2022.11.21 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

S:\Community Development\LGU\WCA 2022\22.15 Xcel Energy 13620 Fenway Blvd\Replacement Plan\MEMO_HugoCityCouncil_XcelHTCWetlandReplacement_111122.docx 178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum To: Tom Weidt, City of Hugo Mayor Becky Petryk, City of Hugo Council Member Phil Klein, City of Hugo Council Member David Strub, City of Hugo Council Member Mike Miron, City of Hugo Council Member CC: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director From: Alison Harwood, WSB Date: November 11, 2022 Re: City Project No. 22.15 Xcel Energy Wetland Replacement WSB Project No. 019629-00 This memo has been drafted regarding Xcel Energy’s application to impact and replace wetlands as part of an expansion project for their Hugo Training Facility. Zachary Mahlum, for Xcel Energy, submitted a MN joint application for activities affecting water resources in Minnesota requesting approval for wetland impact sequencing and replacement. The application was considered complete on September 27, 2022, and a subsequent notice of application was issued on October 3, 2022. The TEP provided comments on the application, which the applicant subsequently responded to. The purpose of the project is to provide improved training facilities for gas, electrical, and nuclear operators and improve in-processing for planned nuclear plant maintenance outages A wetland boundary and type application was approved on September 9, 2022 which identified two (2) wetland basins within the project area. Wetland 1 is a small (0.39 acres) farmed Type 2 wetland, while W etland 2 is a large shrub/wooded swamp wetland, only a small portion of which exists on the subject property. Wetlands 1 and 2 provide the following wetland functions: •Surface water detention •Nutrient Transformation •Carbon Sequestration •Sediment and Particulate Retention •Other Wildlife Habitat Several alternatives were considered for this project as part of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) sequencing requirement. The first was the no-build alternative. This was rejected as it would not accomplish the purpose of providing the improved training or in-processing facilities. The second was to add onto the existing building. This was rejected as it was cost-prohibitive. The third was to design a 2-cell system for stormwater management. This was rejected as it would not meet City stormwater requirements and would reduce or eliminate hydrology to the wetland. The fourth was to move the stormwater pond to elsewhere on the property but was rejected as no alternative areas were available that weren’t already proposed for other facilities. The fifth was to utilize a different property but that would negate the comprehensive safety/training aspect of the development. The sixth and preferred alternative locates the new G.10