08-02-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. David Osberg July 6, 2004 Page 2 00 have assumed we will need to prepare a preliminary design providing additional detail to the concept provided with the permit application. We will also determine what information will be required by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). We understand that previous discussions by Mark Frazer with the Area Hydrologist, Molly Shodeen, have indicated that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) may be required. Mandatory EA W Categories are provided on the following State of Minnesota rules website: httD :llwww.revisor.lel!.state.mn.us/arule/44l 0/4300 .html Subpart 25 for marinas states: "For construction or expansion of a marina or harbor that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of water surface area used temporarily or permanently for docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft, the local government unit shall be the RGU." The City dock proposed in the COE permit application shows the maximum length to be 300 feet. This would allow approximately 66 feet of water surface width for docks and maneuvering of watercraft before an EA W is mandatory. We assumed that the sale of fuel on the dock is not a consideration of the City. This may affect the EA W requirements. Another MnDNR concern is impact to flood levels. Flow modeling may be required to demonstrate that the City dock will not impact upstream 100-year flood levels. We recently completed this for a marina near the Robert Street bridge in downtown St. Paul. We will contact the Area Hydrologist to determine MnDNR permitting requirements. It is difficult to determine at this time what additional information may be required by the COE and/or MnDNR to obtain a permit. They may receive comments from other groups that will need to be addressed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT), for example, may want assurance that the City dock will not affect bridge pier and abutment scour (erosion of the channel bottom). We are prepared to address these concerns, by two-dimensional flow modeling if necessary . For the purposes of this proposal we have assumed that an EA Wand flow modeling will not be required for permitting. We will prepare an MnDNR permit application addressing what we find to be the primary concerns based on discussions with the Area Hydrologist. Our work for Phase II will depend on the results of the permitting process. If the permitting process goes smoothly and the preliminary design remains largely un-changed, Phase II will require adding further detail to the plans such as, specifications for dock anchoring and dock construction, and preparing bidding documents that meet City requirements, and obtaining bids from reputable contractors . We propose discussing this scope in greater detail once the permitting process is near completion. We propose to work on a time and expenses basis based on the rates provided in our attached fee