Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. SKB Interim Use Permit (Case 08-18-IUP)r AGENDA ITEM: SKB Interim Use Permit (Case 08- 18 -IUP) AGENDA SECTION: DISWSslnVi AGENDA NO. 2 f,. PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Executive Summary; Excerpt of the Minutes from 1 the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting; Site Map; Introduction to the November 2007 Existing Permit Reissuance; Introduction to the April 2008 Permit Major Modification; Existing Conditions; Existing Approved Final Cover Grades; Proposed Expansion Final Cover Grades; Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10R; Existing and Replacement Wetland Plan Profile; Water Table Map; Base Grades; Leachate Collection System; Phasing Plan Years 2008 -2012; Phasing Plan Years 2013 -2022; Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10; Engineering Cross Section C -C'; Engineering Cross Section G -G'; Recycling/Transfer Facility Plan; Details Saddle Area and Leachate Collection Trench; Details Leachate Storage Tanks and Lift Station; Regional Cross Sections; Wetland Management and Protection Requirements; WSB Memorandum WCA Application dated July 16, 2008; WSB Memorandum TEP Meeting Notes dated June 23, 2008; City Engineer's Memorandum dated July 16, 2008; Letters in support of SKB Expansion. APPROVED BY: VA.'" RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction regarding: 1. Wetland filling. 2. Wetland buffer. 3. Wetland mitigation. 4. Storm water management, particularly as it concerns the wetland(s). 5. Acceptable height of the final landfill cover. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: August 13, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an expansion to their facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of disposal area. The proposed expansion includes an increase in total disposal volume from about 15 million cubic yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an increase in the finish height of the landfill by 40 feet. SKB has agreed to process an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for review of their proposed expansion. Because of the time that it takes to process this environmental review, staff would like to discuss the policy implications associated with aspects of the expansion, particularly the filling and mitigation of wetlands, and to get direction regarding the proposed height of the expansion. SUMMARY The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the SKB expansion at their July 22 meeting, but has continued the public hearing to their August 26 meeting. An excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes, along with a copy of the Planning Commission Executive Summary, are attached to this executive summary for reference. The goal of this work session discussion is to review the changes requested by the Planning Commission and ascertain if there are additional modifications the Council would like explored by SKB for their interim use permit amendment and proposed facility expansion. Staff asked the Planning Commission to consider five issues relating to the landfill and provide direction to staff and SKB about how these issues should be addressed. The five issues are: 1. Wetland filling. 2. Wetland buffer. 3. Wetland mitigation. 4. Storm water management, particularly as it concerns the wetland(s). 5. Acceptable height of the final landfill cover. The Planning Commission discussed the classifications of the two wetlands, including that the smaller wetland that is proposed to be filled is a lower class of wetland (Manage II) than the wetland that is primarily preserved (Manage 1). Andi Moffet, an environmental scientist from WSB, provide detailed information regarding the classification categories. The Planning Commission was in general agreement that they can support filling the smaller, Manage II wetland provided that wetland mitigation to replace the wetland occurs on the SKB property and that the landfill grade be revised to provide a full 50 foot wetland buffer around the entire preserved wetland and mitigation area. The Planning Commission was not supportive of any wetland buffer modification, such as buffer averaging, and recommended that the full 50 foot wetland buffer be created around the preserved wetland and the wetland mitigation. The only exception is along the 140 Street right -of -way where there is not room for a buffer area adjacent to the existing wetland. The Planning Commission is not supportive of off -site mitigation, which would allow SKB to purchase wetland credits from a site in the Vermillion River watershed were wetlands have already been established, such as in Empire Township. The Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation that the required wetland mitigation as a result of wetland filling must occur on the SKB site adjacent to the preserved wetland. 2 The Planning Commission recommended that the stormwater plan be revised so that as much stormwater as possible is sent to the preserved wetland and the wetland mitigation area. The original proposal was to hold all stormwater within created stormwater basins which would comply with the City's stormwater standards, but would also reduce the amount of stormwater runoff below that currently going to the wetland The recommended modification to the stormwater plan will help increase the success and quality of the wetland mitigation area. The Planning Commission was generally accepting of the proposed increase in height of the final landfill elevation. Some Commissioners felt that the great length of the landfill (over 4,000 feet long) would soften the appearance of the increased height, and other commissioners felt that trees and landscaping at the base of the landfill would soften the appearance of the landfill. At the public hearing, two residents spoke. Brenda Sugii, a neighbor to the SKB landfill, stated her frustration with the landfill because of the repeated requests to expand. Ms. Sugii stated that the original request in 1992 was for a landfill that would operate for 20 to 30 years and that the current expansion request projects a lifespan that exceeds 40 years. Myron Napper spoke against an expansion of the landfill that would require filling of the wetlands. Mr. Napper was supportive of landscaping being installed at the base of the landfill. SKB has begun to revise their plans based on the Planning Commission comments. Staff would like to discuss the Planning Commission recommendations with the City Council and inquire if there is concurrence with the Commissions direction or if the City Council has a differing opinion. Because filling of the wetland is required to allow expansion of the magnitude proposed, staff would like direction from the Council regarding this issue prior to formal action on the Interim Use Permit. Additionally, staff would like further comment on the proposed height of the landfill and the overall expansion so that plans could be tailored to address any upfront concerns. Of final note, staff is interested in a general discussion about filling of wetlands for development. In general, the City has very few naturally occurring wetland which may make them more valuable from a local perspective than within other communities. Because we have had very few requests for filling, all being for public improvement projects, since the latest wetland plan changes, staff would like direction from the Council on this topic. ORIGINAL PLANNING COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning Commission Executive Summary as it was sent out had the classifications of the two on -site wetlands mislabeled. The copy of the executive summary that is attached to this executive summary has been redlined to remove the erroneous wetland classification and clarify the actual wetland classification. Staff explained the error to the Planning Commission during the staff presentation and the Planning Commission discussion within executive summary and the minutes regarding the wetlands is based on the actual wetland classifications. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests direction regarding wetland filling, wetland buffers, wetland mitigation, the stormwater and wetland relationship, and the maximum height of the proposed SKB landfill expansion. 3 AGENDA ITEM: SKB Interim Use Permit (Case 08- 18 -IUP) AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Site Map; Introduction to the November 2007 Existing Permit Reissuance; Introduction to the April 2008 Permit Major Modification; Existing Conditions; Existing Approved Final Cover Grades; Proposed Expansion Final Cover Grades; Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10R; Existing and Replacement Wetland Plan Profile; Water Table Map; Base Grades; Leachate Collection System; Phasing Plan Years 2008 -2012; Phasing Plan Years 2013 2022; Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10; Engineering Cross Section C -C'; Engineering Cross Section G -G'; Recycling/Transfer Facility Plan; Details Saddle Area and Leachate Collection Trench; Details Leachate Storage Tanks and Lift Station; Regional Cross Sections; Wetland Management and Protection Requirements; WSB Memorandum WCA Application dated July 16, 2008; WSB Memorandum TEP Meeting Notes dated June 23, 2008; City Engineer's Memorandum dated July 16, 2008; Letters in support of SKB Expansion. APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. -and Provide direction to SKB regarding: 1. Wetland filling. 2. Wetland buffer. 3. Wetland mitigation. 4. Storm water management, particularly as it concerns the wetland(s). 5. Acceptable height of the final landfill cover. ROSEMOUNT PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 22, 2008 Tentative City Council Meeting Date: September 16, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an expansion to their facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of disposal area. The proposed expansion in size includes an expansion in total disposal volume from about 15 million cubic yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an increase in the finish height of the landfill of 40 feet. SKB has agreed to process an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for review of their proposed expansion. Because of the time to process this environmental review, staff is not asking for any action to be taken tonight. Rather staff would like to discuss the policy implications associated with aspects of the expansion, particularly the filling and mitigation of wetlands, and to get direction regarding the proposed height of the expansion. BACKGROUND In 1992, Union Pacific Railroad USPCI) was approved to construct and operate an industrial solid waste land disposal facility (landfill). The landfill was designed with ten containment cells for a total of 2,520,000 cubic yards of total capacity. In 1995, USPCI sold the landfill to Laidlaw, Inc. and in 1998 Laidlaw combined with Safety Kleen Corporation. In 1997, municipal solid waste (MSW) ash from the Hennepin County incinerator was permitted to be accepted at the landfill. In 2000, SKB purchased the landfill from Safety Kleen. At that time, the landfill was permitted to accept industrial waste and MSW ash with a total landfill capacity of 6,037,983 cubic yards covering approximately 70 acres of area with a permitted finish grade to the 930 foot elevation (100 feet measured from 140` Street East). In 2003, SKB requested and was approved for an expansion of their facility to add construction and demolition debris to their accepted fill and an additional 9,320,608 cubic yards of waste (154% increase) for a total permitted capacity of 15,358,591 cubic yards of waste. The approved expansion permitted a total disposal area of 112 acres (60% increase) and finish grade to the 970 foot elevation (40% increase). The current SKB expansion request would increase the disposal capacity by 11,515,512 cubic yards (73% increase) to a total capacity of 26,874,103 cubic yards. The expansion will also increase the permitted disposal area to 151 acres (35% increase) and a finish grade of 1,010 foot elevation (29% increase). The currently approved finish grade is approximately the height of the high tension power lines running through the site. The proposed finish elevation is 40 feet taller than the power lines and 80 feet taller than the approved finish grade when they bought the site in 2000. Surrounding Land Uses: Planned Land Uses: North: General Industrial (Spectro Alloys and Endres) East: Agriculture South: Ag riculture West: Public /Institutional (Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant) and Agriculture North: General Industrial East: Light Industrial South: L ight Industrial West: Public /Institutional and General Industrial 2 Existing Zoning District: Site Area: Approved Disposal Area: Proposed Disposal Area: Approved Disposal Capacity: Proposed Disposal Capacity: Approved Height: Proposed Height: WM: Waste Management 236 Acres 112 Acres 151 Acres 15,358,591 Cubic Yards 26,874,103 Cubic Yards 970 foot elevation (140 feet, measured from 140` Street East) 1010 foot elevation (180 feet, measured from 140 Street East) SUMMARY Horizontal Proposed Expansion /Wetland Filling To facilitate the 39 acre expansion, SKB is proposing to develop the southwestern corner of their property. The area is currently occupied by high tension power lines, a pipeline that leads to the Flint Hills Refinery, a number of trees, and two wetlands. To construct their landfill cells, SKB is proposing to move the power lines to the south of their expansion, move the pipeline to within the earthen berm at the base of their expansion, remove the trees, and fill one of the wetlands and a portion of the other. At this time, SKB has not provided a tree replacement plan to show how the tree removal for the expansion would be replaced with new trees, but has stated that they will submit a plan in time for the next Planning Commission review. The City does not regulate the relocation of power lines or pipelines. The City does regulate the development around and the filling of wetlands. Staff would like to concentrate the discussion of this Planning Commission meeting to the proposed wetland impacts. There are two wetlands located on the site, the first is approximately 0.5 acres and the second is approximately 9.3 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to fill the smaller wetland entirely and .3 acres of the larger, southwestern wetland for a combined proposed impact of 0.8 acres. As part of the City process to review and permit wetland impacts, the City administers wetland permits in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules. The WCA rules stipulate the completion of a sequencing process to evaluate options associated with the proposed impacts. The sequencing process requires as a first step the evaluation of the feasibility of developing a project without impact to the wetland, or "avoid SKB has explored options for expansion, such as purchasing property from Flint Hills to the west or Pine Bend Development to the east. SKB decided not to purchase those properties for a number of reasons, including the land price, but the option to purchase neighboring land is available to them and would not require the filling of the wetland. The other option to SKB is to not expand their landfill at all, or initiate a smaller expansion that would not require filling wetlands. SKB has stated that their currently approved landfill has capacity for another 25 years of waste disposal. The expansion could potentially add another 15 -20 years. If it is determined that complete avoidance of wetland impacts is not feasible, the sequencing process then requires the evaluation of options to minimize to the greatest extent possible the impact to the wetland. This step includes a review of the proposed project and consideration of feasible modification to the plan to minimize wetland impacts. 3 The WCA requires that a technical evaluation panel (TEP) of environmental and water resource experts from neighboring agencies, such as the watershed management organizations, soil and water conservation districts, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), assemble and evaluate the proposed wetland impacts. The TEP provides technical comments and recommendation to the City for consideration when evaluating project impacts. A summary of the TEP panel's comments are attached for the Commission's information. The decision as to whether the required sequencing legislated in the WCA rules has been met is a City Council decision. The City has the ability to review the sequencing performed by the applicant and determine if the "avoidance" has occurred as much as practical given the circumstances. Staff would like to discuss this issue from a policy standpoint. Many cities recognize that wetlands are not always in the optimum location when developing a property and allow some wetland fill. Other communities place a high priority on the preservation of existing wetlands to the extent that they never or rarely approve of filling. The City of Rosemount does not have a lot of wetlands, primarily due to its sandy soils. For this reason the City updated the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (CWMP) in December 2005. This update included the development of wetland management and protection goals and strategies. The attached table IX -I highlights the wetland management class and strategy. In the city's wetland management plan, the smaller wetland is a Manage 3 Manage II which means it is the most degraded and has the worst ranking recognized in the City's program. The larger wetland in the south, which has a small amount of fill proposed is a Manage -2 Manage I, which means it is more desirable from a floral diversity, water quality, and wildlife habitat standpoint. All of the City wetlands were evaluated with the same criteria and given a specific number and then placed in one of the 4 categories. In the City's adopted wetland management plan the Management Strategy for Manage 2 Manage I is to "apply some acqucncing flexibility" "sequencing is applicable" and for Manage 3 Manage II "allow maximum acqucncing flexibility" "apply some sequencing flexibility There are a variety of options available to the City regarding the disposition of the wetlands. It could be decided that all wetlands should be preserved or that all filling as proposed could occur (with required mitigation measures). Or the City could decide that sequencing occurred for the Manx c 3 Manage II wetland but not for the filling on the Manage 2 Manage I. Ultimately staff is asking the Commission and Council to weigh the issue of scarcity of wetlands in the city, the desire to facilitate development, the wetland plan goals and management strategy, and to recognize that other developers will be looking at this decision and expecting similar treatment for their development, even though it will not be for a landfill expansion. Because the City does not have a lot of wetlands, and because often wetland filling is not requested with development of a site, staff believes the disposition of this application will help to set a policy for future requests of a similar nature. Wetland Buffer /Wetland Mitigation Should the City determine that SKB has met their sequencing requirement, an evaluation of the wetland mitigation should be considered. SKB has proposed to create, or mitigate, 2.05 acres of wetlands to the west of the southern wetland as a result of their filling 0.8 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland mitigation would meet the City's requirements. The TEP suggested the purchase of off site wetland mitigation credits instead of on site wetland mitigation. Some of the reasons that the TEP has suggested off site wetland mitigation is because of 4 recent changes in the WCA rules that encourages off site mitigation and the challenges in creating and establishing wetland mitigation particularly in Rosemount While this is an option, staff recommends that wetland mitigation occur on site, consistent with the City's desire to maintain a variety of natural areas in the community. Support is based primarily on the small amount of wetlands in the community and the desire to maintain existing wetlands to the greatest extent possible. The TEP suggests off site mitigation because there is a large mitigation project in Dakota County that has been established for over five years and has credits available for purchase. The WCA rule changes seem to encourage or prefer these large wetland mitigation projects over smaller and more local on site mitigation projects. Purchasing of these off site wetland credits would decrease the amount of wetlands within Rosemount and transfer the benefits received from wetlands to other communities. The TEP also favored the consideration of off site mitigation because of the mixed results from wetland mitigation that has occurred within Rosemount. A memorandum from WSB is attached to the executive summary that describes these mitigation efforts in detail. Below is a summary of a number of factors that have affected the success of wetland mitigation in Rosemount: Soils are generally sandy and well drained which discourages water retention for a long enough time period to allow wetland plants to establish. The last three years have included long dry periods inhibiting creation of wetlands. Storm water management techniques that are necessary to be used by the City do not always benefit wetland establishment. City and WSB staff has learned from recent wetland mitigation projects and have provided a series of performance standards for the construction of on site wetland mitigation. Those specific standards are included in the WSB memorandum that is attached to the executive summary. Implementing the performance standards should increase the likelihood of success in wetland establishment. In addition to wetland filling and mitigation, the proposed SKB expansion affects the natural areas that exist on the north side of the wetland that is known as a wetland buffer. The type of wetland on the SKB property requires a 50 foot buffer area around the wetland that has less than a 10:1 slope and natural vegetation. The buffer area is intended to slow and clean the storm water before it enters the wetland. SKB has proposed to bring the berm of the landfill with a 3:1 slope to the very edge of the wetland, eliminating the buffer. SKB has requested buffer averaging that would llow SKB to decrease the buffer on one side of the wetland by expanding the buffer on another 4ide of the wetland. Staff has met with the applicant and requested additional buffering on the north side of the site, consistent with the ordinance requirements rather than the significant buffer reduction shown on the plans in the Commission packet. Vertical Expansion The landfill that was originally proposed by USPCI had a finish elevation of the 930 feet, which is approximately 100 feet above 140` Street East. The original design had ten individual cells that were all pyramid shaped that ended at the 930 foot elevation. When SKB purchased the landfill, some expansion had been approved although the permitted height had remained at the 930 foot. 5 In 2003, SKB received an expansion to the landfill to included filling the areas between the berms and trapezoids (these areas are referred to as saddles), as well as building a new cell to the southeast for construction and demolition debris. The result of this expansion was a finish grading plan that was roughly pyramidal in shape with a finish elevation of 970 feet, a 40 foot increase in height. To soften the aesthetic appearance of the finished landfill, the final grade included undulation to have ridges, valleys, and trees planted on the sides of the landfill. Shortly after the 2003 approval, SKB requested and received a modification to the finished grade to remove the undulation and the trees in exchange for a payment to the City to plant trees in other locations within the City. The currently approved finish grade is a pyramid with even sides that has a maximum height of 970 feet, which is approximately 140 feet above 140 Street East and approximately equal to the height of the existing power lines on the south side of the site. The requested expansion of the landfill would increase the height to the 1,010 foot elevation. This is 40 feet taller than the current approval and would result in a berm 180 feet higher than 140 Street East. This would also be 40 feet taller than the existing power lines and 80 feet taller (an 80% increase) than the landfill that was permitted for when SK.B purchased the landfill in 2000. Some of the increase in height is due to a change in the shape of the landfill. Instead of a pyramid with the peak in the center of the landfill that slopes equally in all directions, the proposed landfill creates a ridge 180 feet tall along 140 Street East that slopes over the entire landfill to the north. This design is significantly taller than a pyramid design where the tallest part of the landfill would be at the center. During the review of the 2003 expansion, the Metropolitan Council commented that the increase in height to the 970 foot elevation would have a visual impact on regional resources in the area, such as the Spring Lake Regional Park, the future Mississippi River Regional Trail, and the MN Highway 55 corridor. The current expansion will have an even larger impact on the regional resources because of the additional 40 feet in height. This will especially occur when the MN Highway 55 corridor gets realigned to the current County Road 42 corridor where the entire 180 foot height would be visible. The Planning Commission should consider the appropriate height of the landfill including the aesthetic and visual impact it will have on the area. Some choices that are available include: The current 970 foot maximum, which is approximately the height of the power lines and 40 feet taller than when SKB purchased the landfill. The height that would be created if the landfill maintained the pyramid shape. The height would likely be approximately 990 feet, which is taller than the current approval of 970 but less than the requested 1,010 feet. Approve the request from SKB for the full 1,010 foot elevation. Storm Water Management SKB has submitted a storm water management plan that generally meets the standards required by the City, but has individual elements that are outside of City performance standards. Staff believes that SKB can make changes to the design to bring the entire system into compliance, but staff is also concerned about the effect that the storm water design will have on the wetland and mitigation site. Currently, the wetlands have a watershed of approximately 51 acres in size. The proposed landfill expansion will reduce the watershed area to 11.4 acres. The SKB design holds all the storm water in ponds and does not release any water into the wetland, resulting in the reduction of the wetland 6 watershed by approximately 39 acres or 75 As stated earlier, storm water design can have an effect on the success of wetland mitigation and the reduction of the watershed to the wetlands is a concern for both the proposed wetland mitigation and the existing wetland. The plant species that are in the existing wetland prefer to be frequently wet but do not require being under water. The species that will be established in the wetland mitigation will be similar to the existing wetland. For that reason, staff is recommending to redesign the storm water management to provide as much water to the wetland as possible. Ideally, more stormwater than the current circumstance should be directed to the wetland. The limiting factor to providing water to the wetland will be the existing culvert under 140` Street East. The culvert connects the wetlands on SKB with the wetland on the property to the south that is owned by Great River Energy (GRE). If the water level in the SKB wetlands are raised above the culvert elevation, then the GRE wetlands would receive more water as well, which can not be permitted. During the storm water redesign, SKB should evaluate this culvert including the replacement or modification of the culvert if it would allow more water to stay on the SKB property. The storm water design should be designed to provide sediment and nutrient removal before the water is released into the wetland. Grading /Future 140` Street State Statute states that a community may grant an IUP if the permission of the use will impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. Staff is concerned that the grading and location of the toe of the berm on the north side of 140` Street East will impose just such additional costs. 140` Street East is currently a two lane rural section road that has 66 feet of right -of -way. The City has designated 140` Street East as a major collector street and in the future expects to connect 140` Street east of US Highway 52 with the 140 Street west of US Highway via right -of -way that the City has acquired adjacent to the railroad underpass of US Highway 52. When that connection is made, and the other development occurs within the 2020 MUSA, there will be one continuous street east to west through Rosemount from 140 Street West in Apple Valley to Emery Avenue and County Road 42 /MN Highway 55. The standard construction of a fully developed major collector street is a four lane road within a 100 foot wide right of way, which would require an additional 17 feet of right of way from SKB. The berm for the landfill that is being constructed at a 3:1 slope within that additional 17 feet will add additional costs to the construction of the ultimate 140` Street East. Staff recommends that SKB revise its final cover plans to remove the 3:1 berm from the area 17 feet north of the current 140` Street East right -of -way. Letters ofSupport Attached to this executive summary are a number of letters of support for the SKB landfill expansion. The letters are generally from two sources, either fellow members of the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce or from individuals or organizations that have received donations from the SKB trust. 7 Environmental Assessment Worksheet SKB has volunteered to conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in which the City of Rosemount will be the responsible unit of government (RGU). SKB had preformed a voluntary EAW during their 2003 expansion with the Minnesota Pollution Control Administration (PCA) serving as the RGU. An EAW is an environmental review process in which the impacts to the environment, transportation, and land use from the proposed landfill expansion are described and distributed to all agencies that have regulations in these areas, including Dakota County, the PCA, the DNR, the Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, and others. The agencies have 30 days to submit their responses and concerns to the proposed expansion, following which, the City works with SKB to provide revisions or responses to the agencies' concerns. After reviewing the results of the EAW, the City determines if all the issues within the EAW are addressed or if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needed. An EIS provides additional and more detailed environmental review for issues that are not resolved in the EAW. If the City deems that the EAW is sufficient and an EIS is not needed, the City can review and either approve or deny the IUP for the expansion. The EAW review will be occurring in August, and for that reason, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until their August 26 meeting at which time the City can review the comments received. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the continuation of the public hearing until the August 26 meeting. Staff also requests direction regarding wetland filling, wetland buffers, wetland mitigation, the storm water and wetland relationship, and the maximum height of the landfill. 8 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2008 5.c. SKB Environmental Interim Use Permit (08- 18 -IUP). SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an expansion to their facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of disposal area. The proposed expansion in size includes an expansion in total disposal volume from about 15 million cubic yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an increase in the finish height of the landfill of 40 feet. Senior Planner Zweber stated that SKB has agreed to process an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for review of their proposed expansion. Because of the time to process this environmental review, Mr. Zweber further stated that staff is not asking for any action to be taken at tonight's meeting. He reviewed in detail the policy implications associated with aspects of the expansion, particularly the filling, buffer and mitigation of wetlands, storm water management, particularly as it concerns the wetlands, and the proposed height of the expansion. Mr. Zweber also discussed 140 Street and how the expansion could affect the future plans for the street development. The Applicant, Richard O'Hara, president and owner, SKB Environmental, Inc. provided a brief history of SKB and stated that they have never had a violation. He stated that the facility in Rosemount is the only industrial waste landfill in the state with a triple liner. Mr. O'Hara stated that the site is 240 acres zoned for waste management and SKB would like to try to maximize the use of the zoned land. He further stated that SKB has agreed to modify the plan with respect to the wetlands and modify the storm water plan to allow more water to enter the remaining wetlands. Mr. O'Hara stated that the extra height is required in an effort to get more capacity and the proposed capacity is needed to pay for additional modifications and improvements to the site. He stated it is important to understand that it will be a gradual height change over a 4000 feet of distance. He showed diagrams of the triple liner and models and photographs of the site before and after the expansion. Mr. O'Hara stated that SKB built a wildlife viewing area in the southwest corner of the site. In conclusion, Mr. O'Hara mentioned the 140 Street future expansion and stated it may difficult to complete in the southeast corner where the SKB site has previously been approved in 2003. Chairperson Messner asked for an explanation of the sloping ratios. Mr. Zweber explained the slopes using a diagram showing the earthen berm next to the landfill slope. Mr. Bill Keegan, of SKB Environmental, approached the Commission and stated that the berm height between the 2003 expansion and the current proposal did not change, not did the road elevation. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant where the pipelines and power lines will be relocated. Mr. O'Hara showed on a diagram where they plan on moving the power lines with the assistance of Xcel Energy. He stated the pipeline will simply be placed within the earthen berm. Chairperson Messner asked the applicant about the 50 foot buffer and the storm water management conditions. Mr. O'Hara stated that SKB will have to modify the grades but they will be able to do the buffer and will work City staff to achieve the storm water conditions. The public hearing was opened at 7:56p.m. Brenda Sugii, 13701 Courthouse Boulevard, approached the Commission. She stated she lives adjacent to SKB site with her driveway on Hwy. 55 and backyard viewing the site. Ms. Sugii stated the first owners of the site told her the project would be a 20 -30 year development and within 30 years, the site would become a park. However, she stated that it is continually being expanded. Ms. Sugii stated she has been dealing with problems for 16 years of increased truck traffic on Highway 55, the noisy conditions and the site being an eyesore. She asked when it will all stop as the first owners initially proposed. She stated her firm opposition to the expansion. Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, stated his opposition to the expansion in account for the environmental impacts on the wetlands. He stated there should be more of a buffer around the wetlands. Mr. O'Hara approached the Commission and stated he feels it is a good idea to continue the item to next month's Planning Commission meeting and that SKB would be happy to meet with residents in the meantime to explain the project in more detail. MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing to the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Mr. Zweber stated two primary concerns are the wetland management plan and the filling of the two wedand areas. Commissioner Schwartz stated she is fine with filling some of the area if there will be mitigation to the remaining area. Commissioner Howell agreed. A discussion took place on the mitigation standards of Manage I and Manage II wetland areas. Chairperson Messner stated that he does not want this expansion to affect the 140 Street future development plan. Mr. Zweber stated that according to WSB's recommendation, the proposed mitigation is to begin at the 50 foot setback from 140 Street. Chairperson Messner requested that Andi Moffatt provide a more detailed explanation on wetland management. Andi Moffatt, Senior Environmental Scientist with WSB Associates, Inc, approached the Commission. She gave a brief history of the wetland classification program and the characteristics of the four categories of wetlands. She stated the smaller area proposed for filling is a Manage II wetland while the larger area to be mitigated is a Manage I wetland. The classification difference between the two areas may be due to the size difference. Ms. Moffatt further explained the mitigation process. She stated the particular wetland on the SKB site is both ground water and surface water fed. She stated this is a logical location for wedand mitigation and briefly explained her recommendations for mitigating the site. With respect to wetland filling, the Commission all agreed that filling of the smaller areas is fine as long as mitigation is done on the remaining area. Commissioner Schwartz added that even though part of the Manage I is filled, we will end up with a better qualify of wetland when the remaining area is mitigated to function properly. Mr. O'Hara approached the Commission again and stated SKB will comply with the wetland conditions and invited the Commissioners to visit the area again to view the specific wetland areas. With respect to mitigation, the Commissioners all preferred onsite mitigation. Mr. Zweber asked the Commission if they agreed that as much water as possible is being sent to the wetland as part of the proposed storm water management plan. The Commission all agreed. With respect to the development of 140 Street, Chairperson Messner stated he does not want to go against what was approved in 2003 on the east side. Mr. O'Hara showed where the permitted berm already exists and where the berm will go if the expansion is permitted. He stated they are changing it from what was permitted in 2003. He further stated they can move the storm water pond, the mitigation and the power tower to the 17 foot setback but it would be difficult to move the berm. With respect to the increase in height of 40 feet, Commissioner Palda stated his opinion that it should not cause a problem due to it being such a big area. Commissioner Schwartz stated her opinion that with the photographs SKB shared with the Commission, she liked the proposed picture better than what currently exists. Mr. O'Hara shared that SKB will be planting more trees along the roadway on the berm. They plan on removing a lot of trees but will satisfy the tree ordinance as required with respect to tree replacement. Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, approached the Commission again and stated his opinion that landscaping would be beneficial to drivers along County Road 42. Chairperson Messner agreed that some kind of screening would be helpful to break up the back slope of the expansion. The Commission all agreed with the 40 feet expansion with the exception of Commissioner Howell who stated she wasn't completely sure. Chairperson Messner added that he generally agrees with the increase but would like to see all revised plans at next month's meeting. SKB Environmental Copyright 2008, Dakota County Map Date: July 7, 2008 1. Introduction 1.1 Site Introduction for the Three Facilities This permit reissuance application is for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, Permit SW -383, is being submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB).. This application includes information for three separate facilities under one permit application. The site in general will be referred to as either (the Facility or SKB Rosemount). This permit application submittal includes four volumes as follows: Volume I: Permit Application includes site analysis, engineering design for the 3 facilities, site development, closure and post closure, Recycling/Transfer Facility, MPCA application form and checklists. Volume II: Waste Acceptance Plan for all facilities Volume III: Operations Plan for all facilities Volume IV: Contingency Action Plan for all facilities Each volume includes the appropriate information for each of the three facilities. The reports provide a discussion of the data and logic to facilitate the MPCA review of the drawings, hydrogeology, operation, design, closure, and post closure care for the permit modification of the Facility. The application has been prepared in accordance with the MPCA Solid Waste Management Rules, Dakota County Solid Waste Management Ordinance 110, and the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. The data developed for the various design decisions and the development of operational plans are provided in the text and appendices. Data and information used to prepare this report were prepared by SKB and Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC. Previous documents prepared for the Facility are also referred to. The tables referenced are provided in Appendix A of each volume. The Permit Application form and checklists are provided in Volume I as Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The drawings are provided: under separate cover in a 24 -inch by 36 -inch size plan set, and as an 11 -inch by 17 -inch size plan set in Appendix H of Volume I. A site location map is provided on Drawing No. 1. The existing conditions for the site outside the waste boundries, as per a topographical map were generated from an October 2000 aerial survey, are shown as Drawing No. 2. Inside the existing cell the topography was updated in January 2007. 1.2 Permit History On January 8, 1992, USPCI (Union Pacific RR) was granted by the state of Minnesota a "Permit for the Construction and Operation of an Industrial Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility." The facility was named "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW- 383 In early 1995, USPCI sold the "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW -383" to Laidlaw, Inc. of South Carolina. In August of 1997, the name of the facility was changed to "Laidlaw Environmental SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 1 Services (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383." In early 1998, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased the Safety Kleen Corporation and in August of 1998 changed the name of the facility from "Laidlaw Environmental Services (Rosemount), Inc. SW -383" to "Safety Kleen (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383." In June of 2000, Safety Kleen Corporation sold the facility to SKB Environmental, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. SKB Environmental, Inc. changed the name of the facility to "SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW- 383." The permit was reissued by MPCA to SKB, reflecting the change in ownership, on August 2, 2000. 1.3 General Site Description Site: SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW -383 13425 Courthouse Boulevard Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 (651) 438 -1500 Primary Contact: Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager Facilities: Three facilities under Permit SW -383 Industrial and Ash Waste Facility Construction and Demolition Waste Facility Recycling and Transfer Facility Site Permittee and Operator: SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity) 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 224 -6329 Primary Contacts: John Domke, Vice President William P. Keegan, P.E., Environmental Engineer Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager Land Owner: Consultant: SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity) 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 224 -6329 Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC Eagle Point II, 8550 Hudson Blvd., Suit 105 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 -8704 (651) 288 -8550 Contact: Kathleen M. Osborne, P.E., Senior Project Manager Area or Business Served: Minneapolis -St. Paul Metro area Waste Types: Non hazardous industrial, municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerator ash, C &D, recyclables such as; wood, concrete, asphalt, tires, cardboard, MSW, shredder fluff SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 2 Zoning: Facility Size: Site Life: Capacity: Estimated Annual Waste Volume: Waste Management as per the city of Rosemount zoning ordinances The Facility is located on a 236 -acre site. Approximately 120 acres will be developed of which approximately 112 acres will be disposal areas. The individual cells areas are as follows: Cell 1 Industrial 5.3 acres Cell 2 Industrial —17.1 acres Cell 3 Industrial 37.0 acres Cell 4 Ash —10.7 acres Cell 5 C &D 37.2 acres Total disposal area 112.0 acres The disposal facilities on the site are expected to be able to accept waste for the next 25 years. The recycling and transfer facility will be open indefinitely. Cell 1 Industrial 338,442 cubic yards Cell 2 Industrial 1,422,199 cubic yards Cell 3 Industrial 6,129,727 cubic yards Cell 4 Ash 1,679,300 cubic yards Cell 5 C &D 5,788,923 cubic yards Industrial 300,000 cubic yards per year Ash 77,000 cubic yards per year C &D 350,000 cubic yards per year SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 3 IC, 358 c ads. 1. Introduction 1.1 Site Introduction for the Three Facilities This major modification application for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, Permit SW -383, is being submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB). This application includes information for three separate facilities under one permit application. The site in general will be referred to as either the "Facility" or "SKB Rosemount This permit application submittal includes four volumes as follows: Volume I: Permit Application includes site analysis, engineering design for the 3 facilities, site development, closure and post closure, Recycling/Transfer Facility, MPCA application form and checklists. Volume II: Waste Acceptance Plan for all facilities Volume III: Operations Plan for all facilities Volume IV: Contingency Action Plan for all facilities Each volume includes the appropriate information for each of the three facilities. The reports provide a discussion of the data and logic to facilitate the MPCA review of the drawings, hydrogeology, operation, design, closure, and post closure care for the permit modification of the Facility. The application has been prepared in accordance with the MPCA Solid Waste Management Rules, Dakota County Solid Waste Management Ordinance 110, and the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. The data developed for the various design decisions and the development of operational plans are provided in the text and appendices. Data and information used to prepare this report were prepared by SKB and Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC. Previous documents prepared for the Facility are also referred to. The tables referenced are provided in Appendix A of each volume. The Permit Application form and checklists are provided in Volume I as Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The drawings are provided: under separate cover in a 24 -inch by 36 -inch size plan set, and as an 11 -inch by 17 -inch size plan set in Appendix H of Volume I. A site location map is provided on Drawing No. 1. The existing conditions for the site outside the waste boundries, as per a topographical map were generated from an October 2000 aerial survey, are shown as Drawing No. 2. Inside the existing cell the topography was updated in January 2008. 1.2 Permit History On January 8, 1992, USPCI (Union Pacific RR) was granted by the state of Minnesota a "Permit for the Construction and Operation of an Industrial Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility The facility was named "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW- 383 In early 1995, USPCI sold the "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW -383" to Laidlaw, Inc. of South Carolina. In August of 1997, the name of the facility was changed to "Laidlaw Environmental SKB Environmental Permit Major Modification Application Volume I /April 2008 1 Services (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383." In early 1998, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased the Safety Kleen Corporation and in August of 1998 changed the name of the facility from "Laidlaw Environmental Services (Rosemount), Inc. SW -383" to "Safety Kleen (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383." In June of 2000, Safety Kleen Corporation sold the facility to SKB Environmental, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. SKB Environmental, Inc. changed the name of the facility to "SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW- 383." The permit was reissued by MPCA to SKB, reflecting the change in ownership, on August 2, 2000. The permit was modified in April of 2003, an MPCA Facility Permit Reissnance Application was submitted in November 2007. 1.3 General Site Description Site: Primary Contact: Facilities: Site Permittee aria Operator: Primary Contacts: Land Owner: Consultant: SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW -383 13425 Courthouse Boulevard Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 (651) 438 -1500 Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager Three facilities under Permit SW -383 Industrial and Ash Waste Facility Construction and Demolition Waste Facility Recycling and Transfer Facility SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity) 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 224 -6329 John Domke, Vice President William P. Keegan, P.E., Environmental Engineer Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity) 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 224 -6329 Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC Eagle Point II, 8550 Hudson Blvd., Suit 105 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 -8704 (651) 288 -8550 Contact: Kathleen M. Osborne, P.E., Senior Project Manager Area or Business Served: Minneapolis -St. Paul Metro area Waste Types: Non hazardous industrial, municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerator ash, C &D, re cJables such as; wood, concrete, asphalt, tires, cardboard SW, shredder fluff. pt5i,S F S H RGCYC LM Lam? SKB Environmental Permit Major Modification Application Volume I /April 2008 2 Zoning: Facility Size: Site Life: Capacity: Waste Management as per the city of Rosemount zoning ordinances The Facility is located on a 236 -acre site. Approximately 187 acres will be developed of which approximately 151 acres will be disposal areas. The individual cell areas are as follows: Cell 1 Industrial 5.1 acres Cell 2 Industrial —17.1 acres Cell 3 Industrial 39.3 acres Ce114 Ash —12.3 acres Cell 5 C &D 41.2 acres Cell 6 Industrial 36.0 acres Total disposal area =151.0 acres Note: These areas are based on actual waste limits for each cell. The cell limits are larger than the waste limits. Cells 3, 4, 5, and 6 include space for the interior berms used in the saddle cells. The disposal facilities on the site are expected to be able to accept waste for the next 41 years. The recycling and transfer facility will be open indefinitely. Cell 1 Industrial 338,442 cubic yards Cell 2 Industrial 1,422,199 cubic yards Cell 3 Industrial 7,245,253 cubic yards Cell 4 Ash 2,648,950 cubic yards Cell 5 C &D 8,790,300 cubic yards Cell 6 Industrial 6,428,959 cubic yards Estimated Annual Waste Volume: Industrial 300,000 cubic yards per year Ash 60,000 cubic yards per year C &D 350,000 cubic yards per year SKB Environmental Permit Major Modification Application Volume I /April 2008 3 219 `A,\ D SCALE. For EXISTING CONDITIONS 10E510E0 3 ISI MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE S KB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE F ACILITY SW -383 DAKOTA COUNTY R*SEIMtNT., uINNESOT* a.�re.p...mdn �1MI arim, 1 o n mw� M•fl�cx- Foth NO. DAIS DESCRIPTION Al ANN 9 aoiuW� Ov OF PBEI 1 BY 1 A �ro� "°1eYYY°Nn0 RR®En ''bb° f e aR ff0. 3000 I WWI Wog COMPLETED u1 2.14106 It...,... o TRS *00* li iuf SE OF D 'T x e ra.R AMLWT= NR NOME 001*. Dg 110001 ITI ET MAT OCT SE USED .DUT TIE uuP1 DID uu R TA 6 mow RWUES V W VILTO e*RTR[l, ms1WIUS TO CONTRACTOR RRTUE MOM 00000. OT DAN 31 5 .ME tT*N COI JNetL Of ENVRONMENTAL SERVICEES 3� +�V o mZ mm I I I 8 r o 0 '0 z m z -i I 1 5' 111111N iffi 1111 1101 g '1410 C/10 m• m ao N z z n Z mm V1 m SCALE, iMi MAW In amen o p M p T g AMMO N m REVISIONS PERMIT RENEWAL DRAWING FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 DISOTA COUNTY NOSOIpPIT. YIW€SOTF �'nC M narsas.ttMSryttNsa H.t� sr DATE oESCntrnox Foth 8 8 K Pea hNrasLaeLVC 6 EontkUemat, t1A Boob NOV a.4aatr rswrmswr 1. MOM OF COWARD COsrzur user. ue<IMk/ tsssms KM NOM s COMA= COMM. COM�mr TO COns.ct t .=,M Cam .-...O. O DATE Mor axtum c ..nr.MA NO ion seem: lac n Nu NOT 11, MO C ST. n< n i ac T uuF 1 I@ am OF i I 4 t 1 D m f st 4 1 1 t F 1 t 1 i t t 1 AIR 1 gg scow ua ur FINAL COVER GRADES l aarxo acoJn REVISIONS MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 DAKOTA COMP, 0051M01NT, N1m£SOTA n w.we+..ea+��ae..+ ..e......eamemrn :r i�lmr d ii r.+.. hit LY Fr% wth NIA ins 551 DESCRIPTION ®vE av OF PPE/ BY .44a. a Environment, u a We.. e..e. m. ..0. er I01 A ra, me" u" mr M. WO LL0 n e.. 24(04 ...ears .em.o MUM OF COMET= o.amr R1U51 a ooc S15 n ve; u oavn... .n. mr¢mn MA .ia UM IMMO TIE WPM MEM term s t e.aimiiv a .w ury T. U.C. WrTgeyee USE a Tiff SOLE .Eaf.e..rtt OF TR ..wrwn® USER., MUM m..m or eu n tonne, 5.110 tonne, mm..cr.e nrm omens RECORDS. RATE ilimaritmor 1 10R 1 SCALE MUM 10 MOM SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN I= I I= mxwx OATE REVISIONS MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE ��N'°+ SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 D OTS c& T, nogrWUrr. ',MOM av e+m.a... F oth °T DATE pE5°1PT1ON n roam lotrarbscesm +'01ntraR LLG .....d... row ti °1°'°" m !m. moo Aw mu MMa lDl� 'AAATION r.. ,ra CONSTRUCTION IN no.su OM N m: YoO.RM NM rcO U 9 m .RC„w1 .Y TKO Ua s oc IV w..mm awa. o rr. tic. nc V. INS ¢m nc U.nv® umy w DVSS. or COMMIT, r .w MOPS WC SCALIA AS MOW MAWR 10 OT300, g m a g t7 C7 1 REVISI MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE '0"�atl:i.�N� SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 a.m. =OM a05gEONf. R/IN160ia .6 ...te on M,I OESCart naa F I i of i 1 E p N 9 E p 1 C L y y -4 ill 1-- -i 1- -1-1 t Su Fotb OLIOlt„' obto MN inn 1411.. MNinn u,•as.o, =MC 01.104 v 1:01..701 Ram.cca n R41.11.0.44 ^•1= R./ /91st RY.1..1+ dM.T® CORI.IICiI.I oI.AWI A A 0.MR0. NOM M. n WI ..I, Ms 1.c1 cow. too Mono Nwu+nm NN MM. O I o[ o :11.4 M 1 is., j 1 1 4 i f 1 1 i- I uNw aP t MI6 w o. Li 044411014411 820 830 64 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 I I I i of i 1 -1 --1----i---i----- 0 REEILAIDAL W E IL AND 1 I 1 1 f ie._ 1 Y .I i f i 1„.L. Atareeezr 4444- -4 ill 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 11 1-- -i 1- -1-1 1 I r. 1 i i I i 1 1-1------1-t--1---i----i- I I I 1- -4- 1 1 -+—I 11 -1--- -F --r t— j 1 1 4 i f 1 1 i- I 1! 1 1 1 i -I 1 T i 4- 1 i 1 4 1- 1 �.1 q i :L i .1-- 1 1 ;1 i 1 —i_- 1 I 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 !1 1 I i 1 i 1 1 1 1 --t 1 1 1 1J i rI S 1 1 1. :ill; 4. 1 1 i i s i- 1 I 1- H i 1 I l 1 1; ii 1 1! I' 1 i; JT: 11 1 1 ti -4"---1- I Th 1 i 1 1 1- 1- -id-H-1-1 1 I- i 1 1 j I 1 r 1 i I i I 1-- 11 1 4-4- 1 L- ..l_ --1 -1-. 1 t i .1._ 4 1 i Ti 1 l f 1 1 1 1 t 4 +1_4_141 1 -1 .�.__.L_ 1 f t f i I d 1 1 -1 ;4- --1- I 4- I 1 I. 1 1 I 1 I i 1 1 1 4- 1 -1 -t -1 -i 1 1 1 l_Li 1 i,-i- 1 I 1 t -1- --i-,- i 1 1- 1 3 i 1 1 a i.`is-, Y --t— IT I ____i _i hr I 107 1 1 i 11W 11. 3 0 NO1103S 1 e mA A P m S -1 v ,n er wrz KEVISIN6 DESCRIPTION MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 DAKOTA COUNT/ ROSMANT. UUIFSOTA D yORyrK.py p a.s N OR n Oth Ku OF POET BY A a .m. LW OIL ',AWN M+ aR++ K Mork 1F.. Fm. I YYItN DOOR COAgnm sNT w MO� RyRms OR.n R<COmAmMG CONFOTARm m CONTRACTOR Mors Nmo OT TAR ISSI o®ar... pus as n+na� RR sass rrcaarmr .w MITTEN A re R Iu NOT 1 o WNW INC AnAPP w1m USE 6 M 6¢L Rd m or n ON 0 z r r o z b r4 m METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES b m0 <!E z N o z 4 i .1 111011_ s1111as1Raau ,.1,11114514111411 13 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 fik §11 vm XI Z 0 0 00 mr mm 1 POCII m N PI x 1 S F' MI g F 2 y OE j goo r mm D P a 8 C REVISIONS RATE DESCRIPTION A• A A A A• R6TR:0 OWOE OF MINIM rmnn RECORD CRARe= V wta1m CamSO•.. CbfMeC TO CONTRACTOR =VCR Oafs RECORDS AT D*Tt MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 OAROT• COUNTY ROSEROONT. NUfESOTA :RR+reNbrr+RaRR erq Rata* RwR�IRmerNTe.aeww ANmeamOmRo I umrmr6m RpR Ye fiT/RS M .Om:N Pee L RarTFrr •Foth Path Infrastructure II Environment, uc HWe QTW¢. IRA= MIMS NeRmw 101 IAmb r�O!!1 REUSE OF DOCUMENTS am OOGRRw, HI•S REIN Z tLWW ,m A FEC.R APREATm1 ARE NOTem =MAL Inv. T:ONF6E TT RAT mT RE 16th =TRW M trim APPROVAL Or ,OTT: MRArmUTan •HO EM'OeefRr. HAG I• alatanO UM 6 THE SaO RESea6:RRITT OF M =run=e tgon,A,Lasam .04-• 8 1 INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAKOTA COUNTY ROSINICUIT. MINNESOTA MO.= 0.412. ALAN. ANNA x s O 6 g Q O NF mg �Om REVISIONS ID DATE DESCRIPTION m m o v q mom Emma er ammo commar 1 2 roam 0..mu r ow. mono=.. a2^ 10E 10 m O10CT010100 I® Y ST nrz MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT 1NOErUTMrDINNEN END erq=tlrrl.lw.0010.000 1.8001 epser.rrryr OA Mama •Foth Pods 1=E..atrmdo. Elrl ao.==}, N.0 E.n..*0 Nmimm won ma NoossanuommasoNsm NOSE OP DOCUMENTS 1101 DAD.a1 10 1¢M 0YLOIDJ E011 1 0100 /.14407011 o. 1011.1®E01. O4. THRUM 17 DA1 NNW I®07110R ul.MITTEN 1 Nw i. 0 EN7 0CIIM u.00 l7OYO0p17. UC ARTFTT„ 2,013,• o •1 ii-11 i 0 .01 Eag i G) z 1 1 REVISIONS id DT &No DATE A AA A A REMO DRAM. OF MARLOW CORSO. DOS OF CORMS= CONSITACI. COOFORMIRD TO CONTRACTOR ARD/0/1 OWNS RECORDS. ST DATE DESCRIPTION MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAKOTA COUNTY ROSDAOUNT. MINNESOTA orrport■eiROndlogroonntrly Oulzupoloiss.IIMIARNIR/Lksoof RolooknolEnobaoroOplloimorft staloorlisosis somore4Eald.9 11.0nons Monet. GFoth Roth Infrairfrootere Environment, LLC a...1VMM sllaor SloOk AMR IDS fa. AIN ORM R11.2111141OSOFao REM OF DOCUMENTS RCS MOOR RAS EDI DEVELOPED FOR A SPECIFIC APIFLICATOR MO ROWER MORAL USE now= ET ILO MDT LSO 1771417 7771 ROTTEN APPROVAL 071 FON INFRATTRUCTISIE 1171 OP/IROMATTIT. 0 romecr o SCME, PHASfNO PLAN YEARS 2013 -2022 g I A00 REVISIONS MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAKOTA COUNTY ROSENDUNT. 41044SOTA innw.*tai.o.upad. .......Ommenurda KANN...a PT DATE DESCRIPTION 0ww uP OF P00 1 BY A A A Foils larNoIrooturo Erodrosueont, LLC V=IN•a014.04,31 A A A A A A 226 2002 I OA. 2001 Wad WS MONO IMMO OF COMPTEO PIASTEIN ON• INNEEVIEE on Doom. ms sir Ltroom ral A mem AerucAns ma NOME MU& lei MUNE 17 Ma 7117 6? NED 7371417114 NOTTEN AMOY. CI EOM INOMETRIPTIAP MO LOVIONNOIT. LI.C. NDARNIOVED NOE IS MI OPE Ormsecoo Nv or Ns m.o. 719 14611114, commas 711 1477141776? ROAR 0111111 4706?. IN DATE =ennagetnang: nna enneunn,03nnn E .1117. I ii ...OD YU. 2- I :I 11112:In ,0 ENIVQINTADLL__ 1,123SP2 I P TI C 1.7121 M'g '8 11 1 01 2 =r4 7ft 4 7 ;1 0 SCALER 0 MY nr SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN locum orauc au: REVISIONS MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -383 DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. WNIESOT• ■.Raan,wNwra Auw.aapi.rs j �n Q l� at I VI 74- FO ih NIL R OM DESCRIPTION A a 8 1 AB ON A F^� P r 4 &w LLC 0 J F .rE.r.I.E,I+ti.w,m 1,.♦YSS.Q A A A A 46.. MOM MINIM 6 COMPLETER CRIETKR Madame or a �I'D�! &a.... &a.... #2u99 a OOCUE, TS MUM wawa SS ®l RTVlLNm M A SR091C APRRATRM AN MUM OKFA 1. ME IIERgVK II 100 JOT RC Mm MINOR M .RTMFN *MOM ER MN RiRASIROLTORR Am FNVKMARI• Mt ..MMPIIOVFO IEf K M sn V xeawenro mr.r =atom mum.,_ C. EOM1p. m C.RRACIKI NOM O.IERS WORM IR OATS t 9 9 1 ifIliiiiii P 4 SCALE, AS SHOWN 1010X1 10 015001 ENGINEERING CROSS SECTION C-C I< 9 1 I DATE REVISIONS MA JOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SICK ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 OMOT. COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA ttey NA.1i l IWO= y G FOth x2 a RATS DESCRIPTION COMM OtV Foils Idr�� o a Environment. LLG nd�:t.t..nt AWN, SIN. N iEL m°' AA11 WADI NMN •ARATION GATE MOM) OW= Of SWUM CONSUL m'a"'m"°m`"i°' Ro. as WI 24 I 1 R..... a;; m ,o, N. gym T .�,m bm ti f Vristl Y TO m.twrt.R MAR Mots 11110$ rt wrz IMMO S NOR MI i I T NAT A RE M R T GOMM II IIIC Smrymylp 6 nc S. TSMap6lTT s tI worns.mn 4 s. 2.00 3400— 21 25400 26+00 27+00 Elevation Elevation 0----- i•_— _F••__• -4- 1 a o o a o 0 0 o e o �-1 a z C) I SCAM SHOWN I ENGINEERING CROSS SECTION G-G' ofum swmm aux J w. n ons REVISIONS DESCRIPTION MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW -333 MOM COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA .whm9 dN pm qRi�. i Rmm.+abF.mmaxw +m.l.+...e..l...wuyr 6p�m.RrrEYn �O I�� I OF PRE SY a Environment LLc URN Meta *+d o w•rr ma-00.0001.00100.2011.1051 A A FM. may SEEM swat of raRlAleo =Wait r oom. 24 ar q l RRFl WI3 Trs maw m mtorm rea AA ;Inc ,wuorwx No NOME mER Wif.. TI FEME IT OAT NOT DE UM WNW Tit vVpAp� R6 LO TNOR C mar RR..Ims aF Tannm COMM,. aaFarlOO TO TOTTMCTM AMMO 01191013 v4. ST DATE ^off m'4 0.00 33+00 VERTICAL a o 8 0 Elevation 8 8 8 8 0 8 Elevation TO 0 s o al 0 8 8 m 8 IS 8 S 0 0 0 PI C) 0 z 0 0 MOr a 01 aaNVw NEWS Sr 311 25 RECYCLING 1 TRANSFER FACILITY PLAN arses u arom 1 1 g REVISIoNs PERMIT RENEWAL DRAWING FOR THE SKS ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAROTA MINTY ROSEMOUNT. AMIESOTA •Foth on IT an DESCRIPTION Ea A A 0E1 AA A h Fent Infrastructure II Zecirsanwant,U.0 •ms rola 1M IS F 1 I MO. IMMO OF Mel1.0 MOM. 7-- S COMM canesma To MM.. A./011 owns Wanes. DM OOZE OF 00CulEMTS MS DOMahh .11 OM MOM. FM 9.1.4 AM... MO Nem MEM ISL MIREFOK IT MO OOT it MO MIMI' ea M.P. 'mom OF FOIN MMASTOMME NO OMMOMM la. p1OPIROVI3 WE I 5 7 I t &LE FMIMMUTY OF War& nerVodb m**03•214 0 0 0 0 0 0 :111 Po 4„, I -42 Ve 7 'i s t I ,.0/., I I k\'' s k',••••. ,/,4 k \s .:-.4- s''''''s." e 9• .--,\—Nsk.V$,%'•-;;;N 1 7 N t \A s;,■*,:.N 8 p z Pam AAA AmAAN.A »n tl A s REY6IOM n DATE Et AO A AL A A AA DESCRIPTION Nana MAMA Or COMM man.. RAMS TTY man... TanI.cTM DO/DA DIMES IEO..d DATE MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINTESOTA =as are.ar auor •Foth Rath INrf auomr. rmwNuN.Nt, LLC IDAM Nava Imimma l Km* sumo OOI I�W OF Fm lwadwf REUSE OF DOCUDENTS EN W Twd Twor... M IwALM r A M EM MAMA TO Na TOM mm i L CMIE M MED R TAT Ta. I6 014 MOU. THE ORM .M USE 4 1 Or A M M OTO ENTLIDO U 1 RA MOVED IS 1NF dal NSP..OIT.ITT Or TM: MOM= DM, J m s 8 N c m n Z O g Z LR Yw LIFT STATION DATA REVISIONS MAJOR MODIFICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE SIB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITY SW-383 DAKOTA mum ROSEMO NT. MINNESOTA �....M.....a..a a�.. 6.1.w.a.:+a w� Fri »d a.n DESORPTION 1 ate BY s LLC ••a•••,• A i[6 2001 I 1.02 2001 mono. 2001 MAIM Of me�Mtm mia.ac oa® arM Z 6 Mq O= OF DO ...s m c to Mt MOM anzn s as DOCINIENTS DMA CeeM.t OZ MERE IT MAY CT z MB BMW M MM M AMMO& of YOU WufneclwE m NaOiMafla. YL IaaPROvE0 usE 6 M soil MESPoIa®MIrr OF IRE aaunMa® MEL &Z n... C aP suFLEMMM 011 MIR caftan... TO m 00ACT M .wiaM avees MEmIaL Mr MR .R. &IM rtA X.1.0M ItIVM M 1MSW'& 6 nW LR Yw LIFT STATION DATA ;1; €11 if Pi it ig 11 I I m a 1= 5 N N s 7 2 70 P 9 s g rmea_m en Y onmEnimaausmasurseasswasaall t inimmirmwi I 3 ip Li si 9510 111/1:1 301119 X31 02/20\� \06 2am3meoo:57:12 3acno \cockv unty survey data \atm \Rosemount regional cantours.dgn PM a V I -1 m 0 Z 9 w Mitigation Standard 3:1 replacement ratio with a minimum 1.5 acres of New Wetland Credit and maximum 1.5 acres of Public Value Credit for every acre impacted. 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit Storm Water Management Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required; consider diversion if possible Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required Sediment pretreatment required Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the. project Wetland Buffer Requirements 75 feet 30' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 50 feet 30' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 30 feet 15' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 15 feet for non- agricultural areas only 15' is the minimum buffer standard Monuments not re uired Management Strategy Maintain wetland and existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Apply strict avoidance standards. Maintain wetland without degrading existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Sequencing is applicable Maintain wetland functionality Apply some sequencing flexibility Allow maximum sequencing flexibility Score cNs 0 CO co 0 CV co 0 CV 0 lf) N Management Class N cm c as 2 Manage II cm c co 2 WSB AINIIIIIIINIMIl Associates, Inc. To: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount From: Andi Moffatt, WSB Associates Date: July 16, 2008 Re: Recommendation on WCA Application SKB Industrial Waste Facility WBS Project No. 1668 -56 WSB has reviewed the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application for the SKB Industrial Waste Facility. A complete application was received on June 10, 2008. The City has 60 days to make a decision on this application or request an extension. The 60 day timeline ends on August 9, 2008. Based on our review of the application, we offer the following background information: The applicant is proposing to expand the industrial waste facility, which is anticipated to result in filling a portion of Wetland 1 (0.3 acres) and filling all of Wetland 3 (0.51 acres). The total wetland fill proposed is 0.81 acres. Wetland 1 is in the City's Wetland Management Plan as #438 and is classified as a Manage 1. Wetland 3 is listed as Wetland #432 and is classified as a Manage 2. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing wetland to provide on -site wetland mitigation of 2.05 acres. As discussed later in this memo, the fmal mitigation may be less than the 2.05 acres based on WSB's recommended modifications to the plan. This mitigation is proposed to be constructed this year with the filling occurring next year. The applicant has suggested that this would allow them to qualify for 2 :1 mitigation ratio, rather than a 2.25:1 or 2.5:1 ratio if the mitigation was done concurrently with the filling. These alternate mitigation ratios are allowed by the WCA, depending on timing and type of wetland replacement. The City's Wetland Management Plan requires a 50 foot buffer around Wetland 1. If Wetland 3 were to remain, a 30 foot buffer would be required. WSB has reviewed the application for conformance with the WCA and the City's Wetland Management Plan. Additionally, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met on June 17, 2008 to review the application. The TEP's meeting minutes as well as additional information submitted by TEP members after the meeting are attached for your information and these comments have been taken into account with WSB's review. Based on this overall review, WSB offers the following technical recommendations: 1. The TEP indicated that the sequencing discussion regarding the no -build alternative is generally reasonable since it is difficult to site and permit new landfills. However, the ∎101668- 5619dninlDncsN IO b.,- 07160&dx July 16, 2008 Page 2 of 6 applicant's reason for filling all of Wetland 3 and a portion of Wetland 1 is based on their estimations for the future longevity for the landfill. The applicant states that the 40 -acre landfill expansion is needed, otherwise the existing landfill would reach capacity by 2020. With the expansion, capacity would not be reached until 2040. Additionally, the applicant indicated that to design the landfill to avoid the wetland would result in a poor design of the liners used in the landfill site. Some members of the TEP and WSB staff have questioned the applicant's reasoning for the needed expansion and if other alternatives are available which avoid or minimize wetland impacts. The determination as to whether the sequencing discussion is adequate, whether the applicant has minimized and avoided wetland impacts to the greatest extent practical, and whether reasonable alternatives for the wetland fill were investigated is a policy decision to be determined by the City Council. 2. The hydrology of the Wetland 1 has been extremely variable. Information from the applicant's monitoring wells shows the groundwater elevations fluctuating. When the groundwater is high, there is water in the wetland but when groundwater is low, the wetland is lacking water. It is unknown if this is due to natural fluctuations, recent dewatering that occurred for construction of the Met Council's trunk sewer line, dry weather, or other factors. Therefore, WSB recommends that regardless of whether wetland fill is allowed or not, the applicant is required to establish hydrologic monitoring of the existing Wetland 1 and that the hydrology is monitored at least once a month between April and October for at least five years. This information should be submitted to the City in an annual report at the end of October. If additional information becomes available that dewatering is occurring and is a direct cause of the draining of the wetland, WSB would recommend the reconvening of the TEP to review this issue. 3. While a portion of Wetland 1's hydrology is being controlled by groundwater, surface water runoff is important in the wetland's hydrology also. The existing total subwatershed area for Wetland 1 within the site is approximately 90 acres, of which 50 acres are the direct subwatershed. WSB has concerns that if the proposed subwatershed area is less than the existing subwatershed, it will significantly reduce the amount of surface water that will reach the wetland in the proposed condition. The removal of hydrology is considered by the WCA as an impact to the wetland and will either require additional mitigation or will require provisions in the surface water management plan to mimic the existing subwatershed drainage area. WSB's review of the site indicates the applicant can maintain the existing hydrology to the wetland and this is a recommended requirement of approval. 4. The applicant has proposed on -site wetland replacement, ahead of the wetland impact. With recent on -site replacement for other projects, certain sites have posed a challenge to the successful establishment of wetland mitigation. The conditions at the SKB site exhibit some of the same challenges experienced with other difficult sites in the City, such as the Bloomfield site discussed below. To provide additional clarification and context regarding the concerns WSB has about the proposed on -site mitigation, a summary of past mitigation sites is provided below. On -site mitigation performance standards are outlined later in the memo. Bloomfield Regarding the Bloomfield project, mitigation was proposed on -site to provide 1.26 acres of wetland mitigation. The wetland mitigation involved expanding an existing Type 3 wetland July 16, 2008 Page 3 of 6 to the south. The mitigation site was designed to create a Type 3/4 wetland, which should have between 6 -36 inches of water during most of the growing season. During the first monitoring season in 2003, it was noted that the mitigation site did not have evidence of hydrology. Corrections to adjust the site grades were recommended and the developer lowered the grades in the site. In 2004, the site had three inches of water within only 10% of the area in June and no water in October. In 2005, the area had no evidence of hydrology and the grading of the site was again adjusted in an attempt to further connect the hydrology of the existing wetland to the mitigation site. In 2007, the site had evidence of limited hydrology but also had extensive invasion by leafy spurge, an invasive species. This year is the fifth year of the wetland establishment and would generally be the time when the City would officially approve and accept the wetland mitigation. However, a field review in May 2008 revealed minimal evidence of hydrology. In 2005 (two years after the mitigation site was completed), the city completed an upstream storm sewer system to the Bloomfield mitigation site. The completion of this project allowed the opportunity not previously available before 2005 to expand the watershed tributary to the mitigation site. In early summer 2008 the system was opened to allow, when available, the discharge of additional water from the upstream watershed to the mitigation area. However, since the initial construction of this system in 2005 until now, there has been no water available in the upstream system to contribute flow through to the mitigation area. Additionally, no additional water has flowed through this system to the mitigation area. The system has been opened to accommodate the opportunity for water to flow south, when and if water is available. Additionally, this system only accommodates extreme storm events, and not the smaller rainfall events needed to sustain a mitigation site. In cooperatively working with the developer, a number of corrective measures have been taken in an attempt to establish a successful mitigation area. Even with an adequately sized subwatershed, the recent drought conditions and high infiltration rates of the soils in the area have resulted in lack of hydrology at the mitigation site. To address this issue on the Bloomfield site, WSB and the City are continuing to work with the developer to fulfill Centex's requirements to provide mitigation for wetland impact. Glen Rose The Glen Rose project was required to construct approximately 3,000 square feet of wetland mitigation. This mitigation was constructed on -site in 2005 adjacent to the existing wetland. Based on WSB's field reviews since that time, the mitigation site has limited hydrology and limited wetland vegetation. In addition to challenges in coordinating with the developer, the site and subwatershed are small and the establishment of a successful mitigation site has not yet occurred in this area. Old County Road 38 The City was required to provide wetland mitigation for the Old County Road 38 project. The first growing season for this mitigation was in 2007 and therefore, this is still a relatively new mitigation area. There are two sites and both have evidence of sufficient hydrology, although less water than expected is present in these areas. Wetland and buffer vegetation is becoming established. The mitigation area has a large subwatershed and transition of soils to less permeable soils in this part of the City is a factor in the initial 10101668- 5619M,MIDorsW EUO- =weber 071608do July 16, 2008 Page 4 of 6 success of this area. While some vegetation maintenance is needed, the site appears to be developing as a wetland with sufficient hydrology based on 2008 reviews. Harmony The Harmony development constructed approximately 5,000 square feet of wetland mitigation by expanding an existing wetland. The mitigation site was constructed in 2005 and has maintained and matched the hydrology of the existing wetland during this time. This site appears to be developing as a wetland with sufficient hydrology. The transition to less permeable soils in this part of the City is a contributing a factor in the maintenance of wetland hydrology. Evermoor The Evermoor development had a number of wetland mitigation areas. The required monitoring of these sites was completed in 2005 as five years of monitoring had been completed. Most of the mitigation areas were successful with sufficient wetland vegetation and hydrology. However, there were a few sites that did not develop sufficient hydrology. Since the applicant provided mitigation in excess of their requirement, no additional mitigation was needed and the failure of a few sites was not a regulatory issue. Conclusions As evident from recent wetland mitigation sites in the City, there has been a range of success. This is the reason why mitigation is reviewed on a site -by -site basis and was taken into consideration with WSB's review of the proposed SKB on -site mitigation. Due to the number of variables, the expansion of an existing wetland may not always result in a successful mitigation. WSB has identified that the establishment of on -site mitigation at the SKB site may be challenging due to the proposed surface hydrology, existing groundwater hydrology, and highly permeable soils. In acknowledgment of these challenges, the City has three options with respect to the wetland application as follows: Deny the wetland replacement application; Approve the application and require performance standards for on -site mitigation; or Approve the application and require purchase off -site wetland credits. As it is the City's goal to strive towards on -site mitigation, WSB recommends that the following specific design and performance measures be required for on -site mitigation as follows: a. Site preparation must include removing and controlling invasive species within the mitigation area and adjacent to the mitigation area to control migration of these species into the mitigation site. A site preparation plan will need to be submitted to the City for review. b. The mitigation area will be hydrologically connected to the existing wetland. c. The mitigation site be lined with clay or other suitable material. d. Modifications to the grading plan to provide irregular edges will be required pursuant to the mitigation design requirements of the WCA. Additionally, the bottom elevation of the mitigation site will need to meet or be lower than the existing wetland to further promote hydrology in the mitigation area. K10766&561.9dW, &.&MF O- rnrber 071608dx July 16, 2008 Page 5 of 6 e. Mitigation will need to be located outside of the future right -of -way of 140 Street. f. The hydrology to the existing wetland and the mitigation site be maintained to at least mimic the existing hydrology to the wetland. g. Annual maintenance to control invasive species in the mitigation and buffer areas (such as but no limited to thistles, spotted knapweed, purple loosestrife, and reed canary grass) must be conducted during the monitoring period. This can include mowing, herbicide application, and/or burning. The applicant will submit an annual maintenance plan to the City for review prior to starting mitigation construction. This maintenance plan will be in conformance with "Restoring and Managing Native Upland Vegetation published by BWSR and Mn/DOT at www.bwsr.state.mn.us wetlands /publications /nativewetveg.pdf. h. Within the first growing season and subsequent growing seasons, at least 70% of the mitigation area will have six or more inches of water for half of the growing season when rainfall meets or exceeds the average rainfall for the area. The remaining 30% of the mitigation area will have at least soils saturated to six inches of the surface for four weeks during the same time period. i. Year 1: The first full growing season after upland buffer is established, the cover species must be present over the entire site by the end of the growing season. For the first full growing season for the wetland, seedlings of at least three early successional native sedges, rushes, and/or grasses should be dispersed throughout the seeded area. The cover wetland crop should also be present by the end of the growing season. There should be no more than 20% cover of exotic, non -native invasive vegetation. (The first full growing season for fall planting is defined as the following growing season; for spring planting it is defined as the current growing season). J• Year 2: The upland and wetland must have at least 50% cover of the native grasses, sedges, and forbs. The site must contain 70% of the middle successional species from the seed mixes and there should be no more than 10% cover of exotic, non -native invasive vegetation. See the BWSR publication referenced above for species lists. k. Years 3 -5: The upland and wetland must have at least 70% cover of the native grasses, sedges, and forbs. The site may have no more than 10% cover of exotic, non native invasive vegetation. See the BWSR publication referenced above for species lists. 1. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Deed forms will be developed by the applicant, filed with the County, and evidence of recording provided to the City prior to the start of wetland mitigation construction. m. In the second and fifth year of monitoring, the wetland will be delineated by the applicant to determine the size of the mitigation area. n. Record drawings of the mitigation site will be provided by the applicant upon grading of the mitigation site. K1016685611d dnlDccrN®Lf0- enreber- 0716084,c July 16, 2008 Page 6 of 6 o. A performance bond shall be provided by the applicant. p. At the 5 monitoring year, if requirements of these performance standards are not met, the monitoring period will be extended. 5. A 50 foot buffer is shown to be implemented around Wetland 1 and the proposed mitigation site. This buffer would consist of the existing vegetation is most areas except the northern portion of the wetland and the mitigation area. The mitigation area's buffer would be designed at a 10:1 slope and seeded with native vegetation. However, the proposed buffer at the northern portion of the wetland consists of a 3:1 berm for approximately a 480 foot length of the wetland. In order to provide a more gradual slope, which would be preferred, additional wetland would need to be filled or the expansion of the landfill would need to be reduced to avoid creating this steep buffer slope. Filling the wetland to create buffer is contrary to the intent of the WCA's wetland avoidance and minimization requirements. The decision before the City will be to approve or deny the WCA application. If approved, a number of conditions on the permit as outlined above are recommended. Action on the application needs to occur before August 9, 2008. If action cannot be taken before this date, a request for a 60 -day extension will be obtained from the applicant. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287 -7196. c. Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount Morgan Dawley, City of Rosemount 1668S611domMIDauVAIAIO- axeber- 07I608doe WSB Associates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763- 541 -4800 Fax:763- 541 -1700 To: Ken Powell, BWSR Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD DNR Wetlands Coordinator Brad Johnson, US Corps of Engineers From: .Audi Moffatt WSB Associates Date: June 23, 2008 Re: TEP Meeting Notes Rosemount, MN SKB Industrial Waste Facility WBS Project No. 1668-56 On behalf of the City of Rosemount as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), please find outlined below a summary of the TEP meeting for the above referenced project that was held on J 17, 2008. The TEP signature page from the meeting is attached. U.Y`Q- In attendance at the TEP meeting included: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount; Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD; Mike Fullerton, SKB; John Domke, SKB; Bill Keegan, SKB; Morgan Dawley, City of Rosemount; Andi Moffatt, WSB. SKB is proposing to expand their industrial landfill. This expansion is anticipated to result in 0.81 acres of wetland impact. Wetland 1 (WMP #438) is a Manage 1 and Wetland 3 (WMP #432) is a Manage 2 wetland in the City's Wetland Management Plan. All of the 0.51 acres of Wetland 3 is proposed to be impacted and 0.3 acre of Wetland 1 is proposed to be impacted. Mitigation is proposed on -site through the expansion of Wetland 1. There are no expansion requirements for this facility from the PCA or other agency. The size of the expansion is based on SKB's estimates for needed future landfill space. The hydrology of the wetlands was discussed as it appears that there is not as much water in the wetlands as there was in the past. SKB supplied groundwater monitoring information and indicated the wetland's hydrology reflected the groundwater. The Metropolitan Council had been dewatering in the area as part of their trunk line project. The discharge was directed to Wetland 1. This dewatering has been completed. Brian asked if the storm water ponding will dewater or reduce hydrology to the wetlands. Andi indicated she would review how the surface water treatment and subwatershed changes associated with the expansion will affect the wetland as part of the permit review. Minneapolis 1 St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer 8:1016611-5641da AYenub+WEVO -.4eu p- 66MM3dx June 23, 2008 Page 2 If the wetland fill is allowed, mitigation will be needed. The proposed on -site wetland mitigation was discussed as to whether or not the hydrology could be supported for the mitigation area. Andi expressed concern that if the hydrology of the mitigation site cannot be maintained, the mitigation would be a failure and that it may be more prudent to purchase wetland mitigation credit from a bank now rather than attempt to make the on -site mitigation area function. Brian stated that if the replacement is done on site, it should not be conducted within the future right -of -way of 140 Street to avoid future impacts with the road expansion. He also recommended that if mitigation occurs on -site, strong performance standards should be implemented to ensure a successful mitigation site. If wetland fill is allowed and purchase of wetland credits is proposed, a copy of the purchase agreement between the applicant and bank holder should be submitted to the City as part of the City Council's review of the application. Brian and Andi discussed the plant community classification of the wetlands. They concluded that the wetlands should be classified as a shallow marsh and wet meadow rather than a seasonally flooded basin as indicated in the application. Brian noted that permitting a new landfill is more difficult than expanding an existing landfill from a regulatory and public perception. For these reasons, he was generally comfortable with the avoidance and minimization outlined by the applicant. The slope of the wetland buffer was discussed. The applicant is proposing a 3:1 slope as the wetland buffer as the final end use of the project. Eric indicated the City Council may want a more gradual transition in the wetland buffer. While buffer averaging is an option in the Wetland Management Plan, the Council has consistently denied its use. This concludes our understanding of the meeting. If there are errors, corrections, or additions, please call me at (763) 287 -7196. c. Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount Morgan Dawley, City of Rosemount Mike Fullerton, SKB John Domke, SKB Bill Keegan, SKB K /6E/- 1644 Pm H J JO- ,s.m,• D62 ZS..1ec Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Date: j'"7 /6) LGU: 1 (9SZ,14et.I+-1 County: 1 l LGU Contact: Aryl( 4- 0,4 Project Name/ Phone :7 —2_ 7 7 to Location of Project: 5 E 1'i 1 i SN 1 gh! '/a Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block City: 2.4954yriev..rvk County: 1 ',(..O"6. TE Members d others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) LGU: BWSR: WCD: 17 DNR (if applicable): er Wetland Experts present: '-e.-C. FYl co i yr.` at..lym TEP requested by:_ji OtArNi 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): Exemption (WCA Exemption No -Loss Wetland Boundary and Type v" Replacement Plan 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin) b. Wetland Size c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) QC.. 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. Yes No (if no, list why) 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? ❑Yes No (if no, list why) 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses Impact 6. For replacement plan Qr no -loss determinations, are wetlan Yes o (if no, list why) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item. 1.? Yes Yes, with Conditions No (if no, list why) If no, why? m71(,�, S. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. JX� t 1 4 r w 9. SIGNATU1l.ES fif TEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) 6 -17 -01 CD Representative c LGU Representative WCA TEP Findings of Fact No Impact Improve ctions maintained at an equal or greater level? BWSR Representative (Date) DNR Representative (Date) Page 1 of 1 (Apri12003) Andrea Moffatt It Co ill ris From: Wayne Barstad [Wayne.Barstad @dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:12 PM To: Andrea Moffatt Cc: Ken Powell; Brian,Watson @co.dakota.mn.us; Janell Miersch Subject: Re: FW: SKB file /(t ts- Jy /og Hi Andi. It's difficult to tell, but it appears to me that the expansion described in the Notice of Application is an expansion above and beyond the expansion for which the MPCA developed the EAW in 2003. If it is, it may trigger the need for another EAW. The City of Rosemount should check that out before making any decisions on the WCA application. Our primary concern in 2003/04 was the potential impact to Loggerhead shrike habitat. That gets us into WCA Special Considerations, Rule 8420.0548, subpart 2, endangered and threatened species. The issue would be whether construction of the mitigation wetland in the southwest corner of the site would impact shrike habitat. I've been pouring over the aerial photos and the Natural Heritage database record and I don't believe that this part of the property provides good shrike habitat. Therefore, I don't believe that it would be reasonable to invoke the Special Considerations provision. Finally, there are no MCBS plant communities or MCBS sites of biodiversity significance on the site. Thanks. ..wb Wayne Barstad Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Central Region 651 259 -5738 wayne.barstad @dnr.state.mn.us Nature bats last! 1 Andrea Moffatt A From: Ken Powell [Ken.Powell @state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian Subject: SKB Rosemount application And! Brian, The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application: Ken Powell Senior Wetland Specialist MN Board of Water Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651 296 -0874 6/30/2008 t e r 1 of2 t� IW /o ?Pik I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The Impact table in the application form indicates 2 separate impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative in the application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8 acres of impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland impact. Also, the wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not accounted for in the application. The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the current application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or not. I can't tell if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated. The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a new landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if it should expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of reduncing the footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about avoiding all wetland impact and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland impacts and still allow a major expansion to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW comer and the fill line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big wetland? (see attached sketch). I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is the watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology information shows only mid winter water level readings which I am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide fluctuation in water levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to be very difficult to establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges involved, I would advocate for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland expansion area next to a road and huge berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City wants more water storage In this area, then they should obtain it through stormwater management means (infiltration, pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for failure. The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached is a checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very important in onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and management activities need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure. In summary, 1 strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan either include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns. Andrea Moffatt From: Watson, Brian [Brian.Watson@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:33 PM To: Andrea Moffatt Cc: Ken Powell Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application Andi, Were notes from our June 17 meeting prepared. Thought 1 had seen them but they are not in my file can you send to me if complete thanks. My additional comment would be that approval of a wetland replacement plan should be conditioned to require hydrology monitoring of the existing wetland at set intervals (May 1, June 1, July 1, August 1) to determine hydrologic changes during on -site dewatering activities; and that the LGU may consider dewatering as additional WCA impacts requiring compensatory mitigation. Somehow we need to establish a monitor program for the existing wetland if landscape and dewatering activities are occurring on- site and then an action plan pending results of monitoring. Brian Watson Dakota County SWCD 4100 220th Street, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 480 -7778 email: brian.watson @co.dakota.mn.us web: www.dakotaswcd.org Original Message From: Andrea Moffatt jmailto:AMoffatt@wsbeng.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:54 AM To: Ken Powell; Watson, Brian Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application Andrea Moffatt, PWS I Senior Environmental Scientist 1 WSB Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Direct: 763- 287 -71961 Fax: 763- 541 -17001 Cell: 612 360 -1301 www.wsbeng.com Page 1 of 3 Thanks, Ken! Their impacts proposed are 0.81 (yes, it has changed throughout this process). I am working on a Council memo with recommendations, so this will help. am also newly concerned about additional dewatering" of the wetland from the project and storm water management practices. This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee or received this email in 6/30/2008 Page 2 of 3 error, you should permanently delete this email from your system. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. Because electronic files may deteriorate or be inadvertently modified, WSB Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this message which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. From: Ken Powell [mailto:Ken.Powell @state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian Subject: SKB Rosemount application Andi Brian, The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application: I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The impact table in the application form indicates 2 separate impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative in the application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8 acres of impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland impact. Also, the wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not accounted for in the application. The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the current application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or not. I can't tell if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated. The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a new landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if it should expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of reduncing the footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about avoiding all wetland impact and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland impacts and still allow a major expansion to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW corner and the fill line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big wetland? (see attached sketch). I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is the watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology information shows only mid- winter water level readings which I am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide fluctuation in water levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to be very difficult to establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges involved, I would advocate for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland expansion area next to a road and huge berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City wants more water storage in this area, then they should obtain it through stormwater management means (infiltration, pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for failure. The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached is a checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very important in onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and management activities need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure. In summary, I strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan either include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns. Ken Powell Senior Wetland Specialist MN Board of Water Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651 296 -0874 6/30/2008 Brian, I received a hard copy of the TEP notes in the mail. I second your comment about requiring monitoring of the existing wetland. Alot of disturbance is proposed for the landfill expansion and the effects of it on the wetland they are trying to avoid cannot be reasonably estimated. Hydrologic monitoring is an appropriate and reasonable requirement. Ken Andrea Moffatt Page 1 of 3 From: Ken Powell [Ken.Powell @state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:48 PM To: Watson, Brian; Andrea Moffatt Cc: Ken Powell Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application From Watson, Brian [mailto:Brian.Watson @co.dakota.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:33 PM To: Andrea Moffatt Cc: Ken Powell Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application Andi, Were notes from our June 17 meeting prepared. Thought 1 had seen them but they are not in my file can you send to me if complete thanks. My additional comment would be that approval of a wetland replacement plan should be conditioned to require hydrology monitoring of the existing wetland at set intervals (May 1, June 1, July 1, August 1) to determine hydrologic changes during on -site dewatering activities; and that the LGU may consider dewatering as additional WCA impacts requiring compensatory mitigation. Somehow we need to establish a monitor program for the existing wetland if landscape and dewatering activities are occurring on- site and then an action plan pending results of monitoring. Brian Watson Dakota County SWCD 4100 220th Street, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 480 -7778 email: brian.watson @co.dakota.mn.us web: www.dakotaswcd.org 6/30/2008 Original Message From: Andrea Moffatt [mailto:AMoffatt©wsbeng.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:54 AM To: Ken Powell; Watson, Brian Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application Thanks, Ken! 6/30/2008 Their impacts proposed are 0.81 (yes, it has changed throughout this process). I am working on a Council memo with recommendations, so this will help. I am also newly concerned about additional °dewatering" of the wetland from the project and storm water management practices. Andrea Moffatt, PWS Senior Environmental Scientist 1 WSB Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 300 1 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Direct: 763- 287 -7196 I Fax: 763- 541 -1700 !Cell: 612 360 -1301 www.wsbeng.com This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee or received this email in error, you should permanently delete this email from your system. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. Because electronic files may deteriorate or be inadvertently modified, WSB Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this message which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. From: Ken Powell [mailto:Ken.Poweli @state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian Subject: SKB Rosemount application Andi Brian, The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application: Page 2 of 3 I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The impact table in the application form indicates 2 separate impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative in the application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8 acres of impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland impact. Also, the wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not accounted for in the application. The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the current application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or not. I can't tell if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated. The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a new landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if it should expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of reduncing the footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about avoiding all wetland impact and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland impacts and still allow a major expansion to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW corner and the fill line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big wetland? (see attached sketch). I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is the watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology information shows only mid- winter water level readings which I am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide fluctuation in water levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to be very difficult to establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges involved, I would advocate for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland expansion area next to a road and huge berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City wants more water storage in this area, then they should obtain it through stormwater management means (infiltration, pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for failure. The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached is a checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very important in onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and management activities need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure. 6/30/2008 Page 3 of 3 In summary, I strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan either include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns. Ken Powell Senior Wetland Specialist MN Board of Water Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651 296 -0874 E -mail: ken.powell ©state.mn.us Website: www.bwsr.state.mn.us Andrea Moffatt From: Wayne Barstad [Wayne.Barstad@dnr.state.m n.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:57 PM To: Andrea Moffatt Subject: SKB Industrial Waste Facility WCA Application DNR comments on Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility (SW -383) Expansion (comment letter April 10, 2003) Item 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources The EAW recognizes the need to continue to provide shrike habitat on -site during the 25 years during which the site will be operated. We agree that this effort should be made and appreciate that SKB Environmental, Inc. is willing to close and re- vegetate the site in phases. We also recommend that the proposer re- vegetate using native prairie species, along with appropriate nesting species such as red cedar (which presently exists on the site), hawthorn and plum trees. This and other recommendations are included in the Landowners Guide (EAW Exhibit 8c of the EAW). Item 17. Water quality water surface runoff On page 8, the EAW identifies small wetlands that will receive on -site surface water runoff. The wetland in the southeast quarter of Section 19 is high quality and is a well -known urban birding spot from which birders regularly report their sightings (to a website called MnBird.org). Therefore, it has both ecological and recreational value. The wetland's ecological potential is bolstered by its proximity to a major wildlife corridor, defined by a diversity of plant communities and animal habitats strung out along the Dakota County side of the Mississippi River. Also, the site is almost surrounded by an ecological patch (grassland) identified by the Regionally Significant Ecological Areas Assessment Methods. The site's functional capabilities are enhanced by the presence of this grassland landscape element. By increasing site runoff volume and decreasing runoff quality, the project has the potential to diminish the quality of this wetland. Efforts should be made to avoid this impact by treating site runoff and controlling runoff rate and volume. Andi, I'm trying to determine whether it would be appropriate to invoke the WCA Special Considerations provision, which reads as follows: 8420.0548 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS. Subpart 1.Scope.The factors in this part, when identified as being applicable to an impact site or a replacement site, must be considered by the local government unit in the review of replacement plans. Subp. 2.Endangered and threatened species.A replacement plan for activities that involve taking species listed as endangered or threatened in parts 6134.0200 to 6134.0400 must be denied unless the commissioner issues a permit pursuant to part 6212.1800 or Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895, subdivision 7. Applicants may determine if there are known locations of listed species at a particular site by contacting the Department of Natural Resources' natural heritage and nongame research program. Wetlands are not typically considered to be loggerhead shrike habitat; therefore we wouldn't apply the provision to the wetland fill. However, we could apply it to the taking of shrike habitat for the purpose of creating new wetland. I'm not convinced at this point that the SW corner of this property (where SKB proposes wetland replacement) is quality shrike habitat. Even if part of it is good habitat, some mix of new wetland and buffer might be acceptable. ..wb Wayne Barstad Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Central Region 651 259 -5738 wayne.barstad @dnr.state.mn.us Nature bats last! 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2008 TO: Eric Zweber, Senior City Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary FROM: Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer 4 ROSEMOU PUBLIC WORKS RE: SKB Waste Facility Expansion Interim Use Permit Site Plan Review Upon review of the SKB Waste Facility Expansion plans and Storm Water Management plan provided for review by Foth Engineering on behalf of SKB Environmental, the Engineering Department offers the following comments: General Comments: 1. Wetland fill and mitigation issues are addressed separately in a comprehensive memo from Andrea Moffatt of WSB Associates, Inc., including Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting minutes and comments. 2. 140 Street West is classified as an existing Collector roadway with a planned future functional classification as a Major Collector roadway, which requires a 100 -foot right -of- way corridor per the Transportation Plan Right -of -Way Guidelines Landfill grading limits, as well as wetland buffering, should accommodate the future 50- foot' /2 roadway right -of- way needs. 3. Conservation easements shall be recorded over the wetland(s) and buffer. If onsite wetland mitigation is allowed, an additional conservation easement shall be recorded over the mitigation area. Stormwater Management Plan Comments: 1. The storm water management plan proposes to reduce the tributary area to the south wetland from approximately 51 acres to 11.4 acres. The storm water plan should be revised to provide as much surface hydrology to the wetland as possible without passing water through the culvert to the wetlands south of 140 Street East. It is recommended that water quality treatment of the storm water runoff to Basins 6 and 7 be provided prior to discharge to the wetland. G: \2008 \Planning Cases \08 -18 -NP SKB Interim Use Permit \EngMemo_SKB_07162008.doc 2. Basins 2, 4, 6, and 7 ao not currently provide 4' of minimum depth below the management elevation, and Basin 5 exceeds the maximum depth of 10' as required in the City surface water management plan and Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design standards. In lieu of a basin design that meets NURP standards, the applicant's engineer may submit calculations to show sediment and nutrient removal is accomplished to acceptable levels per the Surface Water Management Plan (60% phosphorus removal and 90% sediment removal from the 2.5" rainfall event). Storm Water Calculations Detailed Comments- 1. The drainage areas 27, 28, 29, 31, and 39 should be included in the storm water pond storage calculations. 2. The runoff volume calculations to Pond 3 in Sheet "100 -Basin Tabular Reduction" does not sum the entire volumes from drainage areas 9 and 26 and should be updated. 3. The drainage area map should be updated to include separate delineations of DA -29. DA -29 appears to have runoff from northern portion of drainage area 29 tributary to a depression adjacent to TH 55, a middle segment tributary to Basin 5, and a western segment flowing to Basin 6. Each separate drainage area should be identified on the Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10A and included in updated basin calculations. 4. The storm sewer inlet capacity analysis indicates that multiple inlets to the storm sewer from the diversion berms are necessary and the final storm sewer layout should be updated to include the multiple inlets and their locations. Surface Water Management Plan Sheet 10A (Grading Plan) Detailed Comments: 1. The emergency overflow elevations (top of berm) should be shown on the plan. If a pipe is proposed as the emergency overflow it should be labeled as such on the plans. 2. The proposed culverts and outlet control structures from the basins should be shown on the plan, including detail corresponding to each item, such as invert elevations, pipe diameters, lengths, and slopes. 3. The existing invert elevations for the crossing culvert under 140 Street in the south wetland should be labeled on the plans. 4. The proposed berm at Basin 7 is at elevation 835 which is approximately 2.5' above the 140 Street road profile. Basin 7 and the associated berm should be redesigned at a lower elevation to equalize with the wetland during a 100 -year 24 -hour event, and with a high water elevation a minimum of 2' below the roadway shoulder elevation at the low point in the roadway profile. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the item listed above, please contact me at 651 322 -2022. G: \2008 \Planning Cases \08 -18 -NP SKB Interim Use Permit \EngMemo_SKB 07162008.doc July 12 2008 To: Rosemount City Planning Commission From Bill Busher My name is Bill Busher. I have been a Rosemount resident for just over 10 years. We have lived in several other states prior to moving here, and we really have enjoyed this area the tiibst. The "rea`so i I am writing this letter is because I understand "that SKB Environmental has applied for an expansion of the Rosemount landfill As a citizen of the Rosemount community and an advocate of keeping and growing our local businesses, I feel as though I should share my opinion with the City Planning Commission. I feel that SKB has been a strong benefit to our community. Not only does our community receive the benefits of the business itself, we receive countless financial contributions to many local non profit organizations in need of help. I could not imagine how many dollars SKB inc. shares with the many organizations who solicit them. I work closely, as a volunteer, with several different groups and I know that their financial support helps us maintain the quality of our programs Without the support from SKB, these non profit fund raising groups would have a very difficult time raising sufficient funds to carry out the many needs of the community. SKB is a very strong supporter of the Rosemount community. To the best of my 'knowledge, SKB inc. operates within all of the environmental safety standards. From my perspective this company places the community first as they operate a first class business. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, B. h cc: Rosemount City Council Driving the New Agenda for Business dakota county C H A M B E R O F C O M M E R C E July 10, 2008 The Honorable Bill Droste Rosemount City Council City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Mayor Droste: Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce adopted an Economic Development Policy in 2005 that states in part, "The Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce advocates investments in technology infrastructure, supports local and regional economic development planning, and promotes regional workforce training. The DCR Chamber supports cooperative city and county efforts to maintain or attract business. The Chamber will be actively involved in any policy development that impacts a business, including but not limited to sign ordinances, taxes, transportation, and expansion of businesses." We support the SKB Environmental Inc. application for expansion of the Rosemount Landfill site. SKB has been a chamber member for almost 20 years and has been a strong supporter of the community in Rosemount. Many community and business activities have benefited from the benevolence of the SKB Trust over the years, including youth programs and the Dakota County Library project. From a business perspective, the proposed plan is the "beat and highest use of the land" as it is today. The company has always operated within safe environmental standards and the plan maintains the esthetics and appearance of the facility. In addition, the landfill provides sound and cost effective means of waste disposal for the citizens and businesses of Rosemount and surrounding communities. e encourage the council to approve this expansion. Ruthe Batulis President Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce Cc: Councilmember Mike Baxter Councilmember Mark DeBettignes Councilmember Kira Shoe- Corrigan Councilmember Phillip Sterner Interim City Administrator Kim Lindquist 1121 Town Centre Drive I Suite 102 I Eagan, Minnesota 55123 P: 651.452.9872 I F: 651.452.8978 I E: info @dcrchamber.com qb" DAKOTA CQUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE 1300 145th Street E. (Co. Rd. 42) Rosemount, MN 55068 -2999 July 11, 2008 City of Rosemount Planning Commission c/o City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Rosemount Planning Commission: It is my privilege to write this letter in support of SKB Environmental Inc.'s expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site. phone: 651.423.8000 fax: 651.423.8775 toll free: 877.937.3282 TTY services: 651.423.8621 web: www.dctc.edu SKB Environmental has been an active and supportive member of the Rosemount community for years. They are involved in community, chamber, and business meetings/events which benefit our residents. Many community activities and youth programs have benefited from the donations available because of this facility. Through the support of SKB Environmental Rosemount Community Trust, Dakota County Technical College has been able to offer scholarship support to students who reside in Rosemount. Many of these students would not be able to attend college without this support. To our knowledge, SKB Environmental has operated within safe environmental standards and has always followed through on their commitments to the Rosemount Community. We at Dakota County Technical College believe SKB Environmental is a valued community partner and strongly support their application for expansion. Sincerely, Sharon LaComb Vice President An Equal opportunity Educator/Employer A member of the Minnesota State Colleges Universities System Accredited by the Commiuion on Insdtutions of Nigher Education of the North Central Assoda ion of Colleges and Schools DAK2TA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE 1300 145th Street E. (Co. Rd. 42) Rosemount, MN 55068 -2999 July 11, 2008 Rosemount City Council c/o City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Rosemount City Council: RAVED JUL 15 2008 CKY OF ROSEMOUNT It is my privilege to write this letter in support of SKB Environmental Inc.'s expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site. SKB Environmental has been an active and supportive member of the Rosemount community for years. They are involved in community, chamber, and business meetings/events which benefit our residents. Many community activities and youth programs have benefited from the donations available because of this facility. Through the support of SKB Environmental Rosemount Community Trust, Dakota County Technical College has been able to offer scholarship support to students who reside in Rosemount. Many of these students would not be able to attend college without this support. To our knowledge, SKB Environmental has operated within safe environmental standards and has always followed through on their commitments to the Rosemount Community. We at Dakota County Technical College believe SKB Environmental is a valued community partner and strongly support their application for expansion. Sincerely, Sharon LaComb Vice President phone: 651.423.8000 fax: 651.423.8775 toll 877.937.3282 TTY services: 651.423.8621 web: www.dctc.edu An Equal Opportunity Educator /Employer A member of the Minnesota State Colleges Universities System Accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Nigher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools July 13, 2008 Rosemount City Planning Commission Rosemount City Council RE: SKB Environmental, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: My name is Kevin Pauly and I have lived in Rosemount since 1993. I understand SKB has asked to expand the Rosemount landfill. As a citizen of the community and an advocate of keeping and growing our businesses, I wanted to share my thoughts with you on this expansion. The Rosemount community receives not only the benefits of the SKB business, but has also received many financial contributions from them as well. SKB has been a strong supporter of non profit organizations in need of financial help, throughout the Rosemount community. SKB has supported many of the volunteer organizations that I have been a part of, which has helped us maintain and grow those organizations. SKB's support has made it possible for volunteer groups to have adequate funds to provide many services throughout the Rosemount community, which may not have been possible without their help. SKB is a strong supporter of the community and I have seen nothing that tells me they are not environmentally sound and a first rate company. Giving the expansion that they are requesting allows them to grow their business and also helps the City of Rosemount grow theirs. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call. July 14, 2008 Rosemount Planning Commission c/o Rosemount City Hall 2875 -145 St W Rosemount, MN 55068 bear Commissioners, Paul Eggen 'fully submitted, 14450 S. Robert Trail, Ste 204 Rosemount, MN 55068 651.423.3535 paul @pauleggen.com I am writing in support of SKB Environmental's expansion of its Rosemount landfill site. I have been a member of the Rosemount business community since 1983. I was present during the company's first proposal for their facility and read a letter of support from 'the:Rosemount Chamber. We were interested in the integrity and the safety of its operation. I am pleased to observe SKB Environmental has followed safe environmental andards, and their expansion would be a positive business decision. They have also en good neighbor in the Rosemount Community with their support of many o i n unity and initiatives. July 14, 2008 Rosemount Planning Commission C/O City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: SKB Environmental, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: I have been a citizen of Rosemount since 1991 and have been involved for many years in community efforts, such as the Board of Directors of the Rosemount Area Athletic Association and the Rosemount High School Football Booster Board. It has been my experience that SKB Environmental, Inc. has been a strong supporter of community activities, particularly youth athletics. I believe that SKB's proposal to expand its operations is in the best interest of the City of Rosemount and urge your approval. Respectfully, rald M. Pros llo 13401 Cormack Circle Rosemount, MN 55068 CC: Rosemount City Council July 14, 2008 Rosemount City Council C/O City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: SKB Environmental, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: I have been a citizen of Rosemount since 1991 and have been involved for many years in community efforts, such as the Board of Directors of the Rosemount Area Athletic Association and the Rosemount High School Football Booster Board. It has been my experience that SKB Environmental, Inc. has been a strong supporter of community activities, particularly youth athletics. I believe that SKB's proposal to expand its operations is in the best interest of the City of Rosemount and urge your approval. Respectfull erald M. Pro' llo 13401 Cormack Circle Rosemount, MN 55068 CC: Rosemount Planning Commission July 9, 2008 City of Rosemount 2845 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 To Whom it May Concern, My daughter and a group of students from Red Pine Elementary were fortunate enough to participate in the Global competition of DestiNation Imagination which is a creative problem solving organization. The event was held in Knoxville, TN and came with quite a large registration fee for our team. We knew we would need the help of local businesses and other fundraising to make this goal happen and immediately we thought of SKB Environmental. We had known of their generosity with Rosemount athletic teams and had heard what great corporate neighbors they were. Our experience was no different. Beth, from the St. Paul office couldn't not have been more helpful and encouraging when approached her with our situation. I heard back from her immediately with a pledge of monetary support for our team. Without local businesses like SKB Environmental, we would not have been able to reach our financial goal and take our DestiNation Imagination team to Knoxville where they competed against children from China, Korea, Mexico, Guatemala, Canada, the UK and many other countries and states. It was an amazing experience and we thank SKB for helping to make it happen. Sincerely, Lis Nelson 10849 Andes Circle Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Maureen Geraghty Bouchard 3130 145 St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 July 11, 2008 Rosemount Planning Commission CIO City of Rosemount 2875 145 St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2008 CP Of ROSEICUIT I am writing this in reference to a matter concerning SKB Environmental, Inc. expansion. The City of Rosemount has seen substantial growth in the past few years and is expected to continue to grow. With this growth, comes the need for more environmental safe landfills. Many of the community groups that I have had the pleasure to be part of, Rosemount Area Historical Society, Rosemount Leprechaun Days and Rosemount Haunted Trail, have benefited from donations from SKB Environmental Inc. Some of these organizations would be unable to provide as much to the community without the donations that they receive from SKB Environmental Inc. I feel SKB Environmental Inc. has operated an environmental safe landfill and would continue to meet this standard. Thank you for your time. Fondly, fi(g4-- N- Maureen Geraghty Bouchard Rosemount Planning Commission City of Rosemount 2874145' St W Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Application for Expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site As long time resident and business owner in Rosemount, I have watched as this site was built and managed throughout the years. There are a number of items that SKB and this site adds to the City of Rosemount. First; SKB is an excellent neighbor in they way they run their business and manage the current landfill site. This facility has been a benefit to not only the city of Rosemount but the surrounding community as well. This is a state of the art facility and the City should feel proud to have this facility in the City of Rosemount. This facility has always operated within the environmental standards set forth by the MPCA, the EPA and the requirements set forth by the City of Rosemount. Second; SKB is a community partner with the City of Rosemount and the area Business as well. They give back to the community with their time, talent and money to benefit the community. This benefits the community of Rosemount in various ways as seed money for projects, or the funds to finish a project or the talent to assist a community business. Finally; this type of facility can and will spear growth in the City of Rosemount. With the proper planning this type of facility will bring business into the area that needs this specialized landfill site. This will grow the tax base for the city and assist in the future growth of the commercial and industrial business in the city. I hope that you approve the application for the Expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site for SKB. Sincerely Donald E Sinnwell 3335 145 St W Rosemount, MN 55068 651261 -0499 11 July 2008 8 8 8 b O 8 6 g A sg 8 8 N v N r N O O O NN 8 N {pp 8 6 1A N g (ff g N lV N N N O A 8 O A t A 8 O O 8 A N 44 s M 44 O N w N N 43 N N M M N N °€1 R N 8 88 8 N N g O O O O a ee of b N N 4 ggg 8 6 6 6 8 b N N g M g g g g M 5 g N v g g N N N N 1 1 O O O N N N N M O O 11 O O O R 8S g N N N g 1 m N N N N A A f n g m N N N 1 �p t� N v g N N N N N 33 N g 88 8O N e 9 v V N N 4 ggg a�mW k N g A g N N N gg 1 N N N g !R LIR g 1 N N N .gg g 1 N 8 88 8 8N 63 N N g g W F 43 g g g 43 8 N O O O 6 A r N N N G G 11. O G O V 8 N N N a a 11 Zf 2S ZS 3 s 8 1 N 43 N N v g n N N N R N 8 88 N 44 O O O O O N O M N N 2 1 4 0-""a0ANO1 RFAR3RS 68i 3 &RF22X3R4N34;VO3 *R4R4282S33X8R 338 J 0 1— 10 M 0 0 0 0 W P 3 O OF/ 8 et N N a o 0 0 0 p 0 O N N !A 1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 05 0 cl (0� *Cr .4- 1- 0 O O o 0 O 0 0 iA c+) Lei M N N H CV 0 c cei 88 O VI 6 NoS t v v c Ic o U lf .2 o y o B CO co o m C C c o .0 g B co 0 c U 8 a 1 I O O c6 6 O 1q O Li f3 M 0 O oS O OD M C N r 8 0 0 0 0 1 N N v OI N to M 8 0 0' 8 0 of id N 0 0 co ter 8 0 �0 '8' 8 1 M N 0 8 �8� re; M 1 M 1 1t 10 0 1. CO O1 4 Ci OS 1 40 N 40 M OP NMsf am