HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080818 - VIII-B-2VIII-B-Z
Memo
To: Mayor Hicks and City Council
From: John Hinzman, Planning Director
Date: August 18, 2008
Subject: Resolution: Recoding a Negative Declaration on the Need for an
Environmental Impact Statement #2008-09 -Hubs Landing
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to adopt the attached resolution recording a negative declaration
on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for Hubs Landing located west of the
Mississippi River Bridge in Washington County. Conclusion is based on the findings of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
Hub's proposes to expand its marina from 50 to 80 slips and to dredge and fill a portion of
the riverbank along the southeast corner of the property. The EAW was completed at the
request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
The EAW does not authorize any land use change or construction. A Special Use
Permit and Site Plan approval is necessary prior to any change.
The City Council authorized distribution of the EAW in April.
COMMENTS RELIEVED
The EAW was published in Environmental Quality Board's EQB Monitor and sent to
required agencies. Comments from the following were received:
• Lower St Croix Watershed Management Organization (WMO)
• Metropolitan Council
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT)
Please see attached letters for complete information. General comments included:
• Clarification needed on project phasing -how does it relate to completed projects
• Summary of future permits needed.
• Clarification needed on existing conditions including parking use of site and
drainage.
• Identification of endangered\threatened species.
• Traffic -Future Bridge.
ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• EAW Response to Comments
• EAW Comment Letters
HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS
RECORDING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED TO PREPARE AN
INVIRNOMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HUBS LANDING EXPANSION,
HASTINGS, MINNESOTA
Council member
moved its adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and
WHEREAS, The City of Hastings has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for proposed expansion of Hubs Landing (Proposal) from 50 to 80 slips and dredging and
filling portions of the riverbank along the southeast corner of the property; and
WHEREAS, The Proposal meets the minimum threshold for a mandatory EAW as stipulated
under Minnesota State Statutes, Section 1166D.04 and 1166D.045, and Minnesota Rules, parts
4410.0200 to 4410.7800; and
WHEREAS, Notice of the Proposal has been published in the Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) Monitor; and
WHEREAS, the thirty (30) day review period for public comment has expired; and
WHEREAS, The City has reviewed comments received and conducted an investigation of
the potential for significant environmental effect to determine the need for an Environmental impact
Statement as outlined and Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS:
That upon investigation of the significance of environmental effects, the City Council of the City of
Hastings hereby records a negative declaration on the need to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Council member moved a second to this resolution and upon being put to a
vote adopted by present.
Ayes: _
Nays:
Absent:
ATTEST:
Melanie Mesko Lee
City Clerk
Paul J. Hicks, Mayor
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of resolution presented to and
adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 18`h day of August 2008, as
disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office.
(JWH)-
Hub's Landing & Marina EAW
Response to comments
August 8, 2008
Item 6: Description
Comments. from MNPollzition Control Agency
The project summary indicates that the EAW includes three components, called Step I,
Step II and Step III. Step I explains there are three projects that have already been
installed in the marina, but are included in the EAW. Comments indicate it was unclear
why these would be included in this EAW if they were already completed. The
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) area hydrologist asked that they be included in
an EAW as part of their process of issuing an amended permit. Permits for these projects
have already been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Step I Details
In 2004, a portion of the docks on the upstream end of Hub's was reconfigured to make
room for seven additional slips. The rearrangement occurred so that the existing and
additional slips all exist within the footprint provided by the DNR. This addition resulted
in no net increase in the amount of water space occupied by the marina.
The Safety/Information Center was installed in 2004, to house spill containment and
emergency aid supplies, disburse booklets and information provided by several
government and resource agencies, and serve as the marina office, store and social center.
The area hydrologist indicated in 2006 that new rules had been written to address the use
of floating structures in marinas, and therefore requested that the Center be included in
the EAW because its existence needs to be explained and justified under the new rules.
The pump-out station, installed in 2005, was primarily funded by a Clean Vessel Act
grant that was awarded through the Department of Natural Resources. This grant was
created to increase the availability of stations for septic disposal, thus reducing the
amount of sewage discharged into waterways. The DNR grant paid 75% of the cost for
installing the station.
The area hydrologist was aware that Hub's Landing and Marina planned to apply for
permission to expand. The area hydrologist said an EAW would be required, and
requested that the above projects be included in the EAW. As a matter of procedure, it is
more efficient for the DNR to document these additions as part of the EAW instead of
treating each one separately.
Item 8: Permits and approvals required
Comments from the MN Pollution Control Agency, MNDept. of Natural Resources, MN
Dept of Transportation
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) permits listed in the table as
granted are for the projects listed under Step 1: seven slips, Safety/Information Center,
and pump-out station. The permits that will be applied for in Phase 2 and Phase 3 would
be more accurately described as permits that will be applied for in Step II and Step III, as
they are referred to in other parts of the EAW document. Permits will be applied for if
permission is granted to increase the number of slips from 50 to 80 (Step II) and if
permission is granted to develop the south end of the property to restore the shoreline and
install transient dockage (Step III).
The material to be dredged in the southern portion of the property was originally upland
material (see Figure lA). The photograph shows this area was part of the riverbank, and
was used as a staging area during the construction of the Highway 61 Bridge. This area
is considered land on county maps and Hub's is assigned property taxes that include this
area. The material that currently exists below the ordinary high water level is part of the
original shoreline, and therefore, should not subject to State Disposal System (SDS)
requirements. However, if it is deemed that this material is subject to SDS requirements,
Hub's Landing and Marina is willing to apply for the necessary MPCA permits and have
the material hauled out for disposal.
Since there are no proposed changes to the parking lot, the project should not require
permits from MnDOT.
With regard to the frequency of maintenance dredging at the site, the marina area has not
needed maintenance dredging historically. There is a river current between the bridge and
the marina that maintains the water depths. Deposition areas are noted upstream of the
marina area. Maintenance dredging maybe needed periodically in the new dredged area
particularly if debris collects on the downstream bridge. Hub's Landing and Marina will
be clearing debris regularly once this project is completed.
Item I0: Cover types
Comments front MNDept. ofNaturczl Resources
The cover types on the site will include an increase of 25,000 square feet (0.5 ac.) of
trees and open space where eroded shoreline will be filled and re-established (See Figure
lA). No other landward changes are proposed.
Item 11: Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
Comments from MNDept. of Natural Resources
A letter from the DNR Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator is
included as an attachment to the EAW. This letter notes 18 known occurrences of rare
animal or plant species or natural communities within aone-mile radius of Hub's. The
species noted include vegetation growth subtypes (trees, grasses, prairie, bluff), birds
(eagles, hawks, falcons), fish (sturgeon, suckers), a species of snake and of mussel. A
collection of empty mussel shells from 17 mussel species was documented on a sandbar
upstream from Hub's. This collection includes some species that are threatened or
endangered. The letter goes on to state that, although several rare mussel species exist in
the Mississippi River, changes at the marina are not thought to affect any rare species.
The DNR comments indicate they believe the area affected by the proposed expansion is
not a quality habitat for mussels.
Item 12: Physical impacts on water resources
Comments from MNDept. ofNattcral Resources
Typical floodplain analyses do not include the effects of slips. Boats will be removed
during extreme flood events, thereby eliminating the majority of the flow blockage
associated with the marina. Effects of the slips will cause negligible impact on flood
levels.
Item 14: Water-related land use management district
Comments from MNDept. of Natural Resources
The project site lies within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
(MNRRA). The site is also subject to City of Hastings regulations as it has been declared
a Floodway in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Item 1 S: Water surface use
Comments firocn MNDept. of Natural Resources
Hub's utilizes every bit of available land for current operations, and there are no proposed
changes to the parking lot. The space available will not allow an increase in parking for
slips without a decrease in parking for vehicles and boats that use the launch. Changes to
the parking lot aimed at increasing the total amount of land used for parking space would
require additional permits from the City of Hastings. See Figure 1 B for a view of how
parking is currently allocated for the three boating services at Hub's.
Item 16: Erosion and sedimentation
Comments from the MNDept. of Naturcal Resources
Figure lA shows acreage to be excavated and amount of soil to be moved to fill and re-
establish eroded shoreline.
Item 17: Water Quality: Surface water runoff
Comments,from Metropolitan Council, MNDept. of Natural Resources, MNDept. of
Transportation
The marina currently includes a holding pond that catches runoff (see Figure lA). The
enclosed elevation map shows that a low area exists along the highway embankment,
along the east side of the property. The pond is 6 feet deep and 35 feet wide at it's widest.
The pond runs along the highway embankment from the north to south end of the marina.
Land space consists primarily of gravel and grassy areas, and includes no impervious
surface treatments. The lot is graded such that water runs east and north away from the
river toward this pond.
Because there are no proposed changes to the parking area, there is no before and after
comparison. Existing drainage rates and patterns will be maintained. The only proposed
change is to move upland material from under water at the south end of the property to
restore the shoreline. Should Hub's wish to expand parking into this area at any time in
the future, it would be considered a parking lot change, and a permit would need to be
issued by the City of Hastings.
Item 18: Water quality: wastewaters
Comments from MNDept. of Natural Resources
a) Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, mu~aicipal and
industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
There are three collection points for sanitary waste on the property. Waste from a private
residence is flushed into dual septic holding tanks that are pumped out by a septic
removal company. The pump-out station system flushes waste to a holding tank that is
mounted on a trailer, which is also emptied by a septic removal company. The tank and
the pump are a portable system that can be easily moved in case of high water. Officials
working with the DNR Clean Vessel Act grant have identified this innovative system as a
model system for other grant applicants. A portable toilet is available for general
customer use, and it is pumped out and cleaned every week by a sanitation company.
The toilet is removed from the property during the off-season (November through April).
An increased number of boats in slips would result in more use of the pump-out facility
and a higher number of service calls from the septic removal company. The pump-out
tank is currently serviced 3 times during the summer, and can easily be serviced more
often.
There is no municipal or industrial wastewater production from the marina.
b) Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give
estimates of composition after tf°eatment. Identify receiving waters, including
major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the
quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems,
discacss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
There is no waste treatment on site and waste is contained within tanks until it is
removed by a septic removal company. An industrial sealed pump-out system is
used and the tanks for both the pump-out and residence are heavy gauge to
prevent spills or leakage. Spill containment and absorption products are kept on
site in case of any type of spill.
c) If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatrrrent_facility,
identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and disccrss the
facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes,
identifying any improvements necessary.
Wastes is not discharged, but is held in tanks until it is pumped out by a septic
removal company (ESI Septic Services, Hampton, MN). The marina can increase
the number of visits from the septic removal company (currently three times per
summer) to handle an increase in pump-out station use.
d) If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe
disposal tech~rique and location and discuss capacity to handle the
volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements
necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems.
There is no disposal of liquid animal manure.
Item 19: Geologic hazards and soil conditions
Comments from MNDept. ofNc~tural Resources
a) Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water
and also identify therm on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone
,formations or karst conditio~as. Describe measures to avoid or
~ninim.ize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
There are no known geologic hazards.
b) Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classification, if
k~zonnz. Discuss soil granularity and potential for grou~zdwater
contamination,from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto tl7e
soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such
contaminations.
The Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties (United States Dept. of
Agriculture, 1978) describes the soil in the southern Washington County, along the
Mississippi river as Waukegan-Baytown-Ripon, and aerial maps in this publication
pinpoint the soil on this site as Algansee loamy sand. Algansee loamy sand is described
as "nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, and very rapidly permeable. It is on the flood
plains of major rivers" (U.S.D.A., 1978, p. 94). It is also described as having slow
surface runoff and low available water capacity.
Algansee loamy sand is broadly referred to as Alluvium, which is soil or sedments
deposited by a river or other running water. It is typically made up of a variety of
materials, includeing fine particles of silt and clay or larger particles of sand and gravel.
Particles are picked up in faster moving waters and deposited where waters slow.
Hub's has recently been contacted by a company that is conducting a geological study, as
part of the scoping study for the replacement of the Highway 61 Bridge. This company
plans to collect boring samples and have offered to share their results once the samples
are collected and analyzed. Unfortunately, these results are not available at present.
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that bedrock and water tables in this area are deep.
When pilings were driven for the additional ?slips and the pump-out station, piles were
driven over 60 feet before hitting bedrock. The well for this property was drilled 120 feet
to obtain water.
The marina policy prohibits any dumping of hazardous materials on the property.
All hazardous materials must be removed from property and disposed of in an
approved and environmentally safe manner.
Item 20: Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
Comments from MNPollzction Control Agency
Hub's Landing and Marina does not provide fuel service and marina rules exist to
prevent boaters from transferring fuel to their boats on the property. A trash dumpster is
provided for garbage disposal and there are recycling receptacles available for aluminum
and glass. Hub's does not provide boat service or repair, but allows approved providers to
conduct boat service and repairs for customers once the service providers have satisfied
the marina's insurance requirements. These service providers are required to remove and
dispose of all waste products that are generated as part of their work. Therefore, Hub's
does not collect or deal with hazardous materials as part of the business operation. Rules
exist and are dispersed to all marina lessees regarding the proper disposal of oil and other
potentially hazardous products. Hub's promotes Clean Marina Practices.
There are three sources of sanitary waste on the property. Waste from a private residence
on the property is flushed into dual septic holding tanks that are pumped out by a septic
removal company. The pump-out station system flushes waste to a holding tank that is
mounted on a trailer, which is also emptied by a septic removal company. The tank and
the pump can be easily moved in case of high water. A portable toilet is available for
general customer use, and it is pumped out and cleaned every week by a sanitation
company. The toilet is removed from the property during the off-season (November
through April).
Item 21: Traffic
Comments from Metropolitan Council, MNPollzction Control Agency, MNDept. of
Transportation
In it's current operation, Hub's offers three different services for the boating public: a)
slip leasing (50 slips), b) "store and launch" where boats are stored on their trailer, on
land, and the boat owner launches and retrieves the boat (45 boats on trailers), and c)
daily launch and parking where patrons haul their boat to the marina, launch the boat, and
park the vehicle and trailer while they use their boat (up to 35 vehicles with trailers).
Hub's utilizes all open land space to maximize the availability of services for customers.
There are separate portions of the property that are dedicated to parking for these three
services (see Figure 1 B). Of these three services, slip leasing is the most profitable.
Other services would be reduced or eliminated to create additional parking spaces for slip
lessees. If additional slips are granted, space that is currently used for daily launches or
"store and launch" would be reassigned as parking for slips. No changes would be made
to the parking lot.
There will be a positive impact on traffic patterns in the area because of the reduced
number of trucks hauling boats to and from the marina, and a reduced number of larger
vehicles coming to and from the marina that are capable of launching a boat that is stored
in "store and launch." Services related to boat launches carry the most burden in terms of
traffic, so traffic related to launches will be replaced with car and motorcycle parking for
slips. The result will be a decrease or possible elimination of vehicles towing boats into
and out of the marina. The net effect will be safer conditions on Highway 61, because
slow moving vehicles towing boats will be reduced or will no longer travel in and out of
Hub's. The estimate of 14 trips per day provided in the EAW is the average number of
vehicles using the marina per day during the 6-month summer season.
Item 22: Vehicle-related air emissions
Comments from MN Pollution Control Agency
This proposal rests on the premise that the number of boats launched from or stored on
land at Hub's will be reduced or eliminated to make room for car parking that comes with
an increased number of slips. In effect, Hub's would have fewer trucks launching boats
from the marina, in trade for more boats sitting in slips. The EAW proposal does not call
for any expansion of parking facilities.
Hauling boats requires large vehicles (typically trucks), while any vehicle can cant' a
boater who keeps a boat in a slip. There are up to 35 boats hauled to Hub's and launched
on any day, and several additional trucks hook up and launch their boat from "store and
launch." The number of boats launching from Hub's would be greatly reduced because
the available parking would be rededicated as space for slip lessees. There would be a
positive impact upon air emissions because those visiting the marina could travel in
smaller vehicles, and there would be fewer trucks towing boats coming to the marina.
Item 25: Nearby resources.
Comments from MNDept. of Nc~turcal Resources
Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
a) Archaeological, historical or architectural resources?
No. An archaeological study was conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural
resources in 2005 as part of the process for the Clean Vessel Act Grant. MnDOT also
completed an archaeological study of the area and these studies found no such resources
on the marina property.
Comments from MnDOT indicate that there are old structures that were used for
steamboat stabilization in the area, but do not specify where the structures are. The
marina study did not indicate the presence of any such structures. Hub's Landing &
Marina would be very interested in learning the location of these structures.
b) Prime or unique farmland or land within an agricultural preserve?
No
c) Designated parks, recreation areas or trails?
Yes. The project site is within the MNRRA. Lake Rebecca Park is in close proximity,
beyond the shoreline across the river from the marina. Levee Park is in view of the site,
across from the south end of the marina. A paved trail runs along this shoreline also from
the Lock to the end of Levee Park.
The proposed project on the south end would clean up and beautify an area that currently
collects dead trees and garbage that float down river.
d) Scenic views or vistas?
Yes. A scenic view from private residential properties exists on the east side of the river,
near the Lock & Dam.
e) Other unique resources?
Yes. Lock & Dam #2 lies upstream, a public fishing pier was recently completed near
the Lock, a boat launch maintained by the DNR exists across the channel, and a public
dock was recently installed across the river from the project site. There is a sand bar that
has been forming upstream since the 2001.
Additional slips could be viewed from these resources. In addition to cleaning up and
beautifying the south end of the marina, the project would also remedy a serious water
hazard. Occasionally, boaters drive out of the channel to cross under the Highway 61
Bridge. The original shoreline remains intact just under water, such that a rock wall lies
out of view. Boats that attempt to drive through this area get hung up on the rock wall
and suffer damage to their hull and/or engines, or lose propellers and engine lower units.
In the summer of 2007, a large houseboat sank downstream of this area because the
vessel obtained a hole in the hull from driving over the rock wall. Development of the
southern area would remedy this hazard and prevent boaters from traveling through this
area.
Item 27: Compatibility with plans and land use Yegulations
Comments from MNPollzction Control Agency
This item contained an error. The number of slips applied for in Step II is 30, not 20.
Item 29: Cumulative impacts
Comments from MNPollution Control Agency, MNDept. ofNc~tural Resources, MN
Dept. of Trccnsportc~tion
The addition of slips and development of marina property fit with other projects in the
area. This area is a recreational hub that promotes access and enjoyment of the river.
This area on the Mississippi includes Hub's Landing & Marina and a 14-slip marina
developed by Curt Saunders on the east side, a fishing pier, public boat ramp, Lake
Rebecca, and a public dock on the west side. Visitors can tour the Lock & Dam, walk or
ride bike on trails along the shore, observe tows and barges as they travel up and
downstream, and enjoy the abundant wildlife that live in and frequent this area. Hastings
Marina and King's Cove Marina are also accessible downstream on the Mississippi.
The net effect upon the river will negligible because there will be a reduced number of
boats launching from Hub's in exchange for an increased number of boats moored in
slips. The vast majority of the boats that launch from Hub's head for the St. Croix river,
and many stay out overnight. Launch patrons may seek out launches downstream at
Hastings Marina, at the public landing in Prescott, or at locations up the St. Croix River.
"Store and launch" is available at Boat House in Bayport and Windmill marina in Afton.
Hub's has a lengthy waiting list, including launch patrons who may choose to put their
boat in a slip.
This EAW proposes a moderate increase in slips. There are no other marinas planned for
Pool 3 on the Mississippi and the DNR hydrologist said there will be no more slip
development on the St. Croix. Therefore, the addition of 30 slips and a transient dock
will have little, if any, effect upon overall boat traffic near the marina or on Poo13.
Visits to the Hastings public dock could increase from use by those who use the proposed
transient dock, resulting in an economical benefit to downtown businesses.
It was announced shortly after the submission of this EAW that the Highway 61 Bridge,
which is adjacent to Hub's property, is slated for replacement beginning in 2010. It is
almost certain that this project will involve part of the property currently occupied by
Hub's. The addition of slips would not be affected by the bridge replacement because the
slips will be added upstream and away from the new bridge. Actual work pertaining to
the south shoreline development would be initiated after work on the new bridge is
completed, so MnDOT should not be concerned about how any dredging might affect the
bridge construction. Hub's has already been in meetings and expects to work with
MnDOT throughout the bridge design process as it relates to marina property and the
proposed south shore development.
DNR comments indicate that shoreline erosion is a major concern. Hub's has
experienced significant erosion o.n the south shore, and the proposed development plans
seek to reclaim shoreline and prevent future erosion from occurring. The project
proposes no increase in the number of boats that come from the marina, so it should not
contribute to problems associated with boat traffic.
\ '~ F a ~ `
`'~..,~ ~,` \ ~•~ ~'. TREES
TREES ~ ~. ~"~~.
~ ~ GRAVEL /~ ~ ~~~ `'~-.~; ~ ~~i iti
SHORELNE °'Y ~" `
/{ 1 ~~u~l~ Jaa _..,.~ `~-,..,` TREES ~ ~`~.~~\.
(~ ,r / ~,.~ D~ryG`.f C>Qp ~ ~ ~ 1 ''-~,,,~ SHOREt.iNE -, ,. ` 6J `,. \..`
_~ } ~.
t _
\~~ /~ jtI ~~_J (~ TREE5 f ~ if /// /^ ~V ~ ti ~ '~ `~~ ,.,
\ // 1. t__ j /I GRAVEL / . % ~F~\.y0. J~fc ~ ~`. \~~,.
,J A~_ RiPRAP TD $E ,.. ~ / I, ~ <O,tya~`AD~iP~'~ `c. ~ \,` ` ~`~.
`~ ~ r.L T--y".. '`,. .-.~. ttAINTAINEfi 1 / Pp~pl' ~~J'Pt~ r~~\ \ ~~,
`~*,-..z~.~: :..^-~^a-. i~ it ~j _ ~i ~ ,:(~E.y``'~~~~CO ~T' /
~" ~-~~ ! q _. -- ..
~~'71~'a--ate' ( '-^- ~ ` /Oc'S~FOti°eP~~O ir~'~~ .,\
- -`~'-.,_^.5;c~"^~~~~ ! ~ ~y,.,~t ~Ytap ~ EROpEO SHORE AREA ~ ~
TO 8E DREDGED
SAUNDERS - ~~ ~y~~Y-`.u; C` _ -. 'i / f-4PAC1.3 SO. FT. 4'dI7H 6' ~ ~
IdAR3NA ~'"~'.... - t:,,~-.=_r~/ OF AAA fERiAL 610VEU.
f ,~
'SOD CYj
_ _ ,:
~~ `~ ~ ' j~
9 4~~--j
LEGEND
E%ISTIN.^, DOCHS
PROPOSED RO::KS
r._---J PROPOSED f~LL AREA
L____J
r ~ ~~ _7 PROPOSED E%CAVATION AF"2EA
L____J
SURFACE'NATER FLOW D3RECi'ION
_ _ J
RSVER
i 5 S 1 P p i .....____-.__..__...__ ..............__.._._.__....._.................__...
Miss ~,ITt_ k"AF
HUF3S IJARINA
rtA~:i'vGS, AifNt~}ESC: SA
~.~"' cen ar ~ wee /3C 6$ ,+aae .p...
ae'o e•. .IT .az.. 2i .l0 3t 8tC393
~~-
<
~.v>
~-
_ ~1.
s, j
5~~
'°~,.
r~
~
~
~
--,~
Y .._...a„~ , ~1
u. ~ ~'.~
1
L
`3'
~
~-.-
~' ~ ~ ~~
f ~ ~~
t
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ C
~~~~~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~;
~~~~~~.
-_...,, ~
~~ ~
!
Y
l
Page 1 of 1
John Hinzman
From: Pat Conrad [pconrad@eorinc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:18 AM
To: John Hinzman
Cc: Tracy Fritze; Jim Keller; Julia Welter; Tim Power; Higgs@msn.com
Subject: Hubs Landing and Marina EAW
John -thank you for submitting the EAW to the Lower St. Croix WMO for our review and
comment. We have briefly reviewed the document and have concluded that any concerns we
may have will undoubtedly be raised by the primary review agencies, namely the DNR
Department of Waters, the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and the Corps of Engineers.
We will not be providing a formal review and comment letter but would appreciate being
included in future correspondence on the EAW.
Patrick J. Conrad
Administrator -Lower St. Croix Watershed Management Organization
Emmons & Olivier Resources
651 Hale Ave. No.
Oakdale, MN 55128
(651) 770-8448
pconradCeorinccom
5/16/2008
~~ Metropolitan Council
ii
June 2, 2008
.Tohn Hinzman, Planning Director
City of Hastings
101 East 4`~' Street
Hastings, MN 55033
RE: City of Hastings Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Hubs Landing and Marina
Metropolitan Council District 16 (Brian McDaniel)
Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20239-1
The Metropolitan Council received the City's EAW for Hubs Landing and Marina expansion on April 24,
2408. The proposed project increases the marina's number of boat slips from 50 to 80, and increases the
marina's total footprint by 1,740 square feet. The project also prepares the property to allow transient
moorings, and restore the river banks with rip rap and native vegetation.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns, and
raises no issues of consistency with Council policies. No EIS is needed for regional purposes. The
Council staff offers the following comments.
Item 17: Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff
The EAW indicates that the site currently has no stormwater runoff controls in place. The Council staff
recommends that the project's Step IIJ, riverbank vegetation and restoration component be revised to
address parking lot stormwater runoff to capture and treat it before it enters the Mississippi River.
Item 21: Traffic
The EAW indicates that while the number of boat slips will increase from 50 to 80, the parking area will
not increase. The EAW should address the areas where additional parking will be accommodated when
the number of vehicles exceeds the parking space available.
The Metropolitan Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need
further information, please contact Tori Dupre, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1621.
cc: Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16
Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT -Metro Division
Crystal Carlson, MultiFamily Market Analyst, MHFA
Keith Buttleman, Environmental Services
Tori Dupre, Sector Representative and Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator
N: IConrmDe~~t/~}~~}s~t~i{~~~I~~titrgslLetterslHastitrgs ?008 EAhY Fhtbs ZO?39-Lcloc
390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 (651) 602-1000 Fax (651) 602-1550 TTY (651) 291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Minnesa~a Departr~an of Nataral Resources
Central Region
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
(651) 259-5767
June 4, 2008
John Hinzman, Planning Director
City of Hastings
101 East 4th Street
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
__ _,
Minnesota
-EPARTRIENTOF
PlAi11RAL RESOl1RCES ,
RE: Hub's Landing and Marina Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Hinzman:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed
expansion of the Hub's Landing and Marina in the City of Hastings. From the natural
.resources perspective, the document is inaccurate end incomplete. It appears that the
project proposer, not the Responsible Governmental Unit, prepared this document. In
place of data, the proposer offers conclusions.
Permits and approvals required (Item No. 8)
As noted in this item, the project proposer intends to apply for a DNR public waters
permit for the dredging activities associated with this project. It is unlikely that the DNR
would issue a permit for a dredging project that includes the disposal of material to
create land surface. The DNR would require that all dredged materials be disposed of
off-site, not below the Ordinary High Water. In addition, review of the permit application
would require an engineering analysis of the frequency of maintenance dredging at the
site.
Cover types (Item No. 10)
This item is incomplete; the data provided is insufficient. Project descriptions indicate
land cover changes, including an increase in dock area and dredging of existing land to
provide transient slips for larger boats. The standard practice is to present before-
development and after-development acreages in a tabular format.
Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources (Item No. 11)
The answer to this question is incorrect. The July 6, 2004 letter from the DNR
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, which is attached to the EAW,
states that there are 18 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within
a one-mile radius of the project area. Although the project might not affect these
resources, they are near the site and need to be mentioned. Additionally, the response
to this item mentions "a point of interest" upstream of the site. It is worth noting in the
EAW text that the point of interest is a collection of empty shells of 17 mussel species,
including threatened and endangered species, on a sandbar upstream of Hub's Marina.
We believe that the area affected by the marina expansion does not provide quality
habitat for mussels.
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
[tV[; Ir~forn:atic,r`:: Ci51-296-6157 E-88S-f>46-5.~c")7 651-2.941-5454 1-Su0-65?-3929
Mr. John Hinzman
June 4, 2008
Page 2
In addition, we have recently documented a bald eagle nest just upstream of the Curt
Saunder's marina site. It does not appear, however, that nesting has been affected by
activity at the marina.
Physical impacts on water resources (Item No. 12~
The HEC-2 analysis addresses the proposed fill and dredging but does not appear to
account for the existing and proposed slips. Suzanne Jiwani, hydrologist in the DNR
floodplain unit, has found that slips can cause an increase in river stage. In addition,
neither the response to this item nor the engineering analysis mention how often
maintenance dredging would be needed. In light of the river currents and the recurrence
of debris deposition at this site, this is an important consideration.
Water-related land use management district (Item No. 14)
In addition to the information provided in the response to this question, the project site is
within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA).
Water surface use (Item No. 15~
In response the question about whether the project will change the number of watercraft
on any water body, the project proposer states that he will limit the number of boats
stored and launched at the site. Unless the City strictly regulates these activities under
the special use permit referred to in Item No. 14, there is no guarantee that the
expansion will not increase boat traffic on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers.
Erosion and sedimentation (Item No. 16~
This item specifically asks for the acreage to be excavated and the amount of soil to be
moved. The response does not provide this information.
Water quality: surface water runoff (Item No. 17~
Item No. 17a directs the EAW preparer to compare the quantity and quality of site runoff
before and after the project. Item No. 17b directs the preparer to identify routes of runoff
and receiving water bodies. The purpose of these two questions is to help the
Responsible Governmental Unit determine whether the proposed project could affect
downstream water quality. The response "not applicable" provides no guidance in
making that determination. The reference to the "DNR's best practices guidelines"
suggests that some aspect of the project may have a beneficial effect. It does not,
however, answer either of the questions.
Water quality: wastewaters (Item No 18~
This item asks four very specific questions regarding wastewater management and
disposal. The response is that these questions are not applicable. This is not correct.
Project Step 1, briefly described in Item No. 6, includes apump-out dock, which is
clearly a wastewater management and disposal element. Item No. 20 also refers to the
pump-out facility. These four questions need to be answered.
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
t:;NRInFL~rr~:~ticr~.ti59-296-69,7 1-R88-646-6367 651-296-5484 9-8~0-657-3929
Mr. John Hinzman
June 4, 2008
Page 3
Geologic hazards and soil conditions (Item No. 191
This item also is incomplete. Question `a' attempts to provide information pertinent to
potential groundwater contamination. "EAW Guidelines," which is available on the
Environmental Quality Board website, lists examples of information sources. At a
minimum, the response to this question should show that no geologic hazards exist.
Question `b" is also relevant since the existing condition includes a wastewater.
management and disposal system, which represents a potential for soil and surface
water contamination.
Nearby resources (Item No. 25j
Lake Rebecca Park is in close proximity to the project site and, as mentioned above, the
project site is within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Additionally,
the EAW does not indicate whether the project proposer has contacted the State
Historical Preservation Office for information about possible archeological or historical
resources at the site.
Cumulative impacts (Item No. 29,E
The response to this item contradicts the response to Item No. 15, which states that
there will be no change in the number of watercraft on any water body.
There are other marina's in the vicinity. The City recently approved a 14-slip marina
adjacent to Hub's Marina and King's Cove Marina is a large facility just downstream.
These are examples of past and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact
with the proposed project in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts.
The DNR has studied the effects of recreational boats on Mississippi River streambanks.
A 2004 report, "Shoreline and Water Quality Impacts from Recreational Boating on the
Mississippi River," states that "the height and frequency of waves generated by
recreational traffic is the principal causal factor for the high rates of erosion affecting the
entire streambank profile. Shorelines exposed to significant recreational boat traffic are
eroding at an average rate of 2-3 feet/year. Over the period of a decade, this translates
to a loss of 20-30 feet of main channel shoreland and the ecological values associated
with the floodplain forest community." Associated impacts include damage to the
navigation system infrastructure, air and water pollutants, noise, sediment resuspension,
and disturbance offish and wildlife and their habitats. Larger and faster boats, of the
type that will use the transient docks, are a major cause of shoreland erosion.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. The DNR looks
forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. If you have
any questions about these comments, please contact regional environmental
assessment ecologist.Wayne Barstad at 651-259-5738.
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Emp(oyet~
C?f~[~ Intbrr~'~tic;n: 1751-296-6157 t-R85-646-63fi? 651-.'..%9i-`t~84 ?-v~i3-65?-39:19
Mr. John Hinzman
June 4, 2008
Page 4
Sincerely,
I. Kurcin{ca
Director
C: Central REAT, Molly Shodeen, Gerald Johnson, Diana Regenscheid,
Liz Harper, Jack Enblom (DNR)
Jon Larsen (EQB)
Nick Rowse (USFWS)
HS08 Hubs Landing.doc
ERDB# 20040933-0002
mnc~nr.go~r
~n Equal Opportunity Empioyef
[ANC; Enforn~atic,r:651-296-61 ~? ;-888-646-6367 6~i1-.?9ti- x484 1-8 0-65'-:1929
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North ~ St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 ~ 651-296-6300 ~ 800-657-3864 ~ 651-282-5332 TTY ~ www.pca.state.mn.us
May 23, 2008
Mr. John Hinzman
Planning Director
City of Hastings
101 East 4"' Street
Hastings, MN 55033
RE: Hubs Landing and Marina Envirorunental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Hinzman:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
{EAW) for the proposed expansion of the Hubs Landing and Marina in Hastings, Minnesota. Regarding matters
for which the MPCA has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following
comments for your consideration.
General
In general, the MPCA feels that the RGU has inappropriately omitted portions of questions from the standard
EAW forln. Naturally, this means that the answers to these questions are also absent from the document. It is our
opinion that this renders the EAW incomplete. Some of the specific examples where this occurred are discussed
in further detail in the comments below.
The description of the project in Item 6 is vague -particularly the description of "Step I" -and does not answer
many of the components of Item 6.b. Also, it would appear from Item 6 and Appendix A that Step I has already
occurred. Since it is prohibited by Minnesota statute to start a project that requires environmental review prior to
the completion of the environmental review process, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) should have
explained in the EAW why these events are occurring in the sequence that they are. Please provide this
explanation in your response to comments.
Finally, with respect to general comments, we request that the RGU describe how the entire proposal for the
marina expansion, especially the dredging and shoreline restoration plans, fits with the Minnesota Deparhnent of
Transportation's plans to replace the Hastings Bridge.
Figures
Features on some of the figures attached to the EAW do not show up well in black and white. Also, the
appropriate figure(s) should be referenced in the text that describes the particular area or activity in order to
make both the text and the figures more relevant and meaningful.
Item 8. Permits and approvals required
• Please clarify what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) permits listed in the table are for.
• Upland use/disposal of dredged material is subject to State Disposal System (SDS) requirements under
Minn. Stat. ch. 115 as an "other waste" and requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/SDS Permit from the MPCA. The proposed project calls for the reuse of the material both above
and below the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of the river. Material placed above the OHWL is subject
to the Dredged Material Management Guidance at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/dredgedmaterials.html,
including permitting requirements.
~~
St. Paul ~ Brainerd ~ Detroit Lakes ~ Duluth (Mankato ~ Marshall ~ Rochester ~ Willmar 150 YEARS
of STATEHOOD
a:a ~ oa
Mr. John Hinzman
May 23, 2008
Page 3
Item 20. Solid wastes hazardous wastes, storage tanks
Again, this item consists of three parts, which were omitted. There is presumably some solid waste generated at
the marina, as well as usage of petroleum and other potentially hazardous products. Does the marina include a
boat fueling station? If so, this must be discussed under Item 20.b. and c.
Item 21. Traffic
If there are no existing parking spaces, then please describe where boat owners park their vehicles.
Item 22. Vehicle-related air emissions
The MPCA believes that there will be an increase in air emissions with the increase in the number of boats that
will use the new boat slips.
Item ~7 Compatilbility with plans and land use regulations
There is a discrepancy between this item, which describes an addition of 20 slips, and Item 6.a., which describes
an increase of 30 slips in "Step II" (in addition to the 7 slips added in "Step I"). Please clarify which number is
correct.
Item 29. Cumulative impacts
The response to this item does not constitute an adequate cumulative impacts analysis, although we agree that
increased boat traffic is one of the cumulative potential effects which will result from this and other projects.
The RGU 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). Each of these three criteria should be
identified in the assessment along with the cumulative potential effect(s) being examined.
We look forward to receiving your responses to our comments and notice of decision on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of
any or all elements of the project for the purpose of pending or future pernut action(s) by the MPCA.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the prof ect proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any
requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at
651-296-8011.
Sincerely, ~
Jessica Ebertz
Planner Principal
Environmental Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JE:mbo
cc: Gregg Downing, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Judy Mader, MPCA
Julianne Rantala, MPCA
Kevin Molloy, MPCA
ao~~NNeSpTgyp Minnesota Department of Transportation
n F Metropolitan District
~~ ~QO~ Waters Edge
~pFTFiP~ 1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113-3174
May 29, 2008
Mr. John Hinzman, AICP
Planning Director
City of Hastings
101 - 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033-1955
SUBJECT: Hub's Marina, Mz>IDOT Review #EAW08-010
NW Quad of TH 61 and Mississippi River
Hastings/Washington Co
Control Section 8205
Dear Mr. Hinzman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Hub's Marina EAW. Please note that
Mn/DOT's review of this EAW does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis
and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are
refined, we would like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the
updated information. Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the document and has the following
comments:
TH 61 Hastings Bridge:
Mn/DOT is in the process of designing the TH 61 Hastings bridge. The estimated
construction related to the bridge replacement project is anticipated to start in 2010. The
EAW discusses dredging, but based on the EAW provided, the precise location of the
dredging is unclear. Please submit a set of detailed plans when they become available.
If dredging is done near the future bridge location, it may force the TH 61 Bridge
foundations to be built deeper. Mn/DOT would have significant concerns if the proposed
marina encroaches upon the area where the new bridge is to be built. Additionally, the
timing of the bridge construction with the proposed dredging will need to be coordinated.
The bridge construction and the dredging cannot occur concurrently.
There are several significant underwater structures in the area. These are old structures
were used long ago for steamboat stabilization. Removal of these structures would be a
significant undertaking.
Traf>£ic:
The EAW appears to significantly underestimate the number of new trips generated by
the proposed development (14 new trips per day). Access to the marina is a significant
concern since these slow moving vehicles carrying boats will be attempting to merge
An equal opportunity employer
onto TH 61. Additionally, access to the other sites along TH 61 should be analyzed so
that safety improvements can be identified. Therefore, Mn/DOT recommends that a
traffic study be conducted for this section of TH 61.
Water Resources:
A drainage permit may be required for the proposed marina. More specific drainage
details must be provided to determine if a drainage permit will be required. The proposed
project will need to maintain existing drainage rates and patterns (i.e., the rate at which
stormwater is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or developer shall
provide drainage modeling computations for the existing and proposed conditions for
both the 10 and 100 year design storms along with drainage area maps that show drainage
directions with flow arrows and reference markings to reflect the modeling.
Electronic files are requested in addition to hard copies. Please direct questions
concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651-234-7524) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources
section.
Permits:
A drainage permit may be required for the proposed development. Additionally, any use
of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are
available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility .Please
include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application.
Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911)
of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity
such as plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Min/DOT -Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans (the electronic version of the plan
needs to be developed for 11" x 17" printable format with sufficient detail so that
alI features are legible);
2. Seven (7) sets of full size plans.
If submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. format. Mn/DOT can accept the
plans via e-mail at metrodevreviewsndot.state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail
is less than 20 megabytes. Otherwise, the plans can be submitted on a compact disk.
- - ~ -
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at
(651) 234-7794.
Sincerely,
o erman
Planning Supervisor
Copy: Joe Lux, Washington County
Julie Lindquist, Dakota County
Copy sent via Gronpwise:
Wayne Lemaniak
Buck Craig
Richard Cady
Richard Scarrow
Ken Johnson
Sheila Kauppi
Steve Charmer
Brigid Gombold
Tiffany Kautz
Richard Dalton
Petra DeWall
Keith Allen Farquhar
Ann Braden /Metropolitan Council
Mr. Joe Lux
Senior Transportation Planner
Washinb on County Dept. of Transportation/Phys. Development
11660 Myeron Road
Stillwater, MN 55082
Julie.Lindquist@co.dakota,mn.us