STATE OF MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY – SHAKOPEE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION FACILITY SCOTT COUNTY SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (“MMPA” or “Proposer”) – Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility (“Project”). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Project Description 1. MMPA is a non-profit Joint Action Agency that provides electrical generation and transmission

service on a wholesale basis to 12 non-profit, municipally-owned member utilities. MMPA will own the Project (“Project”).

2. The Project is a proposed new electric generation power plant located in the SE¼ of the NE¼ of

Section 8, T 115 N, R 22 West, Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. Five new 9.341 megawatt (“MW”) Wartsila natural gas fired electrical generating units (engines and accompanying generators, also known as gensets) will be installed in a new building. The Project will have a generating capacity 46.705 MWs. The Project will also include a diesel-fired generating unit to provide emergency power to the Project in the event of a power outage.

3. The Project will generate electric energy during peak demand periods, providing expanded

electricity supply to the city of Shakopee’s municipal utilities, and also support the Proposer’s increasing capacity needs due to member demand growth.

Environmental Review of the Project

4. The Project will be capable of operating at a capacity of between 25 MW and 50 MW. Therefore,

Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 3 requires the preparation of an EAW.

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order 5. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 3 identifies the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) as the responsible

governmental unit (“RGU”) for the EAW preparation. However, the EQB designated the MPCA as the RGU for the EAW preparation because MPCA has the greater expertise in analyzing the potential impacts of this type of project. Minn. R. 4410.0500, subp. 6.

6. An EAW is a brief document designed to either set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects such that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS. Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 24.

7. On July 10, 2015, the Proposer submitted a draft EAW to the MPCA for the Project. 8. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows:

a) The MPCA published a Notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on November 9, 2015, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.

b) The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

c) The MPCA provided a news release to media, Scott County and neighboring counties, and other interested parties on November 13, 2015.

9. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received comments from citizens, the United State

Army Corps of Engineers, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. The comments are included in Appendix A to these Findings.

10. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comments received during the 30-day public

comment period. The Responses to Comments document is also included in Appendix A to these Findings.

Standard for the Decision on the Need for an EIS

11. The MPCA must base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the

EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The agency must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;

2

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and

D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 12. The MPCA finds that the types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the

Project include impacts from air emissions and noise generation.

13. The MPCA makes the following findings on the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project:

Findings on Air Emission Impacts

14. The operation of five natural gas-fired engine generators and an emergency generator will generate

air emissions. 15. The Proposer has applied for an individual total facility state air permit. The Proposer is accepting

air permit limits and adding controls. As a result, the Project is not considered a major source under federal New Source Review Requirements.

16. The five natural gas-fired engines are subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants Program for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. 17. The five natural gas-fired engines are subject to the new Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) for

Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. This NSPS sets emission limits for nitrogen oxides (“NOX”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and requirements performance testing.

18. The diesel-fired emergency generator is subject to the NSPS for stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines, which will set emission limits for CO, total particulates, and non-methane organic compounds.

19. The air permit for the Project will include air emissions limits to ensure compliance with all air

quality requirements and will include a requirement to operate air pollution control equipment. Add-on control equipment for the five natural gas-fired engine generators include an oxidation catalyst and post-combustion catalytic controls, which will reduce CO, VOCs, NOx, and hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”).

20. The Project’s air emissions will remain within the state regulated air emissions limits and will

comply with state and federal standards.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order 21. The air permit will contain enforceable requirement to ensure that the Project will be in compliance

with state and federal air programs. Requirements will include specific requirements for fuel usage, limits on emission rates, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, and performance testing requirements.

22. The Proposer conducted air dispersion modeling following an MPCA-approved protocol. The

Proposer used the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) preferred model, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee’s Dispersion Model (“AERMOD”), to conduct the analysis. The EPA developed, validated, and approved AERMOD for air dispersion modeling.

23. AERMOD is a widely used and accepted model that includes conservative assumptions and

predictions of future performance. Applying worst-case hourly emissions for the Project and nearby sources as allowed by the MPCA air permit, AERMOD simulates maximum pollutant concentrations in the ambient air within two kilometers of the Project.

24. The Proposer conducted a Significant Impact Level (“SIL”) analysis using air dispersion modeling

following an MPCA-approved modeling protocol. The EPA established the SILs for criteria pollutants with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”). The EPA typically sets SIL thresholds at 4-6% of NAAQS depending on the pollutant. SILs are a non-regulatory screening threshold used in modeling to evaluate the level of air pollutants emitted from a proposed facility to the ambient air.

25. The Proposer conducted a SIL-based analysis for sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO). The SIL analysis was conducted to determine if further refined air dispersion modeling was needed to assess air quality impacts. The SIL analysis revealed that all modeled pollutants were below their respective SIL values, except PM2.5 which required a refined modeling demonstration that included nearby sources to evaluate potential air quality impacts from the Project.

26. The Proposer’s refined modeling results revealed a modeled ambient PM2.5 air quality exceedance

of the 24-hour EPA ambient air quality standard, prompting the MPCA to require the Proposer to examine the pollutant contributions from the Project and nearby sources. The evaluation of pollutant contribution from the Project and nearby sources is known as a “culpability analysis” that separates the pollutant contribution from each source in the modeling demonstration and is used to determine the contribution of each source to a modeled exceedance. If the contribution from a project’s emissions sources is below the applicable SIL value, then the project is not considered responsible for the modeled exceedance of the ambient air quality standard.

27. The MPCA review of the modeled “culpability analysis” for the Project showed that the Project

contributes 0.005 μg/m3 to the overall predicted exceedances, well below the PM2.5 SIL value of 1.2 μg/m3.Therefore, the MPCA concludes that the Project’s emissions are not responsible for the modeled exceedance of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS and will not present a potential for significant environmental effect on air quality.

4

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order 28. The Proposer also evaluated acute and chronic (non-cancer) toxicity and cancer risks associated

with HAPS and VOCS for the Project, through use of MPCA’s Risk Assessment Screening Spreadsheet (“RASS”). The RASS is a conservative screening tool used to determine if further in-depth study is required for both non-cancer and cancer risks. Results of the RASS showed that the Project does not have the potential for an increase in either non-cancer or cancer risks. The MPCA finds that the Project does not present a level of non-cancer toxicity or cancer risk that warrants further study.

29. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from

the Project, air emissions from the Project will continue while the Project remains in operation, and would cease only if the Project were to temporarily or permanently close. While in operation, the Project is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient air standards were to occur, air quality impacts are likely to be temporary in nature and because of ongoing regulatory oversight, corrective measures would be implemented. Such measures could include requiring the Project owner or operator to make physical or operational changes to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.

30. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record are adequate to address the concerns related to air emissions. The impacts on air emissions that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to prevent significant adverse impacts.

31. The MPCA finds that air emissions from the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential

for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air emissions that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Findings on Noise Generation

32. Vehicle deliveries, vehicles working on site preparation and building, and equipment erection will

generate noise during the construction of the Project. 33. The operation of the natural gas-fired engine generators will generate noise.

34. The engine generators will operate on an intermittent basis.

35. Operation of the diesel fired emergency generator will also create noise; however, it will only

operate for testing purposes or in an emergency situation.

36. The Project is required to meet the Minnesota Noise Standards as found in Minn. R. ch. 7030.

37. The Proposer will mitigate noise from the Project by installing the engines and auxiliary equipment inside a concrete block building.

38. With respect to the reversibility of noise impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the

Project, noise from the Project will continue while the Project remains in operation and would cease only if the Project were to temporarily or permanently close. While in operation, the Project

5

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order

is expected to meet the Minnesota Noise Standard (See Table 1). If violations of the Minnesota Noise Standard occur, impacts are likely to be temporary in nature and the Proposer could implement corrective measures. Such measures could include physical or operational changes to ensure compliance with the noise standards.

39. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record are adequate to address the concerns related to noise generation. The MPCA has considered the impacts on noise generation that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to prevent significant adverse impacts.

40. The MPCA finds that the Project as proposed does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of noise impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Cumulative Potential Effects 41. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

42. The MPCA considered the cumulative potential effects for the Project on air quality. This analysis

included consideration of background concentrations for the area and the impacts from the Project. The MPCA makes the following findings on the cumulative potential effects for the Project on air quality.

43. Operation of the Project will generate air emissions. The Proposer conducted air dispersion

modeling to evaluate cumulative effects specifically for this EAW. This evaluation considered background conditions and the Project impacts. See Findings 22 through 28 above. Based on the modeling, the MPCA expects that the anticipated increase in air emissions will not result in significant cumulative potential effects.

44. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling, permit application processes,

information presented in the EAW, and in consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds no potential for significant cumulative effects from the Project.

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 45. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

46. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA Individual total facility state air permit

Acid Rain New Unit Exemption National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Construction Stormwater General Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit

Metropolitan Council

Sanitary Sewer Extension Plans and Specifications Review and Approval City Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment

City of Shakopee Rezoning of Proposed Project Property or Amendment to Existing Land Use Classification of City Comprehensive Plan Conditional Use Permit Foundation and Building Permit City Water Connection and Sewer Extension Permit State Fire Protection Permit Comprehensive Use Plan Amendment/Metropolitan Council Approval on City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan Amendment*

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Highway Access Permit Oversize and Overweight Permits Drainage Permit

*The Proposer has requested the City to amend the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan for the Project to ensure it supports the proposed use of the Project property. The Metropolitan Council must approve the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan Amendment.

47. MPCA Air Emissions Permit. The Proposer must receive an individual total facility state air permit

(Air Permit) from the MPCA before construction can begin. The Air Permit will contain operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that will help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.

48. Acid Rain Unit Exemption. Utilities and other facilities which combust fossil fuel and generated electricity for wholesale or retail sale may be subject to acid rain program requirements, including the requirement to hold an acid rain permit under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 72.

7

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order

However, new engines with an electricity generating capacity not greater than 25 MW, that burn only fuels with sulfur content of 0.05% or less by weight, may be exempted from acid rain requirements. The Proposer has applied for and qualifies for the acid rain unit exemption.

49. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit. The Proposer must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater (“CSW”) General Permit for the Project. A NPDES/SDS CSW General Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of best management practices (“BMPs”) such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The Project must have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan detailing the BMPs to be implemented and that will also address phased construction, vehicle tracking of sediment, inspection of erosion control measures implemented, and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also requires the Proposer to provide adequate stormwater treatment capacity to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the Project is constructed. The Proposer will obtain the NPDES/SDS CSW General Permit.

50. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit. The Proposer will obtain a MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit for the construction of the sanitary sewer line to connect the Project to the city of Shakopee’s existing sanitary sewer collection system. The city of Shakopee’s sanitary sewer collection system conveys wastewater to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (“MCES”) Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Facility.

51. MCES Sewer Approval. The Proposer will submit applications, design plans and construction specifications, to the MCES. The MCES staff will review and comment on the preliminary work, and provide recommendations for MPCA approval.

52. City of Shakopee. Rezoning of Property/Amendment to Land Use Classification in City Comprehensive Use Plan. The City is required to ensure the land use guidance in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan supports the proposed use. Because the proposed Project is a non-conforming use, the Proposer has requested that the City amend the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan. The City intends to request approval from the Metropolitan Council to amend the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Use Plan.

53. City of Shakopee. The Proposer has submitted an applicaton for a conditional use permit. The

conditional use permit is required to construct and operate the Project. The Proposer must show that the Project satisfies standards and criteria in the City’s ordinances.

54. City of Shakopee Foundation and Building Permit. Building permits and inspections assure that the

Project will be constructed in accordance with city ordinances and codes. The Proposer will obtain a city building permit.

55. City of Shakopee Water and Sewer Utility Permit. This permit and City inspections ensure

compliance with applicable local and State Department of Health construction requirements. The Proposer will obtain a city water and sewer permit.

8

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order 56. City of Shakopee – State Fire Protection Permit. The City conducts and approves plan reviews, and

issues permits for the design and construction of above-ground tanks, piping, containment, overfill, leak detection and dispensers for compliance with Minnesota State Fire Codes. The Proposer will obtain a fire protection permit.

57. Minnesota Department of Transportation – Highway and/or Right-of-Way Permit. This permit is

required for work conducted along or by roadways. These permits ensure that the work will be accomplished in a manner that will not be detrimental to the right-of-way and that will safeguard the public. In addition the right-of-way permit ensures that the right-of-way is restored to its original condition. The Proposer will obtain a state right-of-way permit.

58. Minnesota Department of Transportation – Oversize and Overweight Permits. These permits are

obtained for the construction and equipment/supplies hauling vehicles that are used for construction of the Project and related utilities, and for the hauling of the equipment and/or supplies used and/or delivered to the Project site. These permits ensure that the vehicles are driven in accordance with highway requirements to prevent degradation of roads and surrounding areas. These requirements may include but are not limited to weight and/or season restrictions. The Proposer will obtain a state oversize and overweight permit.

59. Minnesota Department of Transportation – Drainage Permits. This permit is required to ensure that

work conducted alongside and in road right-of-way is conducted in a manner that will maintain or reduce existing precipitation drainage rates to the road right-of-way. The Proposer will obtain a state drainage permit.

60. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 61. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

62. MPCA staff reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the

Project: · Data presented in the EAW · Air permit application · Air dispersion modeling report · Air risk assessment screening spreadsheet

63. The list above is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by

the Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

9

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Conclusions of Law Shakopee, Minnesota And Order 64. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project have been addressed by the design

and permit development processes and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects.

65. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the

Project proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

66. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix A) as the

basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

67. The MPCA has jurisdiction and is the RGU for determining the need for an EIS for the Project.

68. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support

a reasoned decision regarding the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

69. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may exist have been identified and

appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design and permits. The Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.

70. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with

the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, the MPCA concludes that the Project as proposed and as regulated by the required permits does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.

71. Based on the record, an EIS is not required. 72. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be

termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

10

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota Municipal Power Agency – Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility (Proposed Facility)

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Wayde Johnson, e-mail received November 23, 2015.

2. Ryan Malterud, United States Army Corps of Engineers, letter received via e-mail November 30,

2015

3. Gail Schmidt, e-mail received December 2, 2015

4. Michael J. Corbett, Minnesota Department of Transportation, letter received December 2, 2015

5. Sara Beimers, Minnesota State Historical Society, letter received December 8, 2015

6. LisaBeth Barajas, Metropolitan Council, letter received December 9, 2015

7. Marsha Knight, telephone conversation written for the record December 9, 2015, commenter concurrence via signature on December 23, 2015.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Wayde Johnson. E-mail received November 23, 2015. Comment 1-1: The commenter stated dissatisfaction with the choice of location for the Project and noted the city of Shakopee (City) has adequate parcels of property within industrial park. The commenter objected to the proposed location of the Project as it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood; across from active daycare and townhome. The Commenter suggested alternative locations along 12th Street in Shakopee. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) notes the concern about location. The MPCA reviews and prepares EAWs on projects as proposed. According to the information received for the Proposed Facility, as well as the City Zoning Ordinance as found in §115 (C) (16), local requirements allow for conditional use permitting for an electric generation facility in the proposed location. The MPCA passed the concerns regarding the project location to both the City and the Proposer. The Proposer has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to authorize the Project in the proposed location. The City has confirmed to the MPCA a CUP is required for the Project due to current zoning and permit requirements Comment 1-2: Commenter notes potential health hazards associated with natural gas fired power plants release hazardous chemical such as nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide.

Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility List of Comment Letters Received and Shakopee, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Response: The EAW reviewed the Project for potential air quality impacts, including specific standards, cumulative effects on air quality in the region, and human health risks. There will be five natural gas-fired electrical generating units, each consisting of both an engine and a generator (also known as genset). Air emissions from the gensets will include nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOx), and hazardous air pollutants. The Proposer is required to, and has applied for, an individual total facility state air permit (Air Permit) for the Project. The Air Permit will include requirements to install and operate air pollution control equipment in compliance with state and federal air emission limits. Requirements will include emission limits, monitoring and recordkeeping, and testing requirements. The MPCA required the Proposer complete and submit air modelling to provide a conservative prediction of the performance of the Project, and to simulate maximum pollutant concentrations in the ambient air within two kilometers of the Project. As the modelling showed the potential for an exceedance of particulate matter (PM) over a 24-hour ambient air standard (PM2.5), the MPCA required an additional analysis to determine if the Project would be responsible for the exceedance. The additional analysis was done, and the MPCA concluded that the Project’s emissions would be a very small contribution to the overall levels of PM2.5 and could not be held responsible for the modeled exceedance of PM2.5. The MPCA’s factual findings support the conclusions that the Project’s cumulative air emissions do not have the potential for significant environmental effects on ambient air. Last, the Proposer evaluated acute and chronic non-cancer toxicity and cancer risks, associated with HAPS and VOCs, for the Project, through the use of MPCA’s Risk Assessment Screening Spreadsheet (RASS). The RASS is a conservative screening technique to determine if further in-depth study is required for both non-cancer and cancer risks. Results of the RASS for the Project indicated that there is not a potential increase in either non-cancer or cancer risks. The Project does not present a level of non-cancer toxicity or cancer risk that warrants further study. 2. Ryan Malterud, Senior Project Manager, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

Comments by Letter received via e-mail November 30, 2015.

Comment 2-1: If the Project involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is required. CWA Section 301 (a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., unless the work has been authorized by the Corps under CWA Section 404. If a CWA permit is required, the Corps would consider direct impacts to waters of the U.S. located within the Facility site, including aquatic resources such as wetlands or ditches, as well as any other aquatic resources that would be indirectly affected by the proposed direct impacts to waters of the U.S. The commenter notes the Corps’ initial review of the EAW indicates that aquatic resources are not located on the Proposed Facility site. The commenter also provides an overview of additional Corps requirements if a CWA permit is required. The comment then notes a Corps permit is likely not required for this project, and encourages the Proposer to contact the Corps if the Proposer finds, during planning stages, a Corps permit may be needed. Response: Comments noted, and information passed along to the Proposer.

2

Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility List of Comment Letters Received and Shakopee, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Gail Schmidt. E-mail received December 2, 2015. Comment 3-1: The commenter notes that the Project will be very near to commenter’s residence and Canterbury Park. Pollutants created by Proposed Facility are not pollutants that should be in or near residential neighborhoods. The commenter questions if there are any studies on adverse health conditions resulting from the types of emissions from the Project. Response: Please see responses to 1-1 and 1-2. Comment 3-2: The commenter questions the effect the Project will have on home resale value. Response: Evaluating the potential impacts on surrounding properties is not within the scope of an EAW. Comment 3-3: The commenter questions what happen when and if emissions exceed required air-quality standards. Response: As noted in response 1-2, the Proposer must obtain a state Air Permit. The Air Permit includes requirements that must be followed, including controls, limits, and reporting. The MPCA has regulatory authority, can initiate an investigation, and require the Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. 4. Michael Corbett, P.E., Senior Planner, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Letter

received via e-mail November 30, 2015. Comment 4-1: A MnDOT drainage permit is required as the Project will need to maintain or reduce existing drainage rates to MnDOT right of way. Comment notes Proposer will need to submit most current plans and existing/proposed hydraulic computations for the 10 and 100 year rainfall events, and provides internet link to MnDOT drainage permit application and checklist. The commenter also summaries what is needed for MnDOT reviews and the options for submittal. Response: The MPCA has passed the requirement and information along to the Proposer. Comment 4-2: As the pond to the east of the Project’s property is MnDOT property, MnDOT wants to see a sheet identifying different right of way limits to see impact areas. Such a sheet makes it easier to determine the Local Units of Government that could be impacted. Aside from this information, there does not seem to be any impacts to MnDOT right-of-way for this project. Response: The MPCA has passed the comment on to the Proposer.

3

Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility List of Comment Letters Received and Shakopee, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 5. Sara J. Beimers, Government Programs and Compliance Manager, Minnesota Historical Society

(MHS), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Letter received December 8, 2015. Comment 5-1: Based on the commenter’s review of the project information, the commenter concludes that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this Project. Response: Comment noted. Comment 5-2: The MHS comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Response: Comment noted. 6. LisaBeth Barajas, Local Planning Assistance Manager, Metropolitan Council. Letter received

December 9, 2015. Comment 6-1: Commenter notes council staff reviewed EAW for accuracy, completeness, potential impacts, and need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Council staff finds that the proposed Project is consistent with regional policies and no EIS is needed for regional purposes. Response: Comments noted. Comment 6-2: At the time the Proposer makes application for a permit to construct each segment of sanitary sewer for the Project, a copy of the plans, designs and a location map of the Project will also need to be submitted. Metropolitan Council’s Environmental Service Municipal Services staff will need to review, comment and recommend issuance of the construction permit by the MPCA before connection can be made to the City’s wastewater disposal system. Response: Comment noted and information passed on to the Proposer. Comment 6-3: The commenter notes the EAW does not acknowledge the need for a land use change for the property. The adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the proposed land use for property as Entertainment with accompany zoning as Major Recreation. The land use category description does not appear to accommodate the uses proposed and would likely be more appropriately guided as one of the described Industrial land uses. While the zoning may permit the use as a conditional use, the land use guiding in the comprehensive plan needs to support the proposed use. The Metropolitan Council should be added to the “Permits and Approvals Required” table in Item 8 with the “type of Application” identified as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Response: See response to Comment 1-1 regarding the Proposer applying for a CUP. The Project is identified as being within the Metropolitan Council’s Metropolitan Urban Service Areas “Urbanized Area.” The City is working with Metropolitan Council to appropriately address the comment that the Project property must be rezoned or the City’s Comprehensive Plan modified for the Project.

4

Shakopee Distributed Generation Facility List of Comment Letters Received and Shakopee, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 6-4: The commenter is concerned the EAW does not discuss the close proximity of the proposed Project to Flying Cloud Airport three miles to the north in the city of Eden Prairie and the potential that any lingering plumes from the Project could create navigational issues for airport traffic. Response: The comment is noted. As noted in the EAW, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already received the notice of proposed construction or alteration for the Project. The FAA is the regulatory authority over airspace. The Proposer was required to submit the notification to the FAA so the FAA could determine if there were any applicable restrictions and/or prohibitions. The Proposer has indicated the FAA has made the determination the Project does not constitute a hazard for nearby airports. 7. Marsha Knight, Comments received via phone December 9, 2015. Comment 7-1: MPCA staff received a telephone call from the commenter on the afternoon of December 9, 2015. The commenter indicated in the telephone conversation she did not believe the Project should be constructed so close to a residential area (south of the Project). The commenter also indicated that she had only recently heard of the Project, does not have internet or e-mail access, and has severe arthritis. MPCA staff asked if the commenter wished to have the comment considered as a written comment in order for her comment to be part of the EAW administrative record. The commenter indicated she wished to do so. MPCA staff prepared a letter with the comment, and the commenter has signed off on the letter. Response: Please see responses to Comment 1-1, 1-2, and Comment 6-3. As the commenter indicated an interest in talking directly with the Proposer, the MPCA has also provided the Proposer’s direct contact information, and the direct contact information for the City’s Public Utilities Director. The City’s Public Utilities Director is also on the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency Board.

5

To: Nancy Drach (nancy.drach@state.mn.us)

Fr: Wayde Johnson (waydej@outlandbuilders.com)

Address : 2547 Onyx Drive, Shakopee, MN 55379

Regarding: Avant Energy’s Planned 45 Megawatt Power Plant

I am reaching out during the public communication period to convey my dissatisfaction with the choice

of location, and potential health hazards associated with the above referenced project. As is well-

documented, natural gas fired power plants release hazardous chemicals such as nitrous oxide, carbon

monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide.

Given that the city of Shakopee has adequate parcels of property located within its industrial park, it is

inexcusable to locate this generation facility adjacent to a residential neighborhood. It is also located

virtually across the street from an active daycare and Evergreen Heights Townhomes. Both locations are

teaming with children at any given time.

I would suggest alternate locations along 12th Street in Shakopee in the Valley Green Industrial Park

which would locate the facility adjacent to a freeway and buried within an industrial park.

If you have any questions or require additional input, I can be reached at the email above, or on my cell

phone at 612.220.0153.

1

2

From: Schmidt, GailTo: Drach, Nancy (MPCA)Subject: Electric Generating FacilityDate: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:54:08 PM

Hi Nancy – I live at 2745 Hauer Trail in Shakopee. I am very disappointed to hear Avant Energy through the MMPA is hoping to build a power generator very near to my back yard and Canterbury Park. The pollutants that would be created are not pollutants that should be in or near residential neighborhoods. Would you want this built close to your home? I bought my home almost 20 years ago and would not want to move because of emissions that are emitted from this facility. Also, what would this due to my future resale value? Are there any studies on adverse health conditions resulting from these emissions on nearby population? While you say the facility will include controls to ensure emissions don’t exceed required air-quality standards, what happens when and if they do? Then it’s just “I’m sorry” to the residents that live nearby. I don’t think this type of facility should be built next to residential neighborhoods. Please, please reconsider an area more appropriate. Thank you. Gail

Gail SchmidtAdministrative Manager, Safety and Security

Tel 952.993.5111 Fax 952.993.6607

PRIVACY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain business confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If this e-mail was not intended for you, please notify the sender by reply e-mail that you received this in error. Destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.

3

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113

December 2, 2015

Nancy Drach

Resource Management and Assistance Division

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road North

Saint Paul MN 55155

SUBJECT: EAW15-015 Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

North East Quadrant of US169 and Dean Lakes Blvd

City of Shakopee, Scott County

Control Section 7005

Dear Ms. Drach:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency EAW. MnDOT has

reviewed the EAW and has the following comments:

Water Resources: A drainage permit is required. The proposed development will need to maintain or reduce existing

drainage rates to MnDOT right of way. The project developer will need to submit the most current

construction plans and existing/proposed hydraulic computations for the 10 and 100 year rainfall events

verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnDOT right of way will be

perpetuated. The Drainage permit application can be found at:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/forms.html.

A drainage permit checklist (see attached) can also be found using this link:

http://ihub/metro/wre/Link%20Files/Drainage%20Permit%20Applications%20Checklist.pdf

The checklist provides more information about the requirements associated with the submittal of a

MnDOT Drainage permit application.

For questions regarding these comments, contact Tahsina Alam, Metro Water Resources, at

tahsina.alam@state.mn.us or 651-234-7541.

Right-of-Way:

The pond to the east of this property is MnDOT Property. MnDOT would like to see a sheet within the

document identifying the different right-of-way limits to see the impacted areas. This will make it easier

to determine the Local Units of Government that could be impacted.

Aside from this information, there does not seem to be any impacts to MnDOT right-of-way for this

project.

For questions concerning these comments, please contact Matt Aguirre of MnDOT’s Right-of-Way

section (matt.aguirre@state.mn.us or 651-234-7599).

4

Review Submittal Options:

MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can

usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either:

1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at

metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes.

2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will

expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:

MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section

Development Reviews Coordinator

1500 West County Road B-2

Roseville, MN 55113

3. One (1) compact disc.

4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to:

ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn’t

work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also,

please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been

submitted on the FTP site.

If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7793.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Corbett, PE

Senior Planner

Copy sent via E-Mail:

Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer

David Sheen, Traffic

Nancy Jacobson, Design

Hailu Shekur, Water Resources

Matt Aguirre, Right-of-Way

Buck Craig, Permits

Greg Wagner, Scott County

Tami Vidmar, City of Shakopee

Russ Owen, Metropolitan Council

April 2014

MnDOT Drainage Permits Checklist

Purpose of the MnDOT Drainage Permit

MnDOT Metro District regulates activities that impact its drainage systems and its MS4

regulated area. The purpose of the Drainage Permit is to protect State of Minnesota

investment in infrastructure including but not limited to roadways, storm water treatment

basins, ditches and storm sewer systems. Excess storm water and/or sediment laden storm

water added to MnDOT’s drainage systems leads to degradation of these assets. Negative

impacts include but are not limited to: sediment deposition, loss of flood storage capacity

and also loss of hydraulic conveyance capacity. These impacts may cause premature

flooding of the road surface and/or erosion damage on State right-of-way.

Technical Requirements of the MnDOT Drainage Permit

The permit applicant shall demonstrate that offsite runoff coming to MnDOT drainage

system and/or right-of-way will not increase as a result of the proposed project. This is

quantified as a “no increase in discharge” criteria for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year

storm events. Compliance is demonstrated by applying hydraulic/hydrologic software

models. HydroCAD and XPSWMM are the approved models to compare the pre and post

project discharge values. Typically, HydroCAD is sufficient to model most proposed

projects. However, XPSWMM may be required if the project contains extensive storm

water pipe systems connected to MnDOT storm sewer or if HydroCAD cannot in

MnDOT’s judgment effectively model pressure flow, complex junctions and/or

backwater effects that are present. The 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events shall be

based upon Atlas 14 runoff amounts per the NOAA website.

In addition, Drainage Permit Applicants shall meet all applicable water quality treatment

requirements established by the local Watershed District(s) and the MPCA.

Permit applicants should anticipate that specific projects that seek to divert runoff to

another sub-watershed or watershed will be denied. It is MnDOT practice to avoid such

watershed diversions whenever practicable.

Submittal Requirements:

Readable/legible watershed maps that show pre and post project drainage

conditions. These two separate contour maps shall be large enough in scale so that

approximate flow paths can be determined for verifying the Time of

Concentrations used in the models. The drainage/watershed maps shall include

enough detail so that Curve Numbers used in the hydraulic models may be

verified by MnDOT.

April 2014

Surface water flow direction and storm water pipe water flow direction shall be

indicated on the pre and post project watershed maps.

Minimum recommended watershed map scale is 1” =100’. Project applications

submitted with smaller scales (e.g., 1”=500’) may be rejected and returned to the

applicant. The same would apply for project watershed maps that do not include

topographic contours or basic land use information such as the location of

buildings, pavement and “green space”. Watershed maps submitted as pdf files or

CAD files shall be readily printable at scales that allow for good readability.

Pre and post project watershed maps shall be clearly linked to the drainage

models such that the names of the sub-watersheds, ponds and drainage structures

are the same in the models as shown on the watershed maps. In addition,

watershed and sub-watershed boundaries shall be clearly shown.

Submission of the actual pre and post project HydroCAD or XPSWMM models is

required: pdf copies of the drainage model simulations are unacceptable. In the

event that the models cannot be transferred readily by electronic mail or electronic

repository site, a hardcopy CD shall be provided.

Curve numbers shall be determined per NRCS methodology and should be

modified as needed based upon detailed knowledge of soil type and specific

conditions on site. HydroCAD modeling software includes NRCS guidance for

determining curve numbers based upon land use and condition.

Time of concentration (Tc) computations and assumptions that in MnDOT’s

assessment clearly overestimate or underestimate this critical runoff parameter

will be rejected. Two common assumptions that lead to overestimating Tc

include: using the “Lag/CN” method to determine peak runoff from watersheds

that have a relatively long and/or diverse flow path, and assuming that sheet flow

occurs for a distance exceeding100 feet. Conversely, pre-project Tc shall not be

underestimated to offset post project increases in peak discharge.

Available freeboard for existing and proposed treatment ponds shall be shown on

the watershed maps as well as the normal and 100-year high water levels. All

proposed pond treatment systems along MnDOT right-of-way shall have a

minimum freeboard of 2.0 feet between the road surface and the proposed

100-year HWL.

Infiltration basins, filtration basins and ponds adjacent to MnDOT right-of-way

shall be designed to provide at least 2 feet of elevation difference between the

100-year HWL and the crest of the basin berm. The berm crest shall be at least 5

feet wide. The emergency overflow shall be lined from crest to toe of slope with

Turf Reinforcement mat or Category 6 or 7 Erosion Control Blanket.

April 2014

Best management practices (BMP’s) including infiltration/filtration sites, storm

water ponds, etc. shall be clearly labeled on the pre and post project watershed

maps.

Plan sheets submitted as watershed maps shall be evaluated as such. They shall be

readable and legible and meet all the same requirements including clear

delineation of watershed boundaries, readable map scale, and land use shown by

an aerial photo background map, or that is clearly depicted based on details on the

plan sheet or sheets submitted.

Project plan sheets relevant to the Drainage Permit are required and include:

existing site conditions, the proposed grading plan as well as proposed site

drainage system plans and profiles. The plans shall include applicable wetland

impact/mitigation features and temporary sediment and erosion control measures

for the project. In addition, erosion control blanket will be used to stabilize

disturbed area on MnDOT right-of-way unless other methods such as rip-rap

treatment are called for in the plans and approved by MnDOT.

Pond and basin special structures including weirs and orifices shall be consistent

with what is used in the HydroCAD or XPSWMM models submitted and include

relevant calculations/details.

A table summary of existing versus proposed site discharge to MnDOT drainage

system/right-of-way is required for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year Atlas 14

rainfall events.

Post project storm water discharge to MnDOT ditches or other open channel shall

be limited to flow velocities of 6 fps or less for a 50-year Atlas 14 rainfall event.

Project discharge points that will connect to MnDOT ditch or channel shall be

located such that they do not cause erosion or conflict with the grade of the

existing ditch or channel.

Proposed access road culverts on MnDOT right-of-way shall be designed for the

10-year Atlas 14 rainfall event unless they are part of a significant drainage ditch

along the roadway in which case a 100-year or 50-year design will apply.

Direct connections to MnDOT storm system shall be avoided. Connection to open

ditch, or channel is preferred. If direct storm sewer connections cannot be

avoided, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide a good connection typically

via a new structure. Furthermore, MnDOT offers no warranty that there will not

be a hydraulic backwater effects on the new storm line upstream that is connected

to MnDOT’s existing storm sewer.

April 2014

For all disturbed areas that sheet flow to MnDOT right-of-way and any disturbed

areas within MnDOT right-of-way, either Erosion Control Mat or Bonded Fiber

Matrix shall be used for temporary/permanent erosion control.

Silt fence shall not be used for erosion control at the proposed project site

perimeter. Rather, continuous Wood Chip or compost Sediment Control Logs

shall be implemented.

Permit applicants are encouraged to contact MnDOT Metro Water Resource Engineering

with questions/concerns. Questions posed early in the permit application process help to

avoid project delays. This is particularly true for large project Drainage Permits with

significant complexity.

5

6

7