09-26-2022 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 Project Name and/or Number: Orono Public Works Facility Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements . Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: The City of Orono is proposing to construct a new public works facility. Included in the project is a public works building, parking areas, material storage areas, utilities, landscaping, and stormwater management features. The public works department provides a large range of services to the residents of Orono including providing utilities such a s storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water, maintaining streets, water treatment, leaf and grass drop-off and compost sites, and property inspections. The current public works building is undersized and has no room to expand at its current site. It is also located next to a residential area that is not compatible with the use of a public works facility. Because of this, the current proposed site was selected by the City for the new publics work building. It is centrally located within Orono and will be able to provide adequate support to residents. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternative s that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sit es, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: No-Build Alternative: While the no-build alternative does not impact any wetlands, it would not address the needs of the project. The current public works building is undersized and does not meet the needs of the City’s residents and is also located in a residential area not compatible with the use of a public works site. Reduced Site Size: The facility site could be condensed and shifted to the west, with a road routed around the wetland on the north side. However, this facility would be undersized and would not allow the public works department to adequately serve th e City’s residents. The proposed facility has indoor space for maintenance vehicles as well as office space necessary for the amount of employees that work in the department. There is also outdoor storage planned within the bituminous area for salt and other materials necessary for the public works department to complete their work. If the facility is shifted west, storage space would be lost. This alternative could result in no wetland impacts however it would not meet the objectives of the project. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from consideration. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): Wetland impacts have been minimized by: • Adjusting the grading of the filtration basin near Wetland 3 to reduce impacts to only the amount needed for a stormwater outlet. • The minimum amount of rip rap needed to prevent erosion according to the MnDOT standard plate 3133D is being used at the stormwater outlet into Wetland 3. Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. N/A