parcel is bounded to the north by several residential lots. Routing would require avoidance of the cloverleaf intersection of US Highway 12 and Wayzata Boulevard. The estimated length of transmission line from this site is approximately 0.5 miles. Alternative Site 4: This site is privately owned and is zoned as "RR -1B," allowing one home per two acres. The site is identified on the City's 2030 Land Use Plan as "High Density Residential." Depending upon the location of a substation on this parcel, use of this site would require approximately 6,500 feet of new double -circuit 115 kV transmission line, or approximately 3,400 feet more than the Proposed Route. As with Alternative Site 3, use of this site would require routing around the cloverleaf intersection of US Highway 12 and Wayzata Boulevard. The estimated length of transmission line from this site is approximately 1.31 miles, or approximately 0.9 miles more than Xcel Energy's proposed route. All of the alternative substation sites would also require acquisition of new land by Xcel Energy for the substation and easements for additional transmission line to meet the purpose and need of the Project. Although no routes for the additional transmission to the alternate substation sites were developed, it appears that the alternate sites would require approximately 800 to 4,900 feet of additional double circuit 115 kV transmission compared to Xcel Energy's proposed route. Development of a new substation site would also require re -location of two existing electric distribution lines in addition to the transmission, resulting in additional impacts to new landowners. For the above reasons, the Department concluded that further evaluation of these alternative routes would not assist in the Commission's final decision on the route permit application. 8 of 9 Energy Facility Permitting Scoping Decision Document PLIC Docket No. E002/TL-1 1-223 SCHEDULE The environmental assessment shall be completed and available in October, 2011, A public hearing will be held in the Orono area after the environmental assessment has been issued and notice served. Signed this 12 qday of srr 6ve �, 2011 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIVISION OFENERGY RESOURCES Deputy Commissioner 9 of 9 Orono 115 kV Transmission Project Routes Included in EA Scope Proposed Route Alternative Route Existing Xcel Energy 115kV Line 0831 Existing GRE 69kV Line BD • GRE 69kV Line BD To Be Removed — — • Proposed Relocation of GRE 69kV Line BD Existing Xcel Energy Distribution Line Requested Route Width (Approximately 400' Total) 0 Existing Xcel Orono Substation Orono Substation Property Park Boundary Proposed 75 Ft Right -of -Way OProposed Orono Substation Expansion Area Hennepin County Parcels Existing Infrastructure to be Removed Proposed �•� 115 kV Single Circuit TAt, .11ransmission Line Hr. Morr •s Baker ParkReserve ���.... `' • Proposed �. r 115/115 kV Double Circuit -4--'� Transmission Line Remove existing single circuit 115 kV Line 0831 A l F 5URV y"AAA � --- e - k 450 ra¢r + Feet q o Hennepin Aerial Image Source: -, County - - Aerial Express ECW Image r dated Sept. 15, 2009MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 Orono Project MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 September 7, 2011 Appendix D: Route Permit Example STATE OF MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ROUTE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HIGH-VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINE AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES IN HUBBARD COUNTY ISSUED TO GREAT RIVER ENERGY PUC DOCKET NO. ET2/TL-10-86 In accordance with the requirements of Minnesota StatutesC�tlpter 216E and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7850, this route permit is hereby issued to: A l& GREAT RIVER ENERM Great River Energy is authorized by this route t construct anew 7.25 -mile 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between a newly proposed Patato Lake substation to be constructed in Arago Township and a tap point on Great River Energy's existing Mantrap Sub Tap 34.5 kV transmission line in Lake Emma Township, Hubbard County, nesota. The new 115 kV transmission facility line would ini y be oper*ted at 34.5 kV til conversion to 115 kV becomes necessary. 44 IL The transmission line and sso t acilities shall b uilt within the route identified in this permit, as portrayed on th offic route maps, and in c li e with the conditions specified in this permit. lN 4; Approved and adopted this d of Nojmber, 2010 BY ORDER OF TII�COMMISSION Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651.296.0406 (voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1.800.627.3529 or by dialing 711. CONTENTS 1 ROUTE PERMIT................................................................................................................ 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 4 2.1 115 kV High -Voltage Transmission Line........................................................................ 4 2.2 Substation......................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Structures & Conductors.................................................................................................. 5 3 DESIGNATED ROUTE..................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Route Width and Alignment............................................................................................ 7 3.2 Right -of -Way Placement.............................................................................................. 8 3.3 Right -of -Way Width ........................................... ............................................ 8 4 PERMIT CONDITIONS ............................................. ............................................... 9 4.1 Plan and Profile ..................................... .... ............................................................. 9 4.2 Construction Practices .................... ........ ............................................................... 9 4.2.1 Field Representative .. ............................................................................. 9 4.2.2 Local Governments ...... .. ............................................................... 10 4.2.3 Cleanup .............. . .. .................... ..... .............................................10 4.2.4 Noise.................................................................................................10 4.2.5 Vegetation Remova * he Right -of -Way ...................................................... 10 4.2.6 Aesthetics ........................... .... ........... '............................................... 10 4.2.7 Erosion Control .................... .............................................................. 11 4.2.8 Wetlands and Water Resourc8....................................................................... 11 4.2.9 Archaeological and Historic Resources.......................................................... 12 4.2.10 Temporary Work Space ......... 12 ...................................................................... 4.2.11 Restoration ................................................................................................. 12 4.2.12 Notice of Permit.............................................................................................. 13 4.3 Periodic Status Reports.................................................................................................. 13 4.4 Complaint Procedure...................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Notification to Landowners............................................................................................ 13 4.6 Completion of Construction........................................................................................... 13 4.6.1 Notification to Commission............................................................................ 13 4.6.2 As-Builts..........................................................................................................13 4.6.3 GPS Data......................................................................................................... 14 4.7 Electrical Performance Standards.................................................................................. 14 4.7.1 Grounding........................................................................................................14 4.7.2 Electric Field................................................................................................... 14 4.7.3 Interference with Communication Devices ..................................................... 14 November 2010 Page 12 4.8 Other Requirements........................................................................................................ 15 4.8.1 Applicable Codes............................................................................................ 15 4.8.2 Other Permits................................................................................................... 15 4.8.3 Pre-emption..................................................................................................... 15 4.8.4 Delay in Construction...................................................................................... 15 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 16 5.1 Avian Mitigation Plan for Potato River Crossing.......................................................... 16 5.2 Blanding's Turtle............................................................................................................ 16 6 PERMIT AMENDMENT................................................................................................. 17 7 TRANSFER OF PERMIT............................................................................................ 17 8 REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE PE I ................................................ 17 FIGURES Figure 1 — Overview Proposed Route Figures 2 A -F — Proposed Route ATTACHMENTS Minnesota Public Utilities Transmission Lines Minnesota Public U Facilities U ng Proce res for High -Voltage for Permitted Energy November 2010 Page 13 I ROUTE PERMIT The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) hereby issues this route permit to Great River Energy (Permittee) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216E.03 and Minn. R. Chapter 7850. This permit authorizes the Permittee to construct approximately 7.25 miles of new 115 kV transmission line and associated facilities in Hubbard County, Minnesota and as identified in the attached Route Permit Maps, hereby incorporated into this document. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Permittee is authorized to construct a project comprising a 7.25 -mile transmission line and Potato Lake Substation as described in the Route Permit App ' ation and evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. The approved route is shown t e Route Permit Maps attached to this permit and further designated as described. 2.1 115 kV High -Voltage Transmission Line * v The 115 kV transmission line route would k located norteast of the city of Park Rapids in Hubbard County, Minnesota. The project would specifically be located in sections of Arago, Lake Emma, Todd, and Henrietta townsl 4 Project Location Data WSJ County Township Name Township Range Sections 141 N1, or , 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36 rm H ietta 1405, 6 Hubbar ake ma 1 N W 31, 32 Todd 140 35 W 1,2 The Route is 7.25 miles of new overhead 115 kV transmission line between the new Potato Lake Substation in section 21 of Arago Township and a tap point on GRE's existing Mantrap Sub Tap 34.5 kV line in both section five of Henrietta Township and section 32 of Lake Emma Township. November 2010 Page 14 2.2 Substation The new Potato Lake substation will be a fenced -in area of 96 feet by 146 feet on a 3.2 acre parcel located in section 21 of Arago Township, along U.S. Highway 71. Itasca -Mantrap has purchased 3.2 acres of the land and will own all common facilities (land, fence, etc.) (See Figure 1). 2.3 Structures & Conductors The Permittee will use single -pole, direct -embedded wood structures, or similar. The poles average 65 to 80 feet in height with spans of 300 to 400 feet biptween poles. Horizontal post insulators will be used unless design requires longer spans beyond the capability of the insulators, in which case a braced post design will be utilized to acc odate the increased loadings. Single -pole with underbuild design will be used in areas where the new transmission line will utilize the existing right-of-way of Itasca -Mantrap distribution lines along U.S. Highway 71 and 230th Street (Northern Pine Road) and ir&ding new 12.5 kV distribution lines on the new 115 kV structures that follow along 230th Str (Northern Pine Ro ) and 141st Avenue up to the intersection with County Highway Wh re t ructures are tacked" with a I I5kV above a 12.5 kV the higher total voltage wil o es height 85 feet with span length of 250 to 300 feet. The Applicant will develop strategies in an Avian MitVeo that will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to birds or their haJitats ativer crossing and other public waters along the r te, pursuant t6 Section 5. of this it. The Avian Mitigation Plan will be submitted to o ission with the P and Profile for the Project. The three phases the_'kV transmi 'on lin ill each consist of one single 26/7 kcmil 477 steel -reinforced alu um conductor. One shield wire will be strung above the conductors to prevent damage from lightning strikes. These shield wires are typically less than one inch in diameter and include fiber optic cables, which allow a path for substation protection equipment to communicate with equipment at other terminals on the transmission line. November 2010 Page 15 Transmission Line and Structure Specifications Transmission lines shall be equipped with protective devices (breakers and relays located where transmission lines connect to substations) to safeguard the public in the event of an accident. Associated facilities will be properly fenced and accessible only by authorized personnel. November 2010 Page 16 Structure Pole Found- Height Span Line Voltage Conductor Foundation Type Material ation dia. (feet) (feet) Single Pole 115 kV ACSR 477 Direct Horizontal- Wood 20 inches 60-85 300-400 Single- Circuit kcmil 26/7 Embed Post Single Pole 115 kV Horizontal - Single -Circuit ACSR 477 Post irec with 12.5 kV W 20 inches 70-85 250-300 kcmil 26/7 with 12.5 kV d Distribution Distribution Underbuild Underbuild yed Direct Wood, 4bedment 115 kV ACSR 47 48-60 Laminate 60-85 NA Single -Circuit kcmil 26/ S tune wit s inches Wooor d le er 115 kV DirectH-Frame Woo 20 inches 60-85 600-800 Single -Circuit VR Embed Transmission lines shall be equipped with protective devices (breakers and relays located where transmission lines connect to substations) to safeguard the public in the event of an accident. Associated facilities will be properly fenced and accessible only by authorized personnel. November 2010 Page 16 3 DESIGNATED ROUTE The approved route is shown on the official route maps attached to this permit and further designated as follows: The transmission line route exits the new Potato Lake Substation in Section 21 of Arago Township along U.S. Highway 71 and proceeds south paralleling U.S. Highway 71 for approximately 1.5 miles to 230th Street (Northern Pine Road); east along 230th Street for approximately 1.5 miles to 141 st Avenue; south approximately 1 mile along 141 st Avenue to County Highway 18; then east paralleling County Highway 18 for approximately 3.25 miles to County Highway 4 and a new three-way switch on the existing Mantrap Sub Tap 34.5 kV line in both section five of Henrietta Township and section 32 of La e Emma Township along County Highway 4. 3.1 Route Width and Alignment The designated route will be limited to 300 feet in V1h as de ed on the attached Official Route Maps. This width will provide the Pe flexibility for minor adjustments of the specific alignment or right-of-way to acco dat andowner requests and unforeseen conditions. The final alignment (i.e., pe n d maintained rights-of-way) will be located within this designated route unless othe u ized below. The designated route, as shown on t a d aerial phot4ft pates an alignment that would follow two to five feet outside�listing r d rights-of-way (Coun ighway 4, County Highway 18, 141st Street, 230th Str et and U.S.iway 71) eplace distri ution structures and follow Itasca -Mantrap's existing istribution line right-of%ay ng JJC. Highway 71, and that minimizes the overa tial impacts relatiWo the fact dentified in Minn. R. 7850.4100, as evaluated in thonviro review and permitting processes. Consequently, this permit anticipates that tyle a al r ht -of -way erally conform to this alignment unless changes are requested by in c idu and r, unfore n *onditions are encountered, or are otherwise provided for by this pe it. Any align nt mo ications within this designated route shall be located so as to havewomparable overal relative to the factors in Minn. R. 7850.4100 as does the alignment identified in this permit, and shall be specifically identified in, and approved as, part of the Plan and Profile submitted pursuant to Part 4.1 of this permit. Route width variations outside the designated route may be allowed for the Permittee to overcome potential site specific constraints. These constraints may arise from any of the following: 1) Unforeseen circumstances encountered during the detailed engineering and design process. 2) Federal or state agency requirements. 3) Existing infrastructure within the transmission line route, including but not limited to roadways, railroads, natural gas and liquid pipelines, high voltage electric transmission lines, or sewer and water lines. November 2010 Page 17 4) Planned infrastructure improvements identified by state agencies and LGUs and made part of the evidentiary record during the contested case proceeding for this permit. Any alignment modifications arising from these site specific constraints that would result in right-of-way placement outside the designated route shall be located so as to have comparable overall impacts relative to the factors in Minn. R. 7850.4100 as does the alignment identified in this permit and shall also be specifically identified (i.e., highlight or otherwise specified) in and approved as part of the Plan and Profile submitted pursuant to Part 4.1 of this permit. 3.2 Ri!ht-of-Way Placement Where the transmission line route parallels existing highway id other road rights-of-way, the transmission line right-of-way shall occupy and utilize the exiting right-of-way to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the criteria in Minn. R. 7850.410b, the other requirements of this permit and, for highways under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota D rtment of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Mn/DOT rules, policies, and procedur for accollVating utilities in trunk highway rights-of-way. 3.3 Ri!ht-of-Way Width The 115 kV transmission line will be buiwith singl ole structures, which will require a 100 -foot right-of-way. e sIp'i s ructures are quired for long spans or in environmentally sensitive areas, up o right -of be employed. November 2010 Page 18 4 PERMIT CONDITIONS The Permittee shall comply with the following conditions during construction of the transmission line and associated facilities and the life of this permit. 4.1 Plan and Profile At least 30 calendar days before right-of-way preparation for construction begins on any segment or portion of the project, the Permittee shall provide the Commission with a Plan and Profile of the right-of-way and the specifications and drawings for right-of-way preparation, construction, transmission structure specifications and locations, and restoration for the transmission line. The documentation shall include maps depicting the plan and profile including the right-of-way, alignment, and structures in relation to the route and alig?days approved per the permit. The Permittee may not commence construction until the*has xpired or until the Commission has advised the Permittee in writing that it has comp d its review of the documents and determined that the planned constr�on is consi ent with this permit. If the Permittee intend to make any significant changes in its Plan artd Profile or the specifications and drawings after submission to the Commission, the Permittee shall notify the Commission at least five days before implementing the chang& No ckanges shall be made that would be in violation of any of the terms of this permit. 4.2 Construction Practices The Permittee shall follow those described in the Great Ri)r Engrgy Application February 26, 2010, and as escri`bed in the envie unless this permit es €erent requi& 4.2.1"10 i_Wpi♦se At least 0 daysior to comm c Commissionyn writing of the pers for the Permittee with the responsi permit during construction. and�naterial specifications in for a Route Permit, dated mioent and Findings of Fact, case this permit shall prevail. the Permittee shall advise the Fersons designated to be the field representative to oversee compliance with the conditions of this The field representative's address, phone number, email, and emergency phone number shall be provided to the Commission and shall be made available to affected landowners, residents, public officials and other interested persons. The Permittee may change the field representative at any time upon written notice to the Commission. November 2010 Page 19 4.2.2 Local Governments During construction, the Permitee shall minimize any disruption to public services or public utilities. To the extent disruptions to public services occur, these would be temporary and the Permitee will work to restore service promptly. Where any impacts to utilities have the potential to occur, Permitee will work with both landowners and local agencies to determine the most appropriate pole placement. The Permittee shall cooperate with county and city road authorities to develop appropriate signage and traffic management during construction. 4.2.3 Cleanup All waste and scrap that is the product of construction shol be removed from the area and properly disposed of upon completion of each task. Personaitter, including bottles, cans, and paper from construction activities shall be remove on a daily basis. 4.2.4 Noise Construction and routine maintenanct')\ieswbe limited to daytime working hours, as defined in Minn. R. 7030.020 e e nighttime noise level standards will not be exceeded. 4.2.5 Vegetation Rem val in the Ri ht-of-Wa The Permittee shall mi ize the number of t#es to be remo ed in selecting the right-of- way specifically p serving to th maximuA extent practicable windbreaks, shelterbelts, living snow f e nd areas such as, trail crossings and the Lake Country Scenic By - Way, whe vege ve screening may7m nimize aesthetic impacts, to the extent that such actions not viol e sound engineering principles or system reliability criteria. As part o onstAtion, low gring bruJh or tree species are allowable within and at the Ji outer limits of the easement area. ler tree species that endanger the safe and reliable operation of the transmission facility need to be removed. To the extent practical, low growing vegetation that will not pose a threat to the transmission facility or impede construction should remain in the easement area. 4.2.6 Aesthetics The Permittee will consider input pertaining to visual impacts from landowners or land management agencies prior to final location of structures, rights-of-way, and other areas with the potential for visual disturbance. Care will be used to preserve the natural landscape and prevent any unnecessary destruction of the natural surroundings in the vicinity of the project during construction and maintenance. November 2010 Page 110 New structures will be designed to support the existing transmission and distribution lines, thereby allowing the use of existing alignments and will share existing road rights- of-way to the extent that such actions do not violate sound engineering principles or system reliability criteria. Structures will be placed at the maximum feasible distance, consistent with sound engineering principles and system reliability criteria, from intersecting roads, highway, or trail crossings and could cross roads to minimize or avoid impacts. The Permittee shall work with landowners to identify and address issues related to the transmission line such as distance from existing structures, tree clearing, and other aesthetic concerns. 4.2.7 Erosion Control The Permittee shall follow standard erosion contr<me res outlined in Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance andanagement practices regarding sediment control practice during constructign include protecting storm drain inlets, use of silt fences, protecting exposed soil, immediately stabing restored soil, controlling i ' temporary soil stockpiles, and controlling vehicle,44Fking. If The Permittee shall implement reasonable measures to 'nimize runoff during construction and shall prom Aly pl) it or seed, erect silt ces, and/or use erosion control blankets in non -agriculture hat w*e disturb wh e structures are installed. When utilizing seed to porary aij permanent etative cover on exposed soil, the Permitteeivill t h the Mime Dep ment of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and MlInesot epartment of NXal rces (MnDNR) to select site natural proper facilitif IN surfaces drain naturally, blend with the hat will facilitate re -vegetation, provide for areas disturbed during construction of the Larger disturbed areas of one acre or more (substation site) will be regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. 4.2.8 Wetlands and Water Resources Structures shall be located to span watercourses, wetlands, and floodplains to the extent practicable and consistent with sound engineering principles. Minimal grading of areas around pole locations may be required to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment. November 2010 Page 111 Minimal grading of areas around pole locations may be required to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment. The Permittee will use wooden mats or a composite mat system for construction during frozen conditions to minimize disturbance and compaction of wetlands and riparian areas during construction. Soil excavated from the wetlands and riparian areas will be contained and not placed back into the wetland or riparian area. Silt fencing or other erosion control measures will be used to prevent sedimentation when working near wetlands and watercourses. Areas disturbed by construction activities will be restored to pre -construction conditions (soil horizons, contours, vegetation, etc.) (See also Section 4.2.7 [Erosion Control]). 4.2.9 Archaeological and Historic Resources The Permittee shall make every effort to avoid imp to identified archaeological and historic resources when installing the high-voltag an ssion line on the approved route. In the event that a resource is encountered, P Ohould be contacted and consulted; the nature of the resource shoul e identi ed; d a determination should be made on the eligibility for listing in theReg' er of Historic Places. Where feasible, avoidance of the resource is ui 4.2. 10 Temporary Work Space The Permittee shall limit to ra a e is to special onstruction access needs and additional staging or lay -do s quired out e authorized right-of-way. Space should be selec Jim e emoval and impacts tgvegetation. Temporary lay do n areas utside of the authorized tr ission line right-of-way will be obtained fjom tected �ndowners rough rental a reements and are not provided for in this pe tTemp rary Ave be nstruc b een the roadway and the structures to minimize impao� using the s rtest r to possible. Construction mats may also be used to minimize impacts on acc s and construction areas. 4.2.11 Restoration The Permittee shall restore the right-of-way, temporary work spaces, access roads, abandoned right-of-way, and other public or private lands affected by construction of the transmission line. Practices to restore areas impacted by construction and maintenance activities are further described in Section 4.2.7 of this permit. Restoration within the right-of-way must be compatible with the safe operation, maintenance, and inspection of the transmission line. Within 60 days after completion of all restoration activities, the Permittee shall advise the Commission in writing of the completion of such activities. The Permittee shall compensate landowners for any yard/landscape, crop, soil compaction, drain tile, or other damages that may occur during construction. November 2010 Page 112 4.2.12 Notice of Permit The Permittee shall inform all employees, contractors, and other persons involved in the transmission line construction of the terms and conditions of this permit. 4.3 Periodic Status Reports The Permittee shall report to the Commission on progress regarding finalization of the route, design of structures, and construction of the transmission line. The Permittee need not report more frequently than weekly. At the request of the Commission, the Permittee shall report to the Commission on progress regarding finalization of the route and design of structures. Toe Permittee shall report to the Commission on construction of the Project in a manner o ed* the Environmental Management Plan under Section 5.1 Special Conditions. 4.4 Complaint Procedures r Prior to the start of construction, the Permittee a u mit to the Commission, the procedures that will be used to receive and respond to com1 ' s. The procedures shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in the complain ocedures attached to this permit. 4.5 Notification to Landowner The Permittee shall provide a ecte n ners with a copy o is permit and the complaints procedures at the ti e st contact th the lando ners after issuance of this permit. At the time of fird contact, the ermittee 1 o pr de all affected landowners with a copy of the Landoner uide to ,,Casements�ublic n ded by OES. The Permittee shall con along the route. The Pe the use of fertilizer, herl tenant's use of the la#d. property or conducting maintenance 2Wn and maintenance practices, particularly that are inconsistent with the landowner's or The Permittee shall work with landowners to locate the high-voltage transmission lines to minimize the loss of agricultural land, forest, and wetlands, and to avoid homes and farmsteads. 4.6 Completion of Construction 4.6.1 Notification to Commission At least three days before the line is to be placed into service, the Permittee shall notify the Commission of the date on which the line will be placed into service and the date on which construction was complete. 4.6.2 As-Builts Within 60 days after completion of construction, the Permittee shall submit copies of all the final as -built plans and specifications developed during the project. November 2010 Page 113 4.6.3 GPS Data Within 60 days after completion of construction, the Permittee shall submit to the Commission, in the format requested by the Commission, geo-spatial information (ArcGIS compatible map files, GPS coordinates, associated database of characteristics, etc.) for all structures associated with the transmission lines, each switch, and each substation connected. 4.7 Electrical Performance Standards. 4.7.1 Groundiniz The Permittee shall design, construct, and operate thefansmission line in a manner that the maximum induced steady-state short-circuit current shall be limited to five milliamperes (mA), root mean square (rsm) alternating curr* between the ground and any non -stationary object within the right-q&way, including but not limited to large motor vehicles and agricultural equipment. 7@K fixed metallic objects on or off the right- of-way, except electric fences that parallel or cross the right-of-way, shall be grounded to the extent necessary to limit the induced short-circuit current between ground and the object so as not to exceed one mAjps under steady state conditions of the transmission line and to comply with the rouncVault additions spec led in the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). Perralftee shall ad*ess and rectify y induced current problems that arise during trans ission Sne operation. 4.7.2 Electric eld �� The transmis ' line sha e designed ccoonstructed d operated in such a manner that the electryiel r ha one meter above ground level immediately below the transmission 1 e shall not exceed V/m rms. IF 4.7.3 erf ce with Co unicat' n Devices If interferenc with radio or televi atellite, wireless internet, GPS -based agriculture navigation systems or other communication devices is caused by the presence or operation of the transmission line, the Permittee shall take whatever action is prudently feasible to restore or provide reception equivalent to reception levels in the immediate area just prior to the construction of the line. November 2010 Page 114 4.8 Other Requirements. 4.8.1 Applicable Codes The Permittee shall comply with applicable requirements of the NESC including clearances to ground, clearance to crossing utilities, clearance to buildings, right-of-way widths, erecting power poles, and stringing of transmission line conductors. The transmission line facility shall also meet the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC) reliability standards. 4.8.2 Other Permits The Permittee shall comply with all applicable state rtes and statutes. The Permittee shall obtain all required local, state and federal permits fat the project and comply with the conditions of these permits. A list of the required permits is included in the route permit application and the environmental ase;sment. The Permittee shall submit a copy of such permits to the Commission upon t. 4.8.3 Pre-emption Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 2414bX.nd 2, this ro e permit shall be the sole route approval required to be obtittee and th permit shall supersede and preempt all zoning, buildine les, reg or ordinances promulgated by regional, county, local4ad ose government. 4.8.4 Delgy in onstruction� If the Permit t cpmmencedix� mprovement of the route within four year er the ate o issuance of his pe he Commission shall consider suspe n o e p it in acc anc� witV inn. R. 7850.4700. November 2010 Page 115 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS The Permittee shall provide a report to the Commission as part of the Plan and Profile submission that describes the actions taken and mitigative measures developed regarding the Project and the following Special Conditions. 5.1 Avian Miti!ation Plan for Potato River Crossing The Permittee will prepare an Avian Mitigation Plan to identify potential issues that may pose a risk to avian species or their habitats at the Potato River crossing and other public waters along the route. The Permittee will develop strategies in an Avian Mitigation Plan that will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to birds or their habitats at this crossings. Among other elements, the Plan shall require the Permittee to use 1arp swan type bird diverters. The Permittee shall coordinate the number and spacing of the4e/e with the MnDNR. The Permittee is to consult with the MnDNR and U.S. Fish a V.feCervice (USFWS) in developing the Plan. The Plan shall include strategies to n truction activities are scheduled to avoid disturbing normal eagle breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, as necessary. The Permittee shall ensure the project conforms with the requirements of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in consultation with the USFWS. The Avian Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Commission for ith the Plan and Profile for the Project. The Permittee's standard transmisoon des n 1 incorporate equate spacing of conductor(s) and grounding devices in accordance.,vith Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards to eliminate the risk ectrocutiori to raptors with larg�wingspans that may simultaneously come in cwntac 1 onductor an ounding devices. 5.2 Blandings Turtle The Permittee shall followeasures and re en a s for avoiding and minimizing impacts to Blanding's turtle popula ns as outlfFri n the 1linesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources EnvifenmentaAReview Fact Sheet Series for Blandings Turtle (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_res ces/a als/reptiles_amphibians/turtles/blandings_turtl e/factsheet.pdf) . Construction and maint e personnel shall be made aware of the Blanding's turtle and their habitat during pre -construction meetings. November 2010 Page 116 6 PERMIT AMENDMENT The permit conditions in Sections 4 and 5 may be amended at any time by the Commission. Any person may request an amendment of the conditions of this permit by submitting a request to the Commission in writing describing the amendment sought and the reasons for the amendment. The Commission will mail notice of receipt of the request to the Permittee. The Commission may amend the conditions after affording the Permittee and interested persons such process as is required. 7 TRANSFER OF PERMIT The Permittee may request at any time that the Commission transfer this permit to another person or entity. The Permittee shall provide the name andcription of the person or entity to whom the permit is requested to be transferred, the reasoIvr. transfer, a description of the facilities affected, and the proposed effective date of the10 The person to whom the permit is to be trans information as the Commission shall require with the conditions of the permit. The Corals affording the Permittee, the new Permitt 'q'&M 8 REVOCATION OR S The Commission may initiate Commission shall act ina�co1 suspend the permit. e Commission with such the new Permittee can comply transfer of the permit after -sted persons such process as is required. PER2W ► Nke or suspend this permit at any time. The *the requireA4Lts of Minn. R. 7850.5100 to revoke or November 2010 Page 117 MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURES FOR HIGH-VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES A. Purpose To establish a uniform and timely method of reporting complaints received by the Permittees concerning Permit conditions for site preparation, construction, cleanup and restoration, operation and resolution of such complaints. B. Scope I.' This document describes complaint reporting procedures a que Y. C. Applicability The procedures shall be used for all received by the Commission under ] Permit. D. Definitions Complaint: A verbal or, dissatisfaction or concern associated facilities p� or general comm S. Substantialomplint: condition that, if su applicable regulatio compla' s received b the Permittees and all complaints ✓linnAota a 7829.1500 or 7829.1700 relevant to this 4 'Iftk presented the Permittees by a person expressing site preparatio%kle y�`estoration or other route and requests, inquiries, questions itten co(ClaintPegg a violation of a specific Route Permit could rmodification or suspension pursuant to the Unresolved Complaint: A complaint which, despite the good faith efforts of the Permittees and a person(s), remains to both or one of the parties unresolved or unsatisfactorily resolved. Person: An individual, partnership, joint venture, private or public corporation, association, firm, public service company, cooperative, political subdivision, municipal corporation, government agency, public utility district, or any other entity, public or private, however organized. Pagel of 3 E. Complaint Documentation and Processing The Permittees shall document all complaints by maintaining a record of all applicable information concerning the complaint, including the following: ■ Name of complainant, address, phone number, and e-mail address. ■ Precise property description or parcel number. ■ Name of Permittees representative receiving Complaint and date of receipt. ■ Nature of Complaint and the applicable Site Permit conditions(s). ■ Activities undertaken to resolve the Complaint. ■ Final disposition of the Complaint. The Permittees shall designate an individual to summarize fl&*omplaints for the Commission. This person's name, phone number and email address shall acc ny a complaint submittals. A Person presenting the Complaint should to the e t possib include the following information in their communications: ■ Name, address, phone number, a R-Ilddress. ■ Date , ■ Tract or parcel ■ Whether the complaint relate oute permit or (2) a compliance issue. F. Reporting Require me s The Permittees shall report all complaints tot Co si according to the following schedule: Immediate Reports" Al]� bstantial complain h be reported to the Commission the same day received, or on the lowing working day complaints received after working hours. Such reports are to be directed to High -Volta ransmission Line Permit Compliance, 1-800- 657-3794, or by e-mail to: DOC.energyypermitcompliancegstate.mn.us, or voice messages are acceptable. Monthly Reports: By the 15th of each month, a summary of all complaints, including substantial complaints received or resolved during the preceding month, shall be Filed to Dr. Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary, Public Utilities Commission, using the Minnesota Department of Commerce eDocket system (see eFiling instructions attached to this permit). If no Complaints were received during the preceding month, the Permittees shall submit (eFile) a summary indicating that no complaints were received. Page 2 of 3 G. Complaints Received by the Commission or Office of Energy Security Complaints received directly by the Commission from aggrieved persons regarding site preparation, construction, cleanup, restoration, operation and maintenance shall be promptly sent to the Permittees. H. Commission Process for Unresolved Complaints Initial Screening: Commission staff shall perform an initial evaluation of unresolved Complaints submitted to the Commission. Complaints raising substantial High -Voltage Transmission Line Permit issues shall be processed and resolved by the Commission. Staff shall notify Permittees and appropriate person(s) if it determines that the Complain a Substantial Complaint. With respect to such Complaints, each party shall submit a written summary of its position to the Commission no later than ten days after receipt of the Staff notification. Staff shall present Briefing Papers to the Commission, which shall resolve the Complaint within twenty days of submission of the Briefing Papers. Permittees Contacts for Complaints Complaints shall be sent to: Michelle Lommel Great River Energy 12300 Elm Creek Boulev d Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (76345-59 Email: mlomillv,com Page 3 of 3 MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMPLIANCE FILING PROCEDURE FOR PERMITTED ENERGY FACILITIES 1. Purpose To establish a uniform and timely method of submitting information required by the Commission energy facility permits. 2. Scope and Applicability This procedure encompasses all compliance filings required by permit. 3. Definitions Compliance Filing — A sending (filing) of i is required by a Commission site or route p 4. Responsibilities The Permittees shall eFile all com Utilities Commission, through the system is located on the DOC General instructions are eFile documents. the website. All filings muVcovt that%N.k ■ Date ■ Namettee ■ Type of permit (Site or Route) ■ Project location ■ Project docket number ■ Permit section under which the filing is made ■ Short description of the filing to the CNKmission, where the information Dr. Burl liar, Executive Secretary, Public ime �) eDocket system. The register on the website to Filings that are graphic intensive (e.g., maps, plan and profile) must, in addition to being eFiled, be submitted as paper copies and on CD. Copies and CDs should be sent to: 1) Dr. Burl W. Haar, Executive Secretary, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7h Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN, 55101-2147, and 2) Department of Commerce, Energy Facility Permitting, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN, 55101-2198. Pagel of 2 PERMIT COMPLIANCE FILINGS' PERMITTEES: Great River Energy PERMIT TYPE: 115 kV High -Voltage Transmission Line Route Permit PROJECT LOCATION: Hubbard County, Minnesota PUC DOCKET NUMBER: ET2/TL-10-86 Filing Permit Description Due Date Number Section 1. 4.2.1 Contact information for field 0 days prior to representative construction 2. 4.3 Periodic Status Re s Not more than weekly 3. 4.4 Complaint Pro e Prior to start of construction First contact with the 4. 4.5 Noon andowners andowners after issuance of permit 5. 4.1 n '%Profile of ' ht -o a 30 days before right-of-way preparation or construction gle6 t i c e of co p� anlate of Three days prior to lacement i service energizing 7. 4.6 Provide As-b%wAPS information Within 60 days of (ArcGIS files or similar) construction 8. 5.1 Avian Mitigation Plan Submit with Plan and Profile 1 This compilation of permit compliance filings is provided for the convenience of the Permittee and the Commission. However, it is not a substitute for the permit; the language of the permit controls. Page 2 of 2