The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.l. Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan Application and Decision for Empire WWTP OutfallCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 20, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan AGENDA SECTION: Consent Application and Decision for the Empire WWTP Outfall PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer Water Resource Enginee . Chad Donnelly, ATTACHMENTS: Application and Notice of Decision APPROVED BY: In 2000, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) initiated a wastewater master planning effort for the southeastern Twin Cities Metro Area. The result of this planning was to expand the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) from its current 12 million gallon per day (MGD) capacity to 24 MGD, reroute the treated wastewater from its current location in the Vermillion River to a discharge point in the Mississippi River. An initial route extending east and north of the Empire WWTP to a discharge point in Hastings was first considered; due to public concern this route was eliminated. A new route was adopted that runs north from the WWTP and northeast through Rosemount to a discharge point in the Mississippi River. The WWTP outfall intersects a number of Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulated wetlands along the proposed alignment. A wetland delineation report was presented to the City of Rosemount in February of 2003. Although a majority of the wetland impacts fell within Empire Township jurisdiction, the City of Rosemount was asked to be the governing authority for the WCA permitting. In accordance with the WCA, Howard R. Green Company, representing MCES, submitted a Wetland Permit application and Replacement Plan to the City of Rosemount for review and approval The project includes approximately 9.5 acres of wetland impact. Although a majority of the impacts will be temporary during construction,' 0.55 acres will be permanently impacted to construct a maintenance road to the terminal structure of the outlet. The permanent impacts must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. MCES achieved the 1.10 acres of replacement through a contract issued, by MCES, to construct a wetland site applicable to the required wetland replacement. Staff finds the WCA Permit application and Replacement Plan to be complete and in compliance with WCA rules. Staff recommends City Council make the motion to approve the WCA application and notice the decision to the appropriate agencies and units of government. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO APPROVE THE WCA APPLICATION AND NOTICE THE DECISION TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES AND UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. COUNCIL ACTION: H oward R , Green Compa File: 517420.1 -1700 November 21, 2003 Mr. Chad Donnelly City of Rosemount 2575 145 ° ' Street West Rosemount, MN 55065 -4997 RE: MCES EMPIRE OUTFALL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION Dear Mr. Donnelly: Howard R. Green Company (HRG) hereby submits the "Minnesota Local /State /Federal Application Form for Water /Wetland Projects" for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Empire Outfall project. FIRG has been authorized as MCES's agent for this permit application. Please note that the permits to be acquired under this application include: • A permit pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Clean Water Act (USACOE lead) • A permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including 401 certification (USACOE lead) • A permit pursuant to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (City of Rosemount lead) • A permit for Work in Public Waters (MnDNR lead) It is our understanding that a License to Cross Public Waters will also be required; HRG is in the process of completing the license application and will submit it to the MnDNR in the near future. If you have any questions about the project, or the permit application, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely Howard R. G •een Company Scott Ree , P. Project Ma�ager /Senior Environmental Scientist Encl. c: Mr. James Roth — MCES Ms. Audi Moffat— WSB & Associates, Inc. (Representing the City of Rosemount) Mr. Irian Watson — Dakota SWCD Mr. David I-lohnen — Dakota SWCD T Board Conservationist — BWSR Ms. Molly Shodeen -- MnDNR Mr. Joseph Yanta - USACOE 1326 Energy Park Drive • St. Paul, MN 55108 • 651/644 -4389 fax 651/644 -9446 toll free 888/368 -4389 Minnesota Local /State /Federal Application Forms for Water /Wetland Projects PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND LINEAR UTILITY PROJECTS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Application No. Field Office Code Date Initial Application Received Date Initial Application Deemed Complete INV: 3.7.02 "Jee HL:Lh'" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions_ nape 1 IS THIS AN ORIGINAL OR AMENDED NOTICE? (checkone): ® This is an original notice, dated October 6, 2003 ❑ This is an nmended notice, dated 1. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: Name of applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Contact person (name and title): James Roth, Project Manager Complete mailing address: Mears Park Center, 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul MN 55101 Business phone: 651- 602 -1123 Fax: 651 -602 -1138 e -mail: james.roth(@metc.state.nui.us 2. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (See HELP 2): MCES Empire Outfall Construction Also attach PROJECT LOCATOR MAP. 3. LAND USE: Describe existing land use in project area. See HELP 3. Farmland, undeveloped wood Ian d /brushland, undeveloped grassland, road and rail right of wav 4 PROJECT CATEGORY (check all that apply): ❑ Repair, rehabilation, reconstruction or replacement of existing roads that impact wetlands (including wetland areas of DNR Public Waters). If so, indicate size of impact (check one): [ ❑J Less than 10,000 square feet of wetlands [❑) Greater than 10,000 square feet of wetlands ❑ New road or modification of an existing road solely to increase traffic capacity impacting any amount of wetland area ❑ River, lake or stream impact (excluding wetland areas of DNR Public Waters ® Placement, maintenance or repair of linear utility projects 5. PROPOSED TIMELINE: Approximate project start date: April 2004 Projected end date: December 2005 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Check all that apply. Also include a detailed overhead view of your plan that clearly depicts the work to be undertaken. See What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 2) ❑ Guardrail Improvement ❑ Guardrail improvement with slope flattening ❑ Resurfacing ❑ Culvert work: repair, extension or replacement ❑ Stream diversion ❑ Shoulder work: widening, shoulder widening with ditch grading ❑ Other: ❑ Slope flattening ❑ Turn lane: improvement of existing or new construction ❑ Bridge work: repair ❑ Bridge work: replacement ❑ Reconstruction (existing roads) ❑ Additional lanes solely for traffic capacity ❑ New road construction ® Linear Utility Projects 7. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: 54 million FUNDING SOURCES (estimate %): Federal State Local 100 8. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? List at least two alternatives (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing'), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. (If space below is not adequate, attach separate sheet labeled SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS.) SEE ATTACHED SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS SHEET 9. IMPACT SUMMARY' County: Dakota Major watershed number: 20 (Mississippi River) For impacts in additional counties or ivatersheds, complete separate tables. Location of Impact For Public Waters Water- Course Lake Wetland Top Line: site number or station Indicate Indicate length Indicate area of fill Indicate area of fill or i p in acres b y wetland ty pe Bottom Line: ' /., %, S, T, R* name and ID of impact area or impact Total Area of 1 L 2 3 4 5 6 $ Number in linear feet in acres wetland impact by location - Wetland Basin 1 ----- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- 3.48 ac. -- --- -- ------------------- NW '/+ of NE %, S21, T114N, 19W - -- — - -- - -- - -- 3.48 -- Wetland Basin la -------------------------------- 0.07 - -- "' - -- _ - 0.07 ac. N 19 -- Wetland Basin 2 NW' /. R19W - -- - -- 0.12 -- -- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- 0.12 ac. - Wetland Basin 2a ---- -- - 0.57 �- --- -- - -- 0.57 aC. - -- - - ---- --- ---- - --- ---- NW' / +ofNEY4and NE' /.of NW +, S21, T1 14N, R19W - -- - -- --- - -- __ - Wetland Basin 3 ---- --- --- - -- --- - -- - -- - -- - -- 0.68 ac. ----- --------------- NE an d NW '/+ of NW % +, S21, 114N, R19W - -- - -- -- 0.68 Wetland Basin 3a -------------------------------- - -- " -- --- - -- - -- 0.11 ac. NW' / +of R19W - -- - -- -- --- -� 0.11 Wetland Basin 4 SW % of NW Y +, T114N, --- 200 — __ ___ ___ R19W __ _ " --- - -- - -- - -- Wetland Basin 5 - ---- --- - -- -- -- - -- -- --- 0.57 ac. --- --- --- --- - - - - -- --- 114 N, 19 W - -- - -- - -- 0.57 - -- --- Wetland Basin 8 (complex) ---- --- -- - --- SE % of 300 -- 0.35 - -- –_ ___ R18W ___ `" –' --- - -- 0.35 ac. Wetland Basin 9 (complex) Mississippi NE' /4ofSW' /,,S17,T115N, R18W River –(19- 5P) -- -- 1.47 – 0.50 0.50 - -- " "" ' - -- - -- 2.47 ac. Wetland Basin 9a -- - ---- - S17 SE % of NE %4; , T115N, R18W Mississippi River – (19- 5P ) - -- - -- 1. 20 -- -- - -- -- – - -- -- -- - 1.20 ac. Mississippi River /Spring Lake - - - - -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - - - --- Gov. Lot 1, Gov Lot 4, NE %4 of SW '/+, and NW ' /4 of SE %, S17, T1 15N, R18W Mississippi River– (19- 5P) 1570 — - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- ___ ___ TOTALS: 2070 linear feet -- 3.06 - -- 4.98 0.94 0.64 _ -' "– --- - -- 9.62 ac. WATER- 1 AVC: . COURSE GRAND TOTAL OF WETLAND IMPACT 3 Notes on Item 9 — Impact Summary 1 — Impacts for all areas (with one exception) are temporary; wetlands and watercourses will be restored following installation of the outfall line. The exception is a 0.55 acre portion of Wetland Basin 9 (see Note 4 and Item 10 below). 2 — The wetland delineation for this project defined Wetland Basin 4 as a Riverine (R3) wetland (watercourse); the watercourse extends approximately 200 linear feet through the outfall easement. 3 — The wetland delineation for this project defined Wetland Basin 8 as a complex. The southern portion is a Riverine (R4) wetland (watercourse), the central portion is a Type 1 wetland, and the northwestern portion is a Type 5 wetland. The outfall corridor will impact approximately 300 linear feet (equivalent to about 0.10 acres) of the watercourse and 0.35 acres of the Type 1 wetland. None of the Type 5 wetland should be impacted. It should also be noted these impacts represent a worst case scenario; geotechnical evaluations may indicate that tunnel construction methods can be extended north of Wetland Basin 8, thus avoiding any impacts to Wetland Basin 8. 4 — The wetland delineation for this project defined Wetland Basin 9 as a Type 1/2/3 complex, primarily consisting of Type 1 temporarily flooded wetland with relatively small areas meeting the Type 2/3 definition. Approximately 0.55 acres of Wetland Basin 9 will be permanently impacted by the construction of a minimum maintenance access road, this will be mitigated with wetland credits and /or project- specific replacement wetland(s). 5 — For the purposes of this wetland application, the impacts to the main channel of the Mississippi River and the channel leading to Spring Lake have been characterized as watercourse impacts. These impacts will consist of excavation /dredging of the river channel during the construction of the outfall; river sediments will be replaced once the outfall has been installed. It should be noted that 640 linear feet of the impact area lie in the channel leading to Spring Lake (between Wetland Basins 9 and 9a), and the other 930 linear feet of the impact area is in the main channel of the Mississippi River. IV. 1 1 r L: ksucn as rocx, sang, clay or concrete) AND AMOUNT OF FILL MATERIAL (indicate amount in cubic yards): No fill will be place above existing elevations at wetland locations with the exception of a 0.55 acre portion of Wetland Basin 9 that will be converted to a minimum maintenance access road, requiring approximately 1800 cubic yards of fill granular and /or gravel fill. All other impacts will be temporary; the impacted areas will be restored to as near pre- excavation conditions as feasible upon completion of the utility construction project. The potential for floodplain impacts was considered since the 1800 cubic yards of fill will be placed within the 100 -year floodplain of the Mississippi River. Qualitative review of the existing conditions indicates that the roadway would have negligible impacts on flood storage. The Mississippi River floodplain in the area of the Empire Outfall is over 1 %4 miles wide, with over a thousand acre -feet of floodwater storage. A 2 to 3 foot high roadway covering 0.55 acres would result in a reduction of less than 0.1 % of the total flood storage in the outfal area. 4 11. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that require a COE standard individual permit, attach a list of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS that includes complete names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland or water body where the work is being proposed. See Attached Property Owner List 12. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? NO If YES, attach DESCRIPTION OF WORK COMPLETED and provide permit numbers if applicable. 13. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: Attach STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS LIST, including any other permits, reviews, or approvals related to this proposed project that are either pending, or have already been approved or denied. Applications for Dakota County R/W crossing, Mn /DOT R/W crossing, and UPRR R/W crossing permits have been or soon will be submitted for the utility project. An NPDES permit application will be submitted by the construction contractor(s) prior to the initiation of construction activities. 14. STATE EAW AND EIS REQUIREMENTS: Are state Environmental Assessment worksheets or Environmental Impact Statements required for this project? (If not known, see HELP 14.) ❑ not required ® yes, indicate status below An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been completed for the utility construction project, and a Negative Declaration has been made. 15. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are you aware of any special considerations that apply directly or indirectly to either the impact sites(s) or the replacement sites(s)? (Examples: the presence of endangered species, special fish and wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, calcareous fends, or waste disposal sites) .See HELP 15. ® not aware of any special considerations ❑ yes, attach a list of SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS and include brief descriptions of each consideration listed. 16. ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCE DETERMINATIONS: Are you aware of any archeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys completed concerning the project or replacement site that are already completed or in process by the State Historical Society Preservation Office (SHPO) or others? YES If YES, please explain below or attach a copy of any determinations or surveys. If NO, and if project will use federal or state -aid funds, contact SHPO for a determination. See HELP 96. A cultural resource survey was conducted for portions of the utility corridor in response to comments by the SHPO. SHPO clearance for the project was received during the EAW process. 17. HOW PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED: Note — the majority of the wetland impacts are temporary in nature with no requirement for replacement. These wetland areas will be restored following utility construction. However, 0.55 acres of permanent wetland impact will be mitigated through wetland banking and /or project- specific replacement. The method by which the permanent impacts will be mitigated is to be determined. A. Wetland Banking ® NO ❑ YES If YES, check appropriate option(s) below: ❑ 1. BWSR Road Replacement Program (this option available only for repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement of existing county, township or city roads) ❑ 2. State Wetland Bank (Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form and include with your application. Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from %\mw.bwsr.state.mn.us B. Project- specific replacement? ❑ NO ® YES C. Mitigation considerations? List important site- specific wetland functions, if any, and describe options considered for mitigation of these functions onsite. Mitigation will consist primarily of restoration of wetland impact areas. Wetland restoration will be conducted in accordance with the best current practices in the industry. These practices generally include: • Segregation of hydric soils in the impacted area • Restoration of exiting soil stratigraphy with segregated soils following construction • Restoration of pre- existing grades • Seeding of impacted area with appropriate wetland seed mix (such as Mn /DOT 25B Modified or 310B, or BW SR spec) as identified in the most current Mn /DOT /BWSR wetland restoration specifications. 5 • Use of trench dams or clay fill soils with hydraulic conductivity less than that of the surrounding native soils to eliminated the potential to drain wetlands via permeable construction fill • Annual field review of restored wetland areas for five years following completion of construction activities 18. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND(S) CONSTRUCTION: ATTACH PLAN SHEETS (Complete this section only if you marked "YES" in Section 17B). See HELP18 and attach this description on a separate sheet of paper labeled DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND CONSTRUCTION. See Attached Wetland Mitigation Data 19. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT (Required only if you marked "YES" in Section 17B: See HELP 19. See Attached Wetland Mitigation Data 20. SURPLUS WETLAND CREDITS: If using project - specific replacement (if you marked "YES" in Section 17B), will the replacement result in any surplus wetland credits that you wish to have deposited in the State Wetland Bank for future use? (indicate YES or NO YES Ifyes, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from w , \v \v.bwsr.state.nui.us The Wetland Banking Application Will Be Submitted By MCES At A Future Date 21. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Complete the chart below for all wetland replacement sites except for replacement to be completed through the BWSR: Road Replacement Program. If your project has more than one wetland replacement site, reference your overhead view (see Section 6) to this chart. If more than one wetland type exists within a given replacement site, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify type(s) of replacement credits and "restored or created" for each. See Help 21 (Photocopy chart for more wetland replacements, if needed.) DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS To Be Determined Wetland Major Type(s) of replacement credits Restored replacement watershed (in acres) or site number County Count Topographic 1 Wetland created? New Wetland Public Value (as noted on (f known) setting z Type Indicate overhead view) Credits (NWC) Credits (PVC) R or C First replacement 2 ------ - - - - -- 1.10 Acres --------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- C ------- - - - - -- site (Mississippi River and Dakota Isolated Lake Pepin) ------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- Second replacement site ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- --------------------- -------------- - - - - -- -------------------- ------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- Third replacement site ------ - - - - -- ----------- ---------------- --------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- -------------------- ------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- 1 Topographic setting types: Pick from list: Shoreland; Riverine; 1.10 Acres Floodplain; Flow - through; Tributary; Isolated; Upland/buffer. Total NWC Total PVC 2 Wetland types: Pick from list of Circular 39 wetland types (1, 1L, 2, 3, 4, Required Replacement Ratio: 2:1 5, 6, 7, 8), R for riverine, U for upland buffer (if known) 22. SIGNED AFFIRMATIONS: Sign and date either Box 22a or Box 22b below. If your project involves replacement by wetland banking only, sign Box 22a. For all other projects, read Box 22B, check appropriate boxes in Part B and sign. 22a. For projects involving replacement by wetland banking only: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in this application is true, complete and accurate; and I affirm that the wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland bank. N/A Signature of applicant or agent Date 22b. For projects involving either project- specific replacement only or a combination of wetland banking and project- specific replacement: Part A: The replacement wetland (affirm all statements): ® Was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit; AND ® Was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND ® Was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; AND ® Was not restored using private finds, other than those of the landowner, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local govermnent unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): ®The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. ❑ An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland replacement. ❑ The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C: For projects involving any project- specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located; and I will at the same time submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and b r( a information in Part 2 is t e, complete and accurate; and I affirm all statements in Parts A and C, as well as checked assu nce(s) i Part B. Signatan of applicant or agent Date FOR LGU USE ONLY For projects involving construction of new roads, increased traffic capacity or linear utility projects, the replacement plan is (check one): Approved Approved with conditions (conditions attached) Denied LGU official signature Date LGU has received evidence of title and proof of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland: County where recorded Date Recorded Document # assigned by recorder LGU official signature Date APPLICATiON FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CPR 325) OMi3 APPROVAL NO (RENEWAL PENDING) Che public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden eslimale or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 - 0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application fora permit. Routine uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS 1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 1 3. DATE RECEIVED 1 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE SHADED AREAS. All applicants need to complete non- shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is to be used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid for use only when included as part of this entire stale application packet. 5. APPLICANT'S NAME Metropolitan Council 18. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Howard R. Green Environmental Services (primary contact — James Roth) Company (primary contact — Scott Reed, P.G., Project Manager /Senior Environmental Scientist 11. STATEMENT OF I hereby authorize Howard R. Green Company information in support of this permit application. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: JMRIZ ATION (if applicable; complete only if authorizing an agent) act y behalf as my agent ' roccs of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental DATE: it /-ZI, i is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this applic lion. I certify that the info 'lion in this application is complete I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein o am acting 9# the d dy auth ,, zed agent of the applicant. Signal re of applicant Date Signatu a of age t an Date The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), r it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 1.I has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any man ,' r within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW -OR) MCES Empire Outfall Project — Wetland Permit Application Sequencing Considerations Project Planning Sequencing The MCES Empire Outfall project has undergone significant planning since late 2000. Much of this planning involved environmental review of potential impacts to various resource areas, including wetlands. Initially, MCES considered an outfall route from the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that generally ran east and north approximately 21 miles to Hastings. That route would have resulted in three crossings of the Vermillion River and significant wetland impacts. Because of cost considerations and public opinion, the Hastings route was rejected, and the current Rosemount route was chosen. During the early portion of the design process where the alignment details were being finalized, much consideration was given to wetland resources. Delineation of wetlands along the route was completed in late 2002, and modifications to the route were made to minimize or completely avoid wetland areas. It should be noted that wetland basins 6 and 7, which were identified early in the alignment definition process, were avoided completely. Similarly, impacts to wetland basin 8, currently estimated at approximately 0.35 acres of Type 1 impact and 300 linear feet of intermittent stream impact, may be minimized through use of tunnel construction methods pending the results of a geotechrucal investigation. MCES is committed to minimizing impacts to wetland areas during construction activities, and fully restoring impacted wetlands using the current best practices in the industry. Wetland Mitigation Sequencing As noted in the application, 0.55 acres of temporarily flooded (Type 1) wetland will be permanently converted to a gravel road needed to access a manhole near the terminus of the outfall line. Consistent with the wetland sequencing requirements, MCES explored a series of mitigation options for this permanent impact. On October 30, 2003, representatives from Howard R. Green Company (HRG - MCES consultant), the City of Rosemount, the MnDNR, and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) visited CF Industries property at the location of the permanent wetland impact. The purpose of the site visit was to determine if site - specific replacement could be accomplished adjacent to the area where the access road would be constructed. After reviewing site conditions, it was agreed that the CF Industries property below the river bluff was not conducive to wetland mitigation, primarily because of the need for extensive tree removal and uncertainty regarding the presence of hydric soils. On behalf of MCES, HRG staff contacted the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization to detenmine if any wetland credits were available in the same watershed as the area of pennanent impact. Dakota County SWCD staff (representing Dakota County's interests in the Joint Powers Organization) indicated that wetland credits are not available. Given that on -site mitigation is not feasible, and that no credits are available for purchase in the watershed, MCES proposes the use of site - specific mitigation at the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. Details regarding the site - specific mitigation are presented in other sections of the permit application. MCES Empire Outfall Project — Wetland Permit Application Property Owners List Wetland Basin 1: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Mears Park Center 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Wetland Basin la: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Mears Park Center 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Wetland Basin 2: Robert F. Adelmann (contract purchaser) 22.553 Denmark Ave. W. Farmington, Mn 55024 Mary Susan Knautz Trustee of Buberl Family Trust (fee owner) 3216 Military Road NW Washington, DC 20015 Wetland Basin 2a: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Mears Park Center 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Robert F. Adelmann Mary Susan Knautz (contract purchaser) Trustee of Buberl Family Trust 22553 Denmark Ave. W. (fee owner) Farmington, Mn 55024 3216 Military Road NW Washington, DC 20015 Wetland Basin 3: Robert F. Adelmann Mary Susan Knautz (contract purchaser) Trustee of Buberl Family Trust 22553 Denmark Ave. W. (fee owner) Farmington, Mn 55024 3216 Military Road NW Washington, DC 20015 Wetland Basin 4: Stonex, LLC 220 W. Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Contact: John Chadwick Page 1 of 1 Wetland Basin 5: Metropolitan Council Enviroiunental Services Mears Park Center 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Robert F. Adelmann (contract purchaser) 22553 Denmark Ave. W Farmington, Mn 55024 Mary Susan Knautz Trustee of Buberl Family Trust (fee owner) 3216 Military Road NW Washington, DC 20015 Wetland Basin 8: Central Fanners 205 W. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60605 (C /O CF Industries, Inc. Salem Lake Dr. Lake Zurich, IL 60047) Wetland Basin 9: Central Fanners 205 W. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60605 (C /O CF Industries, Inc. Salem Lake Dr. Lake Zurich, IL 60047) Wetland Basin 9a and Mississippi River Impact Areas: Wells Fargo Trust Wells Fargo Bank Attn: Eric Ericstrup 6`" and Marquette Minneapolis, MN 55479 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT LOCATION FIGURES NNO Project Location ® Empire WWTP Site Empire Outfall Corridor 2 _ 2 — 4 Miles Interstate, U.S., and Trunk Highways -- '-- County State Aid Highways . I lu@wu5ily llelln0 ajno�j Ilellno asidua -- r. Y v d1MM "andw3. Y `` ji ' •�� .T. � �_.. ' } 1 \` \` ! ✓ � J jL ' � :\ \l Tt r tip `. \\ \ t i k`�` y Y y�r).t \ .. s \N r 1: -LI � `3� W 8 \�}' P �f ♦ - .r r 1 o J 4 4 � 1 E'"A'� cy, T' r - � �! \ Y `�' -£� •�..� r+• i I t \ . �(� \ � 1 r -i-.. s '3 s. _ F .. � I ♦ $. � \ ,� Vt'• `t � r "Fiy Z1z_.'..�•r .r'E s� Jr t V I J '� r ` ^�• .� +�( Sy f,.n• 1 }, \ \ \ t '` �t ,�.� l ' i•� &`"r � , i.3GY^•w . Sw 7' ` Ut, ,\ •,,. .r- 1 ��, Jy�Y%.r .�2 •• } � tr'>,�'< ...'.� s -e-'r; . \. _ �N s yO t. 9f't°i�`¢ fti \ ('' \ \.fd - '` mi'L. .dtJ 1 ( ]• au Sig ,.� -�F .. ,f rya �� f� '_ , ,/ �;: C it _ �. ��J✓ r ; L:'� i N\ 1 � � � r e- \ c .� r...� i y i� 'S � ! C . r-i-,. '� J, _ , 4 -. y S ' v t ', • � eaJ_— \ _ _ t i f � .tl SN'9'� N'J 1I 113 S3N 1N 710 PISS OIL, '• •• •^ [ S `•, r ... ,✓ r I ` t , '/ ZS Hl �, l r .•.r - -. - -` ,� } n ,�_\ - � � ; o \ '-\ 4 '. � Ott `R •G � �I cn..Y7F 4 ( . f 17 - G. �� s+ `tvj r , k "� ". -"l;, '✓ •s --'T I .:,' ' yrrt ....n YLOSihNIIY 1 t:� /. t � r sr�r\ i` .'' _- +�' -�,l 1 �E�_ -•. ., L. - � I `✓ _>.✓ re �' � sE ,- tt � 51 .,K�'- r �� p � L, J v � r �' �-- J +Cr `��y ! s.d \ r '•\ l � � ��, ; �f r^ �r 1: 1 �,_ �`� � � tom ` / i ��'L . /�a� . � � \• l -. � � � 1�� — � -- �• � ri � 1. v 7J •t� ~ Y ` k ✓\ , U .t LJ ' r.♦ J .,, ✓�r'+� SS I� :[ \ i r r I Z —'3 �y,3, / kry„ '��,,� u � � \;,z � -,��. ti� '� `�� ZV Hb � %''� � ✓', �' � /-�' �# \�,,;' \ -, '. "� Y ,'\ v y�, E f - n ti �. '�_\ .• : � r- it,,�'• l `' t � \ \� � ,Ltii ^ '� �� s • —z.— - - .4 y s },� y,� i I ,• rte\ \ / \ _ C �.^ �.'� I / � "r` � � i% Y� . , r �; 7 ,. f � \4 � � \Y'� "ct��`�._� � � . ` A� :. `\ ,•• f, . - � � . r y r � t r Ik e ) , � `y�l. t � y ' S s �[ . �,��) L r 4'..•F' r �- � r \\ �r.o�*'t� -�.,,� ic _c^'��'t� � � h-�,+c . / a � -t tc �7;�' � r ♦ �� ' �'� .g.' �L t S� �,- ti ( I 't,',`� r*Cil � :� �l\ � i, �� S\ ;,f.1 � >✓�r�ti�� C� v� f �•'�: `-` {{j �� "a z. ''�.� '�,•• � �i ' V t ; `:` '� {t't -� .mo 1 c -t Y� e�+r jc� •ItX _ e 1 !iW ..,.. "`s �..Y L di ` ' ,► :,>` Gr ': y �`tilliF r 'f1 1" L q ✓ 1 f 1 i a c� ` ( � j �' 1�1_ �s��• `� t I .. �a� i/ �� >. r `„� _ S tr / �I 9 'L ' 'r 4N {�� I s t,�• �-� S a>•, / NR : Fr ,2 L .:" '--f �� C j.S� ! t Y' ,, � 1 � ?%L Y. �S'"��r - ! 4 �� y 2 -J y k'n'v. ;e; ? '�s"+S�yjs :) \�tl �. f\ \ , ) r \�� ,�,s � � + p� p:� ,r� X�'� 7 r ) �•�\ r 1 r j ry ;r_ tf t..= ' a r� L• 1 > L 31. \ y ' l .� i'� 1.. i ✓ it y r,, •' �n bL�� )(r - �, 7" '� �. �-�- �T.n a-' �`•rr r .�,r , -� : -4�-�` - �'�'•.'."' ,/• -itv �'*. �'�r c.�r�, - �rY } r j� 'r t a i ' r .� \ �`� \ L}•„rµ � R i. - 7 ,r ;• 'i �I �r�Jkt "'\ � �Y� w•e i `� s� :tt,`_.'1'i`Ch' `'.:• ..r�' \ �r �.', r '� r \� t• . t r 2�€.4 sP, r 'c�.... -, ,1 \ r Y J: '� x� �s�� )= I �P,• - `.r r4 �'�;�'- �4 r ..� 'a ..i.. i F _ ty I a l 3 ' .f 1 �,JI r r '^+ 4 t,. :•• a i r 'i �, ^ I r' - �. , t a^ S : � ' s \4 m tY 4'• ; i �4 -� C.,X ► 'r f yA , , ' '� t" t�)J "" I . �. !� ) Y y C7" y? ,! 4 t { 3 m i \ { f I c r Fr - � + "`" '` -•,E -i b s; r f 1- ' T v 'CS�� / F .J f � y _� � .7 � � v ,c 7 L3' , ni� l , r , �� r � i?y �` ,� r, .t : `♦,,,,�� " t �� •' �`-v�: i1 r� t� r ` Ja V f' � �. N �'"j , ;^' °„ r x r a '!�, r,,.�i.. a- N n:� s ,t:' x t ,t <•• ,ia - ..._ -r" s '"_.....,, ...,>v' rJS, *vi k:":`�- .kh�c .:`,)i. 6'9_..:s , r..,. u, ...I. _. ::'r. .,.,..n,.La,.f..:.K . -yy >. _ —i•,r Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision LGU : City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4941 Name of applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services — Jim Roth Project name: MCES Empire Outfall Construction Type of application: ❑ Exemption ® Replacement plan ❑ No loss ❑Banking plan Location of project: Between Empire WWTF in Empire Township and CF Industries in Rosemount, 21 T114N R1 9W; Section 16 TI 14N, RI 9W; Section 17 T115N R18W Date of decision: Type of decision: ❑ Approve ® Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Conditions are included in the Findings and Conclusion. List of Addressees: Mr. Tom Mings Mr. Brian Watson Board of Water and Soil Resources Dakota Soil and Water Conservation One West Water Street - Suite 200 District St. Paul, MN 55107 4100 220 West Farmington, MN 55024 Mr. Wayne Barstad DNR Wetland Coordinator DNR - Ecological Services Division Ecological Services Section 1200 Warner Road 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Joe Yanta Ms. Jill Trescott US Corps of Engineers Vermillion River WMO (Dakota County) Attn: CO -R 190 Fifth Street E 14955 Galaxie Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Mr. Pat Lynch Mr. Jim Roth DNR Waters MCES 1200 Warner Road Mears Park Center St. Paul, MN 55106 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Mr. Scott Reed Mr. Steve Albrecht HR Green Bolton and Menk (for Empire Township) 1326 Energy Park Drive 1515 E Hwy 13 St. Paul, MN 55108 Burnsville, MN 55337 You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above - referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) days of the date of the mailing of this Notice: Date of mailing of this notice: City of Rosemount To be completed after City Action By: Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates f or the City of Rosemount Title: Biologist Wetland Conservation Act Notice LGU : City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4941 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Name of Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services — Jim Roth Project name: MCES Empire Outfall Construction The above referenced project Wetland Conservation Act determination was approved by Rosemount City Council on , based on the findings and conclusions outlined below. This project includes temporary impact to 7.87 acres of WCA wetland and 1.2 acres of DNR wetland. The project also includes 0.55 acres of permanent impact to WCA wetland. The purpose of this project is to provide an outfall route for the Empire WWTF. Wetlands that are temporarily impacted will be restored to their original elevation and seeded with a native wetland seed mix. The 0.55 acres of permanent wetland impact (Type 1) is associated with the construction of a gravel road to access a manhole near the terminus of the outfall line. Mitigation for the permanent wetland impact will be accomplished through 1.1 acres of project specific wetland creation at the Empire WWTF. This mitigation area has been constructed with the intent to deposit the credits into a Wetland Bank. Mitigation for the Outfall project will be accomplished by subtracting the wetland credits from the total amount to be banked prior to the total mitigation site being deposited into the wetland bank rather than completing the Withdrawal of Wetland Credit process. The wetland impact is detailed below: Acres Wetland Impact Below DNR OHW 1.2 WCA Wetland (Temporary) 7.9 WCA Wetland (Permanent) 0.55 Total Impact 9.65 New Wetland Credit Proposed 1.1 Public Value Credit Proposed 0 Total Mitigation Proposed 1.1 Total Mitigation Required 1.1 Based on these Findings and Conclusions and the information in the Wetland Replacement Plan application, project has been determined to fully comply with the Wetland Conservation Act with the following conditions: 1. A perpetual easement over the entire wetland mitigation site at the Empire WWTF is recorded as per the Wetland Conservation Act. 2. The 1.1 acres of wetland mitigation needed for the Outfall project is subtracted from the amount of wetland credit that is deposited into the wetland bank.