HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.D.2. Consideration of Ridge Creek Wetland Replacement Plan-Res. No. 6496
/3- O.A '
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consideration ofthe Ridge Creek Wetland Replacement Plan
DATE: September 19, 2006
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Shakopee received a Wetland Replacement Plan application from Kjolhaug
Environmental Services Company on behalf of Ridge Creek I, Inc. Staff along with a
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) has reviewed the application and determined the
requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) have not been met by this plan.
Additionally, staff has several concerns regarding the viability of the _proposal. The
replacement plan must be acted upon by the City Council in their roll as the Local
Governing Unit (LGU) for the WCA of 1991. Attached for Council consideration is
Resolution No. 6496, a resolution denying the Wetland Replacement Plan for Ridge
Creek.
BACKGROUND:
The Wetland Replacement Plan, as proposed by applicant, would fill approximately 3.52
acres of wetland. The impacted wetland is proposed to be replaced partially offsite with
the construction of 3.52 acres of new wetland within a larger wetland complex proposed
to be created as a wetland bank. The wetland bank site is located North of the Minnesota
River, just to the East of County Road 101 (please see the attached location map). The
remainder of the impacted wetlands is proposed to be replaced onsite by claiming 3.52
acres of storm water basin construction as public value credits.
The City performed a site visit and requested a review of the plan by the TEP, which
consisted of two City staff members, a representative from the Soil and Water
. Conservation District (SWCD), a representative from the Board of Soil and Water
Resources (BWSR) and a representative from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). The TEP, established by the WCA, provides professional, technical review
of wetland issues to the LGU. The TEP and City staff has reviewed the site and the
replacement plan and cited several issues with the proposal.
They are as follows:
. The applicant has not provided an updated wetland delineation report for the
proposed wetland banking site for review by the TEP. Therefore, none has been
approved by the LGU.
. The construction of a(wetland banking site requires approval of a Wetland Bank
Application (WBA). To date no WBA has been submitted to the City, the
SWCD, BWSR nor the USACOE for their respective reviews. In addition to the
previously referenced entities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would need to receive copies ofa WBA.
. The creation of the new wetland complex involves the construction of a berm
(please see the attached drawing for details). Since the site is located within the
floodway of the Minnesota River, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be
required per City Code. As part of the CUP submittal, the. City would require a
floodplain analysis to verify the construction of the berm would not adversely
impact the Minnesota River and adjacent properties.
. The primary source of hydrology for the proposed wetland complex is from high
water conditions of the Minnesota River being retained by the aforementioned
berm. This raises several concerns from staff. Based on visual observations,
sediment is deposited on the site during high water conditions. The construction
of a berm to retain hydrology has a high potential to retain sediment and
fill/degrade the replacement wetland.
In addition, a soil study for the site has not been performed to determine if onsite
materials are adequate for the construction of a berm within the floodway. The source of
hydrology is an area of concern as well. During the TEP meeting there was reference
made to a storm water analysis of the Minnesota River performed by the applicant. for this
area. This report has not been submitted to the City and hence has not been reviewed by
staff.
Based on the above mentioned facts on the Wetland Replacement Plan and the concerns
of staff on its location, the recommendation is for denial of this plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No.6496.
2. Deny Resolution No. 6496.
3. Table for additional information from staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 6496, a Resolution denying the Wetland Replacement Plan for
Ridge Creek and move its adoption.
~~
BmC~ney. ·
Public Works Director
BAIlpmp
ENGRlEFIPPENNlNGTONlCOUNCIlJMEM6496
RESOLUTION NO. 6496
A Resolution Denying A Wetland Replacement Plan
For Ridge Creek Addition
WHEREAS, the City has received a Wetland Replacement Plan from Ridge
Creek I, Inc. for Ridge Creek Addition; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Rules Parts 8420.0540 and 8420.0550 set forth the applicable
standard for evaluating Wetland Replacement Plans; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties on file in the office of the City Engineer or
identified in Minn. Rule 8420.0230 have been mailed notice of the proposed Wetland
Replacement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed the proposed Replacement
Plan and considered the public values, location, size and type of wetland being altered
and recommended denial of the Wetland Replacement Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. Based on the replacement standards in Minn. Rules Parts 8420.0630, and
on the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Panel, the Wetland
Replacement plan is hereby denied for the following reasons:
. The applicant has not provided an updated wetland delineation
report for the proposed wetland banking site for review by the
TEP. Therefore, none has been approved by the LGU.
. The construction of a wetland banking site requires approval of a
Wetland Bank Application (WBA). To date no WBA has been
submitted to the City, the SWCD, BWSR nor the USACOE for
their respective reviews. In addition to the previously referenced
entities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service would need to receive copies of a WBA.
. The creation ofthe new wetland complex involves the construction
of a berm. Since the site is located within the floodway of the
Minnesota River, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be
required per City Code. As part of the CUP submittal, the City
would require a floodplain analysis to verify that the construction
of the berm would not adversely impact the Minnesota River and.
adjacent properties. Because no CUP application has been
submitted, a determination as to whether the berm would have
such an adverse effect has not yet been made.
. The primary source of hydrology for the proposed wetland complex
is from high water conditions of the Minnesota River being
retained by the aforementioned berm. Based on visual
observations, sediment is deposited on the site during high water
conditions. The construction of a berm to retain hydrology has a
high potential to retain sediment and fill/degrade the replacement
wetland.
. The wetland replacement plan does not contain the required five-
year vegetation and establishment and management plan (Wetland
Conservation Act 8420.0530.D.(14)).
2. Denial of the Wetland Replacement Plan shall become effective upon its
adoption.
3. A copy of this decision shall be mailed to all interested parties and to the
applicant.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 2006.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
Julie Klima, Project Manager
From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resource Specialist
Subject: Revised Wetland Replacement Plan
Ridge Creek
Date: September 6, 2006
Based on a review of the revised wetland replacement plan for the Ridge Creek
development staff has the following comments:
. The location of the proposed wetland mitigation/banking site is within the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway. This area is within
the 1 OO-year floodplain providing flood storage for the Minnesota River.
. The proposed Wetland Banking Plan for the Sever Peterson site has not been
approved. Approval of this wetland banking site would require a review by the
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and Board of Water and Soil Resources.
. The project proposer has not contacted the City of Chanhassen regarding the
potential berm and inlet structure components of the mitigation site that will be
within their city limits. No maintenance agreement is in place for the berm and
inlet structure.
. Based on a staff review the wetland replacement plan does not contain the
required five-year vegetation and establishment and management plan (Wetland
Conservation Act 8420.0530.0.(14)).
. The wetland delineation for the proposed wetland mitigation/banking site was
never approved by the reviewing agencies (City of Shakopee, Scott County Soil
and Water Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
. Based on a site visit conducted July 18, 2006, trees contained water marks 10-
15 feet above ground level. This seasonal flooding could affect the integrity of
the proposed berm.
. Item 8420.0530.0(4) of the Wetland Conservation Act was discussed at the
August 29, 2006Technical Evaluation Panel meeting. The project proposer had
not completed a soil ,study of the area and could not verify if soils in the area
could be used to create the berm or if soil would need to be brought to the site to
create the berm.
. Based on visual observations in the floodplain area soil is deposited on the
proposed wetland mitigation/banking site during spring flooding. If a berm were
to be constructed these sediment deposits could potentially fill the area in front
of the berm and inadvertently create a higher elevation than what currently
exists. This could impact the flood storage capabilities of the area potentially
leading to additional flooding upstream of the site.
. A review of the hydrological model for the area would need to be completed by
an engineer to verify hydrology for the proposed mitigation site.
. Item 8420.0530.0(4) of the Wetland Conservation Act was discussed at the
August 29,2006 Technical Evaluation Panel meeting. The project proposer had
not completed a soil study of the area and could not verify if soils in the area
could be used to create the berm or if soil would need to be brought to the site to
create the berm.
Based on the staff review completed for the proposed wetland banking/mitigation site the
Wetland Conservation Act requirements have not been completed. Additionally, staff
has concerns with the placement of the wetland banking/mitigation site in the Minnesota
River floodway. The proposal to create a berm that would increase the existing
elevation in certain areas by four to six feet in the Minnesota River floodway is not
recommended. Furthermore, based on field observations in the floodplain, sediment is
deposited during high water periods. The proposed berm could potentially collect this
sediment and fill the the wetland banking/mitigation site over time.
..
Note: Site and wetland boundaries on
this figure are approximate and do not
constitute an official survey product.
~J;i,
"~
':i'~
.,....., ,
t'~l
.'jOi{t-i,; Eden Prairie
Site Location
.,,:d:;';
,,\. '
~ .' ~
"';i:,:,; .:. t
". \ ",",,,,~,~"!il~'~~~;r.~!'
1 T ,,'~:<<d"~"~0'1.Uc;0~"l\~<:"~'"
.~ - --~ -- ':. ~---' I ""'~>.i'x,;i:'!F,:"'''''''.' n. '.
?!!Wi~&)t~~~~~ii~~l~;:i1:;~~~;.:!\~J~R~~~~,~~i]~~~~~ ~0;'~t~2~~::}J{~;i~~~1~-:1 ,$ffi*~~~~i:~~li;':'"
rt.f~!PM~~if "~ i~ 'lll:~ I,.";J.' ~.l""\y ......-r ~....".~ ;:-<t" ~.. :;lj # #," '~"'\ ,..\ .'[~ ,,'.t".f . ~'~il"..";?l.\.'
I r.~:,1'1~~t ~,{~t ',btl,i:,.~f,Y.~\l..:1'~G'i~':-c,,,t>'tl,..<t,~r.~.k1l"j;:;isr~:JY~:~~ ;~J~~!)a;t~1[t'r;~:~'(~"l \l'!~ '~r~:i~f' . ,,,L~rfC:r...,y..'.t;J'
mlft.lk~~~~:"" 1~\1. .. ;4fP"'
",1':"." ,,,,,t~.,....",.,.,,,,,.,,,,.,,;'(j:\'" "":X"f", .' 'if,' '''''''''''''1 (liI;'''''~',''rii.'',- "'1'" ", 'i;.rr""""'j.
f,o ~,~ Sirjk\~1."""{~- 'l ~ ,;~\~ .it;, tl y' .,W;;, ;';t/ll~~ t;.;~ \' ".f:);' ~, ~~'''~it~~~ ~ !; ~,'; ~:''i 'd~. :tlg-.r~~~~ <'J'":f1. ~.tt.~'t!~~j};r, ~'J
'W;;i'~;~.~i!~,::1.~~~~~;:~rt!t;#:ff$"\'~1i,~~~h'r,,:;,' .: . ~t~,\~ ~~~4!:5J.t~:;;I:',:,,~~~~ ~i:~'f.1~ - X;\\~"
ri~~~t~~t~_i~;'i~o.~l'''~ ~~:::
,.;;,..l..^",~ 1" "',,,,f,\~.;,,, 11':'" '" ',.".r ~ 1,'n.... ",,'. ,. -:~r'\" .~. &.0""'!'",mt't' 'IlNl '1.;' U e!). ,ar \ ---- 1'" ,_
~~~~~~;i';~l:~~:N;;~Z.~0\\:1;~i}!t;,;~~~~~.~\.~ft'~~ri~~?!~~;g~ri'~ 'E::::l-~----\ r-- Jr sfa~ ~ U"~
;ti;~:)1l:;, ,: .!I'~'; ,,,:';Vd'i'.~5;,: 11!;'~0:th!.:,~,'~,j .;i:.:~~ '~, w:';,~,.~t~, I.. '\'~,:4:;f~!~' B1U " \ \ I .~'iJ!.,-
.",,~.~"f,;..W"'%JJ"'.I~"'" J. ".'-iN"i'i.'."" , \ . I ~.~ " I
';"('':'''\:'~;\$~l?':$i~:.l,i"l!;;;;-it.d,'d~%'::i~'f;:\~'';I}il'..(",.. ',:i.' ;'~iD.J",a~{;' W .. , ,,~., "N' 1 I ,
""~/I;'~;YY?;j;:?Jii~~i\lf;,t31..ll""""'''')'":I~-'''"__~~j .,~~ '"'1', ',~ J \-"EJ 'L------r**
'''",.,,' ""1'"""" \,f'<I: ~".,' 101 ' "'.. 'n ~ h k' 'e 1: - 'N
"J~..".,,' ---.or: _~,;o""" :{.'~~r";,"^':' ~ fun, a QP~e.- 110 €lr' r----
.-- ,~,.. -'" .... L _...I 1 I I
,I t~~~ 'U.df,f.",l :_~----::;:::; f II I '\ W L--- - ...., '(-'" \- '\ 1 L~-~=:-
I I ).';~ ~ r.. -. _ '. --"'1 J L..._- ~
."" I U ~i'--l Jtija~o~ l__.J i0d p.~l"r- \ [J \ L:E----. r'--
---~'~' I '.J ,-~ ~\ \ 1 l'~* I'
~ 0;- .1 "', ,1'- ." I l__J --.. _' -i. -"'1 J ,___J __'3~' ).
"M~;;J~,.;Wi"" 6~ I, ,\, \ L--~. . ?"Qd-ff!~e- ~ r \ [] -- --:--1 r- \ \ 1\ ___J 16
Figure I-Sever Peterson Site Location Map
Ridge Creek (KES No. 2005-051)
~. KjOIHAUG ENVJRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Shakopee, Minnesota
~N No Scale
~-
---~ -----,-~~--- ----,------ ~- ------- ----~ ---.---- -~-------
LEGEND
~ SOIL BORROW AREA
[]]]]
.... ......
....... ... NEW UPlAND BUFFER
..........
...... ...
......... . (PUBLIC VALUE CREDIT)
........ .
..........
..........
.... ... ...
R R NEW BERM FOOTPRINT
, ,
EXISTING INDEX CDNTOUR
-702- (0.5 FOOT CDNTOUR INTERVAL)
EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR
(O.S.FDOT CONTOUR INTERVAL)
\~I EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
~~
?,,,,I,,,?f' .30 JOO
I ,
SCAlE IN FEET
;;.." ,.. -~..
6-FT MAX. BERM HEIGHT
,,-
CHECK I WETlAND SIDE
VPJ..VE SH:1Y SLOPE
-
SECTION:
1lJ.FT BERM TOP WIDTH
r 2.5-FT AVG. BERM HEIGHT
-
RICE LAKE SIDE WETlAND SIDE EXISTING
" 3HWSLOPE ~:P~ [:~ND
"-
'"
N
~
iri -----
m
a
a
N SECTION: TYPICAL BERM
~
~
CO
u:
0,
~ RICE lAKE SIDE
l 3H:1V SLOPE WETlAND SIDE
5H:1V SLOPE
~ ------
.
ro SECTION: BASIN OUTLET WEIR
~
g,
~
~ I HEREBY CERTIfY THAT THIS ORA'MNG WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPER\t1S!ON
"- AND THAT I AM A OULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAl GRADING PLAN
'a ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAlE OF "'. ISSUED FOR PERUITllIllG
-g t.tINNESOTA. BY DESCRIPTION
'5' ~ Me' 434 2nd Slrnal PETERSON MITIGATION SITE
!l; SIGNATURE [)Il~,,~c ~Q, ""...1 _.....d.ft<j
0: C a I n Excelsior, MN 55331
2HlJ5 Crt:1!Jam &roirormmJ!J4! Sal,jm.lnc. ph 952.346.3900 SEVm PETERSON WETLAND FIGURE xx
DAlE_REG.NO, P'Q.lJo...llJ9E1'I!i...o.u,.WhcOM....s.4C11l a,d Associates,lnc.'3 fx 952-346-3901
-,----- -------_.---,-. --"--~--._--.- .._._-~- -~-..._---~ -,...~..._-~-----~-~-- -----.
/3. D, ::J./
~ ;'
-
\:
~-e.,vI5ed
-
RESOLUTION NO. 6496
A Resolution Denying A Wetland Replacement Plan
For Ridge Creek Addition
WHEREAS, the City has received a Wetland Replacement Plan from Ridge
Creek I, Inc. for Ridge Creek Addition; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Rules Parts 8420.0540 and 8420.0550 set forth the applicable
standard for evaluating Wetland Replacement Plans; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties on file in the office of the City Engineer or
identified in Minn. Rule 8420.0230 have been mailed notice of the proposed Wetland
Replacement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee, acting in their role as the Local Governing
Unit, has reviewed the proposed Replacement Plan and considered the public values,
location, size and type of wetland being altered and recommended denial of the Wetland
Replacement Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. Based on the replacement standards in Minn. Rules Parts 8420.0630, and
on the recommendations of City staff and Technical Evaluation Panel
members, the Wetland Replacement plan is hereby denied for the
following reasons:
. The applicant has not provided an updated wetland delineation
report for the proposed wetland banking site for review by the
TEP. Therefore, none has been approved by the LGU.
. The construction of a wetland banking site requires approval of a
Wetland Bank Application (WBA). To date no WBA has been
submitted to the City, the swcn, BWSR nor the USACOE for
their respective reviews. In addition to the previously referenced
entities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service would need to receive copies of a WBA.
. The creation of the new wetland complex involves the construction
of a berm. Since the site is ,located within the floodway of the
Minnesota River, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be
required per City Code. As part of the CUP submittal, the City
would require a floodplain analysis to verify that the construction
.
-:.
of the berm would not adversely impact the Minnesota River and
adjacent properties. Because no CUP application has been
submitted, a determination as to whether the berm would have
such an adverse effect has not yet been made.
. The primary source of hydrology for the proposed wetland complex
is from high water conditions of the Minnesota River being
retained by the aforementioned berm. Based on visual
observations, sediment is deposited on the site during high water
conditions. The construction of a berm to retain hydrology has a
high potential to retain sediment and fill/degrade the replacement
wetland.
. The wetland replacement plan does not contain the required five...
year vegetation and establishment and management plan (Wetland
Conservation Act 8420.0530.D.(14)).
2. Denial of the Wetland Replacement Plan shall become effective upon its
adoption.
3. A copy of this decision shall be mailed to all interested parties and to the
applicant.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 2006.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-
" Scott SoU & Water Conservation District
7151 West 190th Street, Suite 125, Jordan, MN 55352
.qlo:.
(952) 492-5425 / Fax: (952) 492-5422
August 7, 2006
To: Joe Swentek
City of Shako pee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,~ 55379
From: Peter J. Beckius, District Manager
Scott Soil and Water Conservation District
Re: Review of the Revised Wetland Replacement Plan Application for the Ridge Creek I Site
As requested, a review of the July 14,2006 Revised Wetland Replacement Plan (WRP) for the Ridge Creek I
development has been completed by the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The project is
located in the S ~ of the NE 14, and the N ~ of the SE 14 of Section 14, Tl15N, R22W, City of Shako pee,
Scott County, Kjolhaug Environmental Service Company prepared the revisions to the WRP. The original
Wetland PennitApplication was submitted on April 4, 2005. The following comments and/or suggestions
are submitted for your consideration: .
. The July 14,2006 narrative refers to a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting that was held on
January 24,2006. The narrative also cited TEP recommendations as to where mitigation could occur,
i.e. on-site, off-site or a combination there-of. This is the SWCD recollection of our recommendation.
. The mitigation siting, contained in the narrative, identified a hierarchy for replacement as follows:
within the City of Shako pee, within the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, within the major
watershed district (Minnesota River) and, finally, within the County. As a point of clarification from
the Scott SWCD perspective, the hierarchy supported by the SWCD is as follows: Mitigation on-site
(Ridge Creek I), Mitigation within the same sub-watershed (sub-watershed 33122), Mitigation within
the WMO Boundary (Lower Minnesota River Watershed District), Mitigation within Scott County,
and finally, Mitigation within the same major watershed (watershed 33).
The WRP has identified a site within the WMO boundary (Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District) for mitigation. This location seems reasonable even though it is third on the SWCD
preferred hierarchy list since; 1) on-site mitigation would not result in a reasonable, practicable, and
environmentally beneficial replacement wetland and 2) there are no wetland bank sites currently
established in the sub-watershed.
. The proposed wetland mitigation site, shown in the WRP, has been identified on a parcel owned by
Sever Peterson. The narrative indicates that the mitigation area has a preliminary plan to create a large
wetland bank on the subject property. It is the applicant's intent that some of the wetland credits,
resulting in the successful implementation of the proposed bank plan, will be used to satisfy the Ridge
Creek I WRP.
The Scott SWCD researched the status of the Sever Peterson Wetland Bank Application (WBA).
Currently no WBA for the Sever Peterson site has been submitted to the SWCD, Local Governmental
Setving the Residents of Scott County Since 1941
. Units, the Board of Water and Soil Resources or the Army Corp of Engineers for review and
approval. In addition, the wetland delineation prepared for the Sever Peterson WBA site has not been
. formally approved by the regulating agencies. It should be noted that regulatory agencies have field
visited the site.
In order for the Ridge Creek I development to obtain mitigation credits fromthe Sever Peterson site,
the Sever Peterson WBA needs to be submitted to the various governmental agencies for review and
approval. This would seem reasonable since Ridge Creek Iwetland replacement is dependent on the
approval and successful construction of the Sever Peterson WBA site.
In summary, it is premature for the LGU (City of Shakopee) to assume that the wetland credits proposed for
mitigation for the Ridge Creek I development are going to be established since the Sever Peterson Wetland
Bank Application has not yet been submitted.
The SWCD recommends that the City of Shakopee obtain a copy of the Sever Peterson WBA and approvals
from the governmental units as documentation to support theuse of these credits for the Ridge Creek I WRP.
A letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the local government unit in an amount
sufficient to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland replacement will also be needed.
If you have any questions feel free to contact the Scott SWCD.
c: Terry Schwalbe, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Les Lemm, BWSR
Kelly Dlouhy, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Co.
Brad Jomson, Army COE
Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee
Randy Noecher, Applicant
Mike Graham, Graham Environmental Services
Se/Ving the Residents of Scott County Since 1941
Joe Swentek
,
From: Les Lemm [les.lemm@bwsr.state.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23,20064:39 PM
To: Joe Swentek; mkjol@kjolhaugenv.com
Cc: Thomas Mings; Bruce Loney; Julie Klima; pbeckius@co.scott.mn.us;
mgrahamges@Direcway.com; randyn50@hotmail,com; kelly@kjolhaugenv.com;
brad .a.johnson@mvp02.usace,army.mil; todd@strlawyer.com
Subject: RE: Ridge Creek
Mark, Joe, et aI.,
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I was out of the office last week and wasn't able to get anything to you til now. I
have a subcommittee meeting on the day of the TEP, but here are some issues and questions that should be discussed at
the meeting:
The application states that the proposed replacement wetland is part of a larger mitigation site of approximately 47 acres.
I assume this is intended to be a banking site. Has a banking application been developed? Has there been a banking pre-
application site visit with the Corps and a BWSR wetland specialist? When would the rest of the project take place? How
can this portion of the project be completed without the rest? If this could be successful on its own, how would later
construction of the wetland bank affect this portion of the site? What if this is approved but the adjacent banking doesn't
happen? Wouldn't this part of the site be dependent on the rest of the site being completed?
I have not seen a delineation report for the site. Is there an approved delineation? If so, is it still valid? Has sufficient
documentation been submitted to support a current lack of hydrology? Has information on ditch locations, depths, and
effectiveness been submitted? Are the soils currently hydric? Has a cropping history with air photo analysys been
submitted?
The "Grading Plan" section of the application states that a berm will be constructed along the northern perimiter of the site,
off-set 20 feet from the "delineated wetland boundary." Does this imply the wetland boundary is at the edge of the field? If
so, why is that area wetland and the field not? If there isn't a current approved delineation, the 2002 delineation report
should be reviewed to determine if the report is complete and if the data is still relevent, or if additional information is
needed. A site review should also be conducted, and for hydrology determination purposes it should be noted that the
delineation was conducted in late August and September.
A berm is. proposed - how will the berm affect downslope hydrology? Also, it may be advisable to talk with our wetland
specialist and the Corps about the acceptable use of berms in mitigation sites.
Assuming the area currently doesn't have wetland hydrology, will there be sufficient water for wetland hydrology after the
project is completed? What is the current and proposed frequency and duration of flooding? Is hydrology monitoring
proposed? If so, how, where, for how long, etc.
What kind of trees will be completed and at what quantities (I did not see a table 6)? 20 foot spacing may be a wide
spacing for certain tree species/shrubs. How will they be maintained? Are there performance standards relating to tree
survival that must be met?
On the administrative side of things, where are we in the application process? Ido not recall seeing a notice - has the
application been determined to be incomplete? As I understand it, the application is being considered during the plat
process. This is good, but we also need to make sure we are following the timeline, decision, and noticing requirements of
WCA and 15.99 as WCA is a separate program.
As you can see, I had many questions. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed. Again, I will not be at
the meeting, but Tom Mings from our office should be there to represent BWSR. I will not be in the office tomorrow or
Friday, but should be around Monday if you need to contact me. Thanks.
Les Lemm
Board Conservationist
Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
office: 651-296-6057
1
cell: 651-341-4208
, >>> "Mark Kjolhaug" <mkjol@kjolhaugenv.com> 8/23/2006 1 :24:42 PM >>>
Joe -
Randy as asked us to attend the meeting as his representative. In order to prepare most effectively, we would appreciate
receiving comments from you, Les, the COE, or anyone else as soon as possible. (We have already received Pete's
comments.) ,
Would you like us to arrange for access to the site?
What time is the meeting scheduled for?
Thank you.
Mark
-
From: S. Todd Rapp [mailto:todd@strlawyer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23,200612:47 PM
To: Randy Noecker; Joe Swentek
Cc: Julie Klima; Bruce Loney; Mike Graham; Mark Kjolhaug
Subject: Re: Ridge Creek
Mr. Noecker and I have spoken this a.m., and he indeed wishes to proceed with a TEP 8/29.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe <mailto:JSwentek@cLshakopee.mn.us> Swentek
To: Randy Noecker <mailto:randyn50@hotmail.com>
Cc: Bruce <mailto:BLoney@cLshakopee.mn.us> Loney; Julie Klima <mailto:JKlima@cLshakopee.mn.us> ;
todd@strlawyer.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11 :04 AM
Subject: Ridge Creek
Randy,
I know there have been several e-mails concerning the scheduling of a TEP meeting to discuss the proposed wetland
replacement plan for the above referenced project. I am writing this e-mail to confirm whether or not you wish to place this
item upon the August 29, 2006 agenda.
2
.
. Please advise.
Thank you.
Joe Swentek
City of Shako pee
Project Engineer
Ph: (952) 233.9363
Fx: (952) 233.3801
3