HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-15 Applicant Ltr to BRRA Re King Plan tWetland Conservation Act ApplicationXc
SM
August 15, 2005
Mr. Benjamin Meyer
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
2335 West Highway 30
St. Paul, MN 55113
RE. King Plant Wetland conservation Act Application
Dear Mr. Meyer,
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1993
This letter is written in response to the letter I received from you dated August 5,
2005, and regarding xcel Energy's WCA application dated July 25, 2005.
I would like to clarify the replacement plan procedure that xcel Energy followed
per the WCA Rule 3420.0543.
According to 3420.0543 Wetland Replacement siting the following order is
required;
A. siting wetland replacement must follow this priority order:
1. on site or in the same minor watershed as the affected wetland;
2. in the same watershed as the affected wetland;
3. in the same county as the affected wetland;
4. in an adjacent watershed or county to the affected wetland; and
5. statewide, for;
a. wetlands affected in greater than 30 percent areas; and
b. public transportation projects, except that wetlands affected in
less than 50 percent areas, and wetlands affected in the seven -
county metropolitan area must be replaced in the affected
county, or if no restoration opportunities exist in the county, in
another seven- county metropolitan area county.
B. When reasonable, praticable and environmentally beneficial
replacement opportunities are not available in siting properties listed in
Item A, the applicant may seek opportunities at the next level.
Xcel Energy is in compliance with WCA replacement plan siting as presented in
our WCA application dated July 25, 2005 in that we first looked on the Ding Plant
site for a wetland replacement area. However, there is no area on the plant
H AW o R Dlstorm water%k i n g ro adwetf and re pf a cem e nt, d o c
property that is suitable for wetland development. A wetland known as the
Junker Pond was constructed along Stagecoach Trail in fall 1995. This area was
a former landfill that was cleaned and excavated to a pond and bike trail.
However, when Xcel Energy constructed an additional cell to the ling ash landfill
in 2002 some of the wetland credits from this pond were used for the impact the
the Perro Pond. It was agreed at the time that Xcel Energy would not request the
use of the remaining wetland bank credits from Junker Pond. Xcel Energy then
reviewed information in the Minnesota Wetland Bank account listing available on
the BWSR web site. We are required to purchase wetland bank credits that are
COE approved, When the accounts listed for Washington County were
contacted they indicated that all of the COE approved bank credits have been
purchased and that there are no COE approved credits available in Washington
County at this time. The next step was to try to find COE approved credits within
an adjacent watershed or county, which is the St Croix Watershed and Chisago
County. When Xcel Energy contacted Chisago county we found that there were
some wetland bank credits available that are COE approved. This is what is
listed in our WCA application.
This explanation should serve to clarify the selection of Chisago county for
wetland replacement and why the affected wetland is not being replaced within
the Middle St. Croix WMO.
If you have any other questions, please call me of (612) 330 -6743.
Lk
Sharon Sarappp
Sr. Environmental Analyst
Cc: Eric Johnson — city of oak Park Heights
Dan Seeman — Department of the Army - COE
Jyneen Thatcher — Washington Convervation District
Molly Shodeen — DNR
Melissa Lewis — Middle St Croix WMO
H AW O R Dlstormwaterlki n g ro adwet I a nd re pl a ceme nt. d ❑c