Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-127 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2012/09/04RESOLUTION NO. 12-127 APPROVING RECORD OF DECISION AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MINNEHAHA CREEK REACH 20 RESTORATION Minnehaha Creek between Meadowbrook Road and Louisiana Avenue South WHEREAS, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("Proposer") of a project to restore 4,675 linear feet of straightened channel of Minnehaha Creek to its former channel on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and City of St. Louis Park property. This action will restore former channel sinuosity, improve stormwater filtration, update canoe access, develop recreational trails, and maximize stream, wetland, and riparian habitat along the creek within St. Louis Park ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW") category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, Subpart 26 Streams and Ditches; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, Subpart 26; and WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared by Interfluve, Incorporated, and the Howard R. Green Company, on behalf of the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City of St. Louis Park consistent with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400; and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on June 11, 2012 in accordance with applicable State laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the comment period closed on July 11, 2012 and four regulatory agencies submitted wntten comments during the comment penod; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the comments from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and finds it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and recommends the City Council approve the Record of Decision and determine that no environmental impact statement ("EIS") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ("Negative Declaration"). Resolution No. 12-127 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Mmnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Environmental Assessment Worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Revie r Administration: City Attest: City Clerk Adoed by the City Council September 4, 2012 c.p. /2 May Resolution No. 12-127 -3- "Exhibit A" III City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, Minnesota RECORD OF DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, and CONCLUSIONS DATE: August 28, 2012 RE: Determination of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) PROJECT: Minnehaha Creek Restoration — Reach 20 LOCATION: Minnehaha Creek between Meadowbrook Road and Louisiana Avenue FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") is the Proposer of a project to restore 4,675 linear feet of straightened channel of Minnehaha Creek to its former channel on City of St. Louis Park property. This action will restore former channel sinuosity, improve stormwater filtration, update canoe access, develop recreational trails, and maximize stream, wetland, and riparian habitat along the creek within St. Louis Park. ("Project"); and 2. The Project falls within the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW") category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 26 Streams and Ditches; and 3. The City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 26; and 4. An EAW was prepared by Interfluve, Incorporated, and the Howard R. Green Company, on behalf of the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City of St. Louis Park consistent with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400; and 5. The EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300; and 6. The EAW is incorporated by reference in this Record of Decision; and 7. The EAW was filed with the MEQB and notice for its availability for public review and comment was published in the EQB Monitor on June 11, 2012. A copy of the EAW was sent to all persons on the MEQB Distribution List and to persons who requested a copy; and 8. The 30 -day public review and comment period opened on June 11, 2012 and ended July 11, 2012, and comments were received from four state agencies and one private individual during the comment period; and 9. Dunng the 30 -day public review and comment period, four agencies submitted written comments on the EAW, including Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Resolution No. 12-127 -4- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1. Comments by Patrick Boylan, Acting Manager, Local Government Assistance, Metropolitan Council. Letter received July 11, 2012. Comment 1-1: The Council staff finds the document to be complete and accurate, and an EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. Response: Comment is noted. Comment 1-2: The EAW indicates that trails will be developed as part of the creek meandering project. Trails will be constructed throughout the project area and connections will be made to the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail (referenced as the SW LRT trail in the EAW). The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is managed by Three Rivers Park District and is part of the regional parks system, which is overseen by the Metropolitan Council. Council staff supports safe connections to regional trails and encourages MCWD and the City of St. Louis Park to coordinate these connections with Three Rivers Park Distnct. Response: An encroachment agreement with Three Rivers Park District and an encroachment agreement with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority will be needed to make the connection to the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail. Should funding for the trail connection be secured, applications will be submitted for these permits. Design of the trail connection will conform to standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2. Comments by Karen Kromar, Planner Principal, Environmental Review Unit, Resource Management and Assistance Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Letter received July 11, 2012. Comment 2-1: This section [Permits and Approvals Required] indicates that a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for Project related wetland impacts may be necessary. Please be aware that if a USACE Section 404 Individual Permit is required for any Project activity, then an MPCA CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver must also be obtained as part of the permitting process. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification ensures that the activity will comply with the state water quality standards. Response: The MPCA submitted waiver of 401 Certification for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2012-03067-MMJ. Comment 2-2: This section [Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks] states that excess excavated material will be trucked off site to a pre -approved dump site and may be used by the selected contractor in exchange for lower excavation rates. This conflicts with language in item 16 that states the intention is to balance the cut and fill on the site. Please clarify. Response: It remains the intention of the Project to balance cut and fill on the site. However, there may need to be some material moved off-site to a pre -approved dump site if construction conditions require doing so. It is important that the on-site cut and fill remain within the plans set forth for wetland restoration and reconstruction. It is anticipated that the only potential excess of material would result from the upland stormwater pond excavation. • • • • Resolution No. 12-127 -5- That material will likely be used onsite, but if removal is necessary, will be transported to a pre -approved dump site. Comment 2-3: Please note that in the event contamination is discovered dunng Project activities, it must be reported immediately to the State Duty Officer. Response: A Phase II environmental investigation was conducted at the site in March 2010. Six borings were advanced at the site for groundwater sampling, three soil vapor borings were advanced for laboratory analysis, and three existing monitoring wells were also sampled as part of the investigation. Of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in groundwater and soil vapor samples, all were at concentrations lower than the Health Risk Limit established by the Minnesota Department of Health. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has obtained a No Association Determination from the MPCA for the former Weis parcels. Proposed restoration activities will not constitute conduct associating Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Furthermore, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has an MPCA approved construction contingency plan to address any environmental concerns that may arise during proposed excavation work. Comment 2-4: A cumulative potential effects analysis is applicable and must be conducted for the EAW to be complete. This requires an analysis of specific projects that may interact with the proposed Project in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. The responsible governmental unit must inquire whether a proposed project, which may or may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resource(s). The cumulative potential effects assessment should: • Consider existing projects, as well as anticipated future projects that have been planned or for which a `basis of expectation has been laid' (future projects for which permit applications or EAWs have been submitted either at the state or local level, or projects for which plats have been approved on the local level may be considered to demonstrate the required basis of expectation). • Consider a limited geographic area surrounding the Project, in which facilities may reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resource — for instance, a nearby lake — as the proposed Project. In completing this item, your analysis must identify: a) the limited geographical area considered; b) any other projects as outlined above (and explain how they were identified); c) the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the interaction of the other project(s) with the proposed Project; and d) the natural resources affected and how it may be affected. Response: The City of St. Louis Park completed a cumulative affects analysis following receipt of this comment and has determined that there are no cumulative impacts arising as a result of proceeding with the Project. The analysis identified a geographical area located along the Minnehaha Creek Corridor between Meadowbrook Road and Louisiana Avenue South, and found that there are no existing or future projects based on the outlined definition currently underway or projected. Resolution No. 12-127 -6- Review of this comment also included a note that the Project will result in a restoration of geomorphic and ecological function of this segment of Minnehaha Creek, which was previously and deleteriously impacted by channel ditching. Any future projects that may result in significant environmental effects will be expected to result in improvements to the Minnehaha Creek resources; regulatory measures are in place to ensure that no further significant environmental effects occur over Reach 20 of Minnehaha Creek. 3. Comment by Michael Corbett, PE, Senior Planner, Minnesota Department of Transporation. Letter received July 13, 2012. Comment 3-1: MN DOT has reviewed the site plan and has found it to be acceptable. Response: Comment noted. 4. Comments by Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Email received July 11, 2012. Comment 4-1: The DNR has reviewed the EAW and has noted that project construction is planned for early to late fall 2012. Based on the soil and habitat types identified in the project area, the DNR encourages construction to occur under frozen ground conditions. This would greatly minimize impacts to sensitive areas that can occur even while employing special construction techniques such as wood or plastic mats. Response. The intention is for construction to proceed under fully frozen ground conditions. The decision to move forward will be based on the flow level of the creek and the stability of frozen soils. Comment 4-2: I am aware that some project and permitting discussions have occurred between project planners and the DNR Area Hydrologist, Jack Gleason. I encourage continued communications with Jack relating to permitting and for technical assistance as the project progresses. Response: Continued communication with Mr. Jack Gleason is on-going and expected to continue throughout the process of obtaining all needed permits and construction. 5. Comment by Ms. Judy Reinehn, 4925 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Telephone call received July 8, 2012. Comment 5-1: My. Reinehn is in support of the project and has no questions. Response: The comment is noted. CONCLUSION The written comments received do not support a need for an Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Project.