p-ear2-86b

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - SENECA AREA COLLECTION SYSTEM, PHASES 3, 4, AND 5 BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Collection System. Based on the environmental review by MPCA staff; the EAW; comments and information received during the comment period; and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

Project Description

1. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (“MCES”) (Proposer) is proposing to replace andreline a total of approximately 31,000 linear feet of a portion of MCES’s underground sewercollection system (“Collection System” or “Project” ) within the city of Burnsville (“City”). TheProposer will complete the Project in three phases (Phases 3, 4 and 5). The collection systemconveys wastewater to the MCES Seneca Wastewater Treatment Facility (“WWTF”) located inEagan, Minnesota.

2. In phases 3 and 4 of the Project, the Proposer will replace existing collection pipes with larger pipes,and in Phase 5 will reline existing collection pipes with a cured in place (“CIPP”) method. All work iswithin City boundaries.

3. The Phase 3 work consists of replacing approximately 7,648 lineal feet of collection pipes withlarger collection pipes, and also replaces 32 manhole structures. The Phase 3 work begins betweenCourt Place and Judicial Road in the City, and ends just north of Highway 3 and south of theFrontage Road near Oliver Road.

4. The Phase 4 work consists of replacing approximately 8,252 lineal feet of collection pipes withlarger collection pipes. The Phase 4 work begins at the northern end of Phase 3, and terminatesnear the intersection of Cliff Road and Pleasant Avenue.

5. The Phase 5 work consists of installing CIPP lining within the existing collection pipes approximately15,326 lineal feet. The Phase 5 work begins east of Interstate 35-W, near the intersection of

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota

Southcross Drive and Carriage Lane, and ends in a residential neighborhood off West Park Drive and Hollow Park Lane, south and east of the intersection of County Road 42 and Burnsville Parkway.

6. MCES identified through system inspection and condition assessment that portions of the MCES collection system in the City are highly deteriorated and/or undersized in wastewater conveyance capacity for future growth.

7. The work in Phases 3 and 4 will also address future wastewater capacity needs consistent with the

City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City must submit to the MCES a Comprehensive Sewer Plan (“CSP”) describing service needs from the MCES. The City’s CSP outlines potential alignments and sizing for trunk sewers as well as connection points to MCES interceptors.

Environmental Review of the Project 8. The Project will have more than 2,000,000 gallons per day increase in wastewater flow capacity.

Therefore, in accordance with Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A), the MPCA prepared an EAW.

9. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. pt. 4410.0200, subp. 24). The MPCA is the Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”) for preparing the EAW for this Project.

10. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows:

a. Notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment was published in the EQB Monitor on April 27, 2015, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.

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

c. The MPCA provided a news release to media, Twin Cities metro counties, and other interested parties on April 27, 2015.

11. During the 30-day comment period that ended on May 27, 2015, the MPCA received comment

letters from the Dakota County Physical Development Division (“County”), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”), and the Department of the Army, St. Paul District Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”). There were no letters received from citizens. The list of commenters and comments, and the MPCA’s responses to comments, are included as Appendix A to these Findings.

12. The comment letters are included as Appendix B to these Findings.

Standard for Decision on the Need for an EIS 13. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the

EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The agency must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R.

2

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota

4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.

B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) shall consider the

following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.

D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other

available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 14. The MPCA finds that the types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the

Project include: • Impacts to surface waters • Impacts to wildlife

15. MCES previously identified three Historically Recognized Environmental Conditions (“HREC”) at

properties adjacent to Project Phases 3 and 4. These are sites where a past release of a hazardous material has occurred in connection with the property, and the release has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority. Although the MPCA does not anticipate any groundwater concerns, MCES is testing the groundwater at the Project in these locations to determine if there is contamination from the HREC properties.

16. Written comments received during the comment period raised additional issues, as follows: • Coordination of work with Dakota County’s (“County”) planned regional greenway trails • Potential for impacts on wetlands • Ensure rapid stabilization and revegetation of disturbed soils immediately after construction to

avoid establishment of invasive species, and use of weed-free mulches, wildlife-friendly erosion control materials, and use of native seed when possible

• Formal delineation of wetlands if there are potential wetland and tributary impacts • Obtain a Corps Clean Water Act permit if the Project involves a discharge of dredge or fill

material into waters of the United States.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota Findings on impacts to surface waters Impaired waters 17. The MPCA examined the potential environmental impacts associated with impaired waters.

Portions of the Project construction work will be near Willow Creek, stormwater ponds at the Sue Fisher Memorial Park, the Minnesota River, Early Lake, Twin Lakes, and Crystal Lake. The Minnesota River and Crystal Lake are identified as impaired.

18. The Minnesota River is impaired for mercury in fish tissue and in the water column, dissolved oxygen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBS”) in fish tissue, and turbidity. Crystal Lake is impaired for nutrients/eutrophication biological indicators, and mercury in fish tissue.

19. There is no discharge to surface waters from the collection pipes. The Project will rehabilitate existing collection pipes or remove existing pipes, and replace with larger pipes. The construction work is underground and primarily located in the same areas where collection pipes were initially installed, along existing highway and street rights-of-way.

20. Because of Project work in proximity to impaired waters, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) Construction Stormwater (“CSW”) Permit will required more protective erosion and sediment control during construction.

21. A portion of the Project work includes a collection pipe crossing a creek at the north end of Willow

Drive on the west end of the stormwater pond complex adjacent to Sue Fisher Memorial Park. A portion of the Project may include work on the collection pipe that passes through a stormwater pond at Cliff Road. The collection pipes will be relocated, but the city sewer that connects to the collection pipe within the confines of the pond will be maintained.

Surface water runoff 22. The Project will not result in a significant increase in impervious surface on the Project site, and thus

will not change the quality or quantity of surface water runoff after the Project has been completed.

23. During construction, the Proposer will temporarily disturb soils resulting in potential erosion and sedimentation. However, the NPDES/SDS CSW Permit contains mitigation measure requirements known as Best Management Practice (“BMPs”) to address construction-related impacts.

24. The MCES and its consultant prepared a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) to be

included in construction contract documents. The SWPPP identifies specific construction BMPs. Dependent on the ownership of the property where the Project work is occurring, the responsible Local Governmental Unit such as City or County, or other Regulatory Authority such as the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), will review and approve the Project contract documents, including the SWPPP. The Proposer will maintain the approved SWPPP on site during construction.

4

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota 25. After erosion protection and sediment control BMPs are implemented and construction is

complete, the Proposer will restore all construction sites to their original site grades in order to match pre-construction conditions. In addition, the Project sites will be stabilized and re-vegetated using weed-free mulches, wildlife friendly erosion control materials, and native seed when possible.

Wetlands

26. Phase 4 of the Project will impact wetlands identified and managed by the City, east of I-35W on the west and north side of the Walmart parking lot, and the stormwater pond across Cliff Road. Work within wetlands require the City’s Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit, which has established wetland requirements based on City code. The potential impacted area is approximately 6,000 square feet (0.14) acre for the work.

27. Phase 5 Project work includes CIPP lining for existing collection pipe located along a protected wetland east of Southcross Drive. Although CIPP lining work does not require open trench work as with replacement of collection pipe, excavation work is necessary to facilities the CIPP lining insertion. Excavation is limited in depth and width (5 feet deep and less than 10 feet around). If the excavation work does require work within the wetland or within the wetlands buffer and setback area, the City’s WCA permit will include applicable requirements.

28. MCES anticipates the impacted wetlands will be restored to existing conditions with no reduction in

wetland area. Therefore no credits, off-sites or new wetland construction are required. 29. The Corps commented that MCES is required to have a formal delineation of wetlands conducted

for the Project if there are potential wetland and tributary impacts. Based on this, the MCES must work with the Corps to ensure a determination on the wetland delineation requirements for all aspects of the Project, and to meet that if/where applicable.

Dredge and fill into surface waters of the state 30. The Corps commented that if the Project involves a discharge of dredge or fill material into waters

of the United States (“U.S.”), a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) permit is required. The Corps encourages MCES to request a pre-application consultant meeting with the Corps, if during the planning stages, it appears a Corps CWA permit will be required.

31. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to surface waters, including impaired waters, surface water runoff, and wetlands. The MPCA considered impacts on surface waters reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project during the review process. MCES will take appropriate mitigation measures to prevent significant adverse impacts.

32. The MPCA finds the proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to surface waters, including impaired waters, surface water runoff, and wetlands, that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

5

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota Findings on Impacts to wildlife 33. The MDNR database review indicates Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a Minnesota state-

listed threatened species, are present in the vicinity of the Project and may be encountered on Project sites.

34. The MDNR provided general recommendations on avoiding and minimizing impacts to the rare

turtle. To prevent the potential for negative impacts to the Blanding’s Turtle, MCES will provide its contractors with the MDNR-published information regarding avoiding the rare turtle, and require that its contractors follow appropriate measures during construction to prevent impacts to Blanding’s Turtles, including a contractor requirement to restrict work in wetlands during frozen conditions to avoid hibernating turtles.

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

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to wildlife. The MPCA considered impacts on wildlife reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project during the review process. MCES will take methods to prevent significant adverse impacts.

36. The MPCA finds the proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to wildlife reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Impacts on groundwater 37. MCES previously identified three Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) at

properties adjacent to Phases 3 and 4. These are sites where a past release of a hazardous material has occurred, and the release has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority.

38. The MCES will retain an independent laboratory to collect and analyze groundwater samples from the three HREC sites. If groundwater is contaminated, MCES will prepare and implement a plan to treat or dispose of contaminated groundwater. In addition, if soil or debris at Project sites is found to be contaminated MCES will remove the contaminated soil and dispose of it off-site at a permitted landfill.

Cumulative Potential Effects 39. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

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

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota 40. The County is planning several regional greenway trails, and portions of the Project will overlap with

the County’s planned trails. MCES may realize greenway trails construction cost savings from constructing these trails jointly with this Project. While the work will overlap, the MPCA determined the County’s planned regional trails will not interact with the Project in a way that would cause significant cumulative potential environmental effects. MCES is pursuing discussions with the County, in order to determine if there are opportunities to reduce public costs and coordinate between the two projects.

41. MPCA’s review of the EAW, the Project Facility Plan and related design plans and construction

specifications, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

42. The MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant cumulative

environmental effects due to related or anticipated future project.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 43. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

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

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

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA Facility Plan Approval Plans and Specifications Approval NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 401 Certification, and Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit/Letter

of Permission (Wetland) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

MDNR Public Waters Work Permit

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)

Water Well (Dewatering) Permit, if dewatering is found to be necessary

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

Permit to work in right of way for Crossing of Trunk Highway 13, Crossing of Interstate 35W

Dakota County Utility-County Road Right of Way Permit Obstruction Permit City of Burnsville Right of Way Permit Conditional Use Permit (for fill greater than 10 cubic yards) Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) Permit Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Permit to work in Railroad right of way

7

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota 45. MPCA Facility Plan, Plans and Specifications Approval. MCES submitted design plans and

construction specifications for the Project to the MPCA for technical review and approval, to ensure proposed design and construction methods are consistent with good engineering practice, and all applicable state and federal criteria are met.

46. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit. MCES or its Project contractors will obtain a

MPCA NPDES/SDS CSW Permit for the Project since the Project disturbs more than one acre. This permit requires the use of BMPs such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt re-vegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving construction sites.

47. MCES or its Project contractors must have a SWPPP that will provide more details as to the specific

BMPs to be implemented, and will also address: phased construction, vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures that will be implemented under the SWPPP; and, timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The NPDES/SDS CSW Permit also requires the permittee to provide adequate stormwater treatment capacity to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the Project is constructed.

48. Corps –Section 404 Clean Water Act Letter of Permission (wetlands). MCES or its contractors will

obtain the Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit/Letter of Permission. This letter describes the procedures and permissions regarding excavation in wetlands and placement of excavated materials into the waters of the U.S. or their associated wetlands.

49. MDNR License to Cross Public Lands and Waters. MCES or its contractors will obtain a license for

the passage of piping over, under, or across any state land or public waters. MDNR standards and criteria include route design, structure design, construction methods, safety considerations, and right-of-way maintenance to provide maximum protection and preservation of the natural environment, and to minimize any adverse effects that may result from utility crossings.

50. MDH Application for Temporary Water Well Permit. If MCES or its contractors determine

dewatering is required during the Project, MCES or its contractors will obtain the MDH dewatering well permit. The dewatering well application requires the submittal of proposed dewatering information that ensures well setback requirements are met, that the dewatering wells are constructed and abandoned in accordance with MDH regulations.

51. MnDOT Utility Permit to work in State Right-of-Way. MCES or its contractors will obtain the Right-

of-Way Permit. The permit requires construction work that is not detrimental to the state right-of-way and will safeguard the public, and that the state right-of-way on trunk highways is restored to its original condition.

52. County Utility Right-of-Way Permit. MCES or its contractors will obtain this permit in order to

conduct Project work on and around the County highway right of way in accordance with the County’s ordinances and codes.

8

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – Seneca Area Conclusions of Law Collection System, Phases 3, 4, and 5 And Order Burnsville, Minnesota 53. County Right of Way Obstruction Permit. MCES or its contractors will obtain this permit in order to

temporarily close a traffic lane or obstruct any part of a County road right of way for construction/non-excavation activity.

54. City Right of Way Permit. MCES or its contractors will obtain this permit in order to temporarily close a traffic lane or obstruct any part of a City road or street right of way for construction/non-excavation activity.

55. City Conditional Use Permit (for fill greater than 10 cubic yards). MCES or its contractors will obtain the City’s conditional use permit. This permit ensures that standards and criteria in the City’s ordinances for fill in areas of the City where construction work occurs, in particular where excavation has occurred, and the area is restored by backfilling to pre-construction condition.

56. City WCA Permit. MCES or its contractors will obtain the City’s WCA Permit for work in water bodies that are regulated by the City.

57. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way Permit. MCES or its contractors will obtain the Railroad Right of Way Permit to for construction work within the railroad right of way. This permit ensures protection of the rail property including, but not limited to, rail track and to minimize disruption of rail service.

58. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs

59. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(D). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

60. The MPCA reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project.

• Data presented in the EAW • Project Facility Plans, plans and specifications • Other reports and analysis as appropriate • Permits and environmental review of similar projects

61. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relied on information provided by MCES,

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

62. The MPCA determined that the environmental effects of the Project have been addressed by the design and permit development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects.

9

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) – Seneca Area Collection System (Project)

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Steven Mielke, Dakota County. Letter received May 26, 2015. 2. Brooke Haworth, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Email received May 26, 2015.

3. Ryan Malterud, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter received May 27, 2015.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Steven Mielke, Director, Physical Development Division, Dakota County. Letter received

May 26, 2015. Comment: Dakota County Physical Development Division (County) staff would like to meet with MCES

staff in order to coordinate the replacement and rehabilitation of the MCES Seneca Collection System Project (Project) with the County’s planned regional greenway trails. Phase 3 of the Project is parallel to the County’s proposed Lake Marion Regional Greenway Trail (Trail) an area between Williams Drive and Sunset Lake, and Phase 5 (relining) of Project is parallel to same Trail in general area of Cam Ram Park.

Response: MCES staff will contact County staff to determine where work can be coordinated. 2. Comments by Brooke Haworth, Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central Region, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Email received May 26, 2015. Comment 2-1: A dewatering permit is a public water appropriations permit issued by the MDNR.

Application should be made through the online MPARS site at http://www.dnr.state.mn.;us/mpars/index.html (and correctly noted on page 17 of the EAW).

Response: MCES staff responded that should MCES determine it is necessary to dewater groundwater

during construction, the contractor for the Project is responsible for obtaining and adhering to the requirements of all applicable MDNR permits.

Comment 2-2: The MDNR Division of Lands & Minerals is responsible for granting permission to

companies that propose to cross public waters with utility infrastructure projects (such as municipal water, sanitary sewer, and electrical lines). Activities associated with this Project require repair of utilities crossing public waters or public water wetlands. The MDNR should be contacted

MCES Seneca Collection System Responses to Comments on the Burnsville, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

to determine whether a license amendment or new license may be necessary. See the MDNR website at: http://dnr.state.mn.us/permits/utility_crossing/index.html.

Response: MCES staff responded that they will contact the MDNR to determine whether a license

amendment or new license may be necessary. Comment 2-3: Blanding’s Turtles, a state-threatened species, may be encountered during work on the

Project. The MDNR appreciates that contractors will be given guidance information and recommends that work in wetlands occur outside of frozen conditions, as excavations in winter can expose hibernating species with resulting mortality. The western quarter of Phase 5 as it skirts public water wetland #19038000 may be at risk for winter excavation. For assistance in determining whether an area is of concern for this issue, please contact area nongame specialist Chris E. Smith, at christopher.e.smith@state.mn.us, 651-259-5776.

Response: MCES staff responded that the contractor will be provided the MDNR-published information

regarding avoiding Blanding Turtles, and the contractor will be restricted from work in wetlands during frozen conditions to avoid hibernating turtles.

Comment 2-4: Rapid stabilization and re-vegetation of disturbed soils should occur immediately after

construction in vegetated areas to avoid establishment of invasive species, prolific in urban areas. The MDNR requests weed-free mulches, wildlife-friendly erosion control materials, and native seed are used when possible.

Response: MCES staff responded that: 1) erosion control practices will be maintained until Project is

complete and entire site has undergone final stabilization; and 2) the Project site will be stabilized and revegetated using weed-free mulches, wildlife friendly erosion control materials, and native seed when possible.

3. Ryan Malterud, Senior Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Letter received

May 27, 2015. Comment 3-1: Section 7 of the EAW should be updated to accurately depict what land covers exist

within the project area. Response: Section 7 of the EAW describes changes in acreage of cover types before and after a project.

Item 6 of the EAW describes the Project as rehabilitating or replacing portions of the existing MCES wastewater collection system. The existing MCES wastewater collection system is subsurface and primarily adjacent to existing roads and streets. Where excavation is proposed in these areas, there will be restoration of the roads and streets to pre-Project conditions. In addition, a portion of the Project runs along residential backyards, where MCES has easements. Where the Project construction work requires excavation and/or removal of residential trees and/or hardscaping, MCES is replacing both trees and hardscaping. Item 8 of the EAW identifies the Corps 401 Permit Section 404 Clean Water Act Letter of Permission is to be obtained, as is the city of Burnsville’s Wetlands Conservation Act Permit. 11.b.iv a) of the EAW identifies wetland areas in the Project area, and the estimated impacts (0.14 acre). However, there will be restoration to the area, and there is no loss of wetland area in the Project.

2

MCES Seneca Collection System Responses to Comments on the Burnsville, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 3-2: MCES is required to have a formal delineation of wetlands conducted for the Project if

there are potential wetland and tributary impacts. Response: Based on the Corps statement, the MCES staff must work with the Corps to ensure a

determination is made on wetland delineation requirements, and meet that where applicable. Comment 3-3: If the Project involves a discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S., a

Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is required. If required, the Corps would consider, within the project site, direct impacts to waters of the U.S., which may include aquatic resources such as wetlands and ditches, as well other aquatic resources that would be indirectly affected by the proposed direct impacts to waters of the U.S., such as the Minnesota River or floodplain wetlands. The Corps evaluation of a CWA permit application involves multiple analyses. If, during the planning stages, it seems that a Corps permit may be needed for this project, the Corps encourages the Project Proposer to request a pre-application consultation meeting with the Corps to obtain information regarding the data, studies or other information that will be necessary for the permit evaluation process.

Response: MCES staff must also work with the Corps to determine if a Corps permit is required for work

for the Project.

3

1

From: Haworth, Brooke (DNR)To: Drach, Nancy (MPCA)Subject: MCES Seneca Rehabilitation EAW-DNR commentsDate: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:51:39 PM

Ms. Drach,

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the MCES Seneca Area Collection System Rehabilitation – Phases 3, 4, and 5. We offer the following comments for your consideration.

Item 8. Permits and Approvals Required:· Please note that a dewatering permit is a public water appropriations permit issued by the

DNR. Application should be made through the online MPARS site at:http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html. (This is correctly noted on page 17.)

· The DNR Division of Lands & Minerals is responsible for granting permission to companiesthat propose to cross public waters with utility infrastructure projects (such as municipalwater, sanitary sewer, and electrical lines). Activities associated with this project requirerepair of utilities crossing public waters or public water wetlands. Please contact the DNR todetermine whether a license amendment or new license may be necessary. Seehttp://dnr.state.mn.us/permits/utility_crossing/index.html.

Item 13. Ecological Resources:· The document notes that Blanding’s turtles, a state-threatened species, may be

encountered during work on this project. We appreciate that contractors will be givenguidance information on avoidance measures. We recommend that work in wetlands occuroutside of frozen conditions, as excavations in winter can expose hibernating species withresulting mortality. The western quarter of Phase 5 as it skirts the public water wetland19038000 may be at risk for winter excavation. For assistance in determining whether anarea is of concern for this issue, please contact area nongame specialist Chris E. Smith atchistopher.e.smith@state.mn.us, 651-259-5776.

· Where excavation will occur in vegetated areas, rapid stabilization and re-vegetation ofdisturbed soils will be important in order to avoid the establishment of invasive species thatare prolific in the urban area. Please stabilize and re-vegetate immediately afterconstruction ends using weed-free mulches, wildlife friendly erosion control materials, andnative seed when possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Please call with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Brooke Haworth Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central RegionMnDNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources

2

1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106Phone: 651-259-5755Email: Brooke.haworth@state.mn.us

3