St. Cloud to Monticello – DEIS Comments

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on March 6, 2010 @ 9:18 am

Although the time for DEIS Comments was up the week before last, it’s important to get Comments that are relevant to routing in the routing docket.  Just entering things in as DEIS Comments is NOT enough.  You need to get information related to siting directly to Judge Heydinger, and most things relevant to the DEIS are also relevant in the siting/routing docket.

FYI, here are my DEIS Comments filed in the St.  Cloud to Monticello docket – note that the numbers for EMF modeling are way, way off, inexcusably underestimated:

Overland – Comments – Monticello

Overland – Comment – Attachment A – Sandok4-3-09

Overland – Comment – Attachment B – Feasibility Study – Undergrounding

Overland – Comment – Attachment C – 01-1958 Ex. 35, App. 7

Overland – Comment – Attachment D – CoN Ex76 MCEA IR3

And other Comments that I’ve found:

Onnen – Comment

Ziegler/Cat – Comment

Clear Lake Township – Comment

Wright County Board – Comment

MnDOT – Comment

From the looks of the MnDOT Comment, there’s the same sorts of issues here, and thankfully OES is putting them up on the PUC Docket.  Scenic easements are an issue, running longitudinally is an issue, “hopping back and forth” across I-94 is a problem.

Clear Lake Township and Wright County both raise Notice issues, Clear Lake Township states that it had no notice whatsoever of a proposed alternate route and no opportunity to be on the Task Force.

Wright County is affected, the river crossing in the County and Scenic Byway are areas where the transmission line as proposed would have a significant impact, and how would or could that be mitigated?

Take a look at the issues raised in prepping for Monday!

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace