Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100907 - VIII-B-3A ,re City Council Memorandum To: Mayor Hicks & City Councilmembers From: Kari Barker, Associate Planner, AICP Date: Septmber 7, 2010 Item: Resolution: Recording a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement #2010 -34 — Captain's Bay Council Action Requested: The City Council is asked to adopt the attached resolution recording a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for Captain's Bay located west of the Mississippi River Bridge in Washington County. Conclusion is based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Background Information: Captain's Bay proposes to expand its marina from 14 to 18 slips. No dredging will be required. 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 is necessary prior to any change. Financial Impact: N/A Advisory Commission Discussion: N/A Council Committee Discussion: N/A Attachments: • Resolution • Environmental Assessment Worksheet • EAW Comment Letters • EAW Response to Comments COZO Df Ha;stfrgs t 10i FDurth Street East • Hastings, MN 59033-1955 * r,:6-51-4—W,2350 * T +r ci hastJnp rnn.tas 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 ENVIRNOMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CAPTAIN'S BAY 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 Captain's Bay (Proposal) from 14 to 18 slips; 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 a vote adopted by present. moved a second to this resolution and upon being put to 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 7 day of September 2010, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. (KSB) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for but should not complete the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title Captains Bay Marina Expansion 2. Proposer City of Hastings Contact person Curt Saunders Title Owner Address 1601 1601 Timber Ridge Ct City, State, ZIP Burnsville, MN 55306 Phone 952 435 7855 Fax 651 437 7082 E -mail saucurkcomcast.net 3. RGU City of Hastings Contact person John Hinzman Title Community Development Director Address 101 4 t ' St. East City, State, ZIP Hastings, MN 55033 Phone 651 480 2350 Fax 651 437 7082 E -mail JHinzman&ci.hastings.mn.us 4. Reason for EA W preparation (check one) _EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW _Citizen petition _RGU Discretion _Proposer _Volunteered EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name. 4410.4300, subpart 25 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 in surface area used temporarily or permanently for docks, docking, or maneuvering of water craft. A marina is an inland or offshore area for the concentrated mooring of 5 or more watercraft boat storage, fueling, launching, repair, sanitary pumpout, or restaurant service. 5. Project location County Washington City /Township Hastings GPS Coordinates: N44' 45' 01.8" W92'51'15.8" Tax Parcel Number 07 026 20 31 0001 NE 1 /4, SW 1 /4, Section 7, Township 26, Range 20 Attach each of the following to the EA W: County map showing the general location of the project; (See Figure 1) U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (See Figure 2) Site plan showing all significant project and natural features, (See Figure 3) 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Owner wants to add 4 slips to the existing 14 slips that were constructed per a Special Use Permit from the City of Hastings in 2007. The site would be maximized with the addition of these slips. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or willproduce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Four slips would be added to the existing 14 slips. No dredging will be required. Post supports will be driven into the river bottom for supporting the docks that access the new slips. Nothing additional will be done to the existing parking lot nor to the existing walkways. The walkway to the added slips will be on the water (dock) and will be connected to the existing dock walkways. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The project is not a government project and is for the sole purpose to provide space for 4 additional boats. Mr. Saunders has received a number of inquiries for smaller slips. This will allow boats of all sizes. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likel t�ppen Yes X No e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes X No 7. Project magnitude data Total project acreage: 10.79 acres Number of residential units: unattached NA attached NA maximum units per building. NA Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet NAO Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): 2,560 square feet docks for four slips. Other commercial (specify) Transient dock and recreational boating docks. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Unit of government Type of a lication Status Army Corp of Engineers 33CFR Application to be applied for Minnesota DNR Protected waters Application on hold pending EAW City of Hastings Special Use Permit To be applied for 9. Land use. Describe the current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify and potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The site is adjacent to an existing marina that has 14 slips that were installed since 2007. Prior to the placement of these 14 slips, there were older slips that were in disarray and removed from the site. Use of the site is compatible with surrounding land uses. The site borders rural vacant land to the north, TH 61 to the east, Hubs Landing Marina to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west. Environmental conflicts involving surrounding properties are not anticipated. The Minnesota PCA "What's in my neighborhood" search engine did not reveal any environmental information for the site or adjacent parcels. 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: This project will involve construction of floatable docks on navigable water. No impervious surfaces area will be added. There will be no modifications to Types 1 -8 wetlands, wooded /forest, brush /grassland, cropland, lawn/landscaping and stormwater pond. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. This is being reviewed by Lisa Joyle, Department of Natural Resources. b. Are there any state- listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plan communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? This is being reviewed by Lisa Joyle, Department of Natural Resources. 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? No 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? No 14. Water - related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes. The Hastings 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area as Floodway and this area lies within a delineated 100 -year flood plain. Marinas are allowed by Special Use Permit. The addition of 4 slips would require an amended Special Use Permit to be approved by the City of Hastings. The site is subject to Shoreland Management Regulations. The site is within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) and subject to requirements of Minnesota Executive Order 79 -19. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes. The current 14 watercraft from this marina will become 18 watercraft. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved. No grading will be done. 17. Water Quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. All improvements are limited to the navigable water. There will be no change in runoff. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. All improvements are limited to the navigable water. There will be no change in runoff. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produce or treated at the site. There is a well and a pump out system that has a holding tank above ground and it is emptied once a week. 19. Geological hazards and soil conditions; All improvements are limited to the navigable water. There will be no landward changes or modifications. 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks; There is a satellite bathroom serviced once per week along with the holding tank. It is serviced by Jimmies Johnnies. Any used oil is brought to proper waste oil sites. Fuel is not offered. 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: None Existing spaces (ifproject involves expansion): 37 Estimated total average daily traffic generated. 4 vehicles per day Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated. 1 vehicles per four hour Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. There will be limited impact on the transportation system and, as such, no improvements should be needed. 22. Vehicle - related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. The addition of vehicles from the construction of four boat slips should be minimal. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases. Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devises. Describe the impacts on air quality. The four additional slips will contain boats and towing vehicles that will likely will be gasoline powered and produce a slight increase in emissions. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or operation? Noise should be limited to the operation of towing vehicles and marine engines. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Request for review has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? The site is within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Scenic views and vistas? Yes, the marina is located along a scenic river. Other unique resources? No 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? No 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes The Hastings 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area as Floodway. Marinas are allowed by Special Use Permit. Thus the addition of 4 slips would require an amended Special Use Permit to be approved by the City of Hastings. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? No 29. Cumulative potential effects. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAWin such away as to cause cumulative potential effects. (Such future projects would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid.) Describe the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects (or discuss each cumulative potential effect under appropriate items(s) elsewhere on this form). Cumulative potential effects are not anticipated. 30. Otherpotential environmental impacts. If theproject may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with tiny proposed mitigation. None 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun, Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be consideredfor these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.) I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 44100200, subparts 9b and 60 respectively. of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date �/Q /10 Title Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at the Minnesota Department ofAdministration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651 201 2492, or http: / /www.egb.state.mn.us DENMARK T.26 -27N. - R.21 -20W. V ILLAGE OF AF=TON Pa17 0 s le q Ha.xt rt t f ace �� o ra l 7 LI/li st. a1 ' AF=7gN Ld9.5Sb Minn 95 .j3.92 efal ;1/cL?nn a lz.6 i� 9� F R /� 4e . n... f /t?d.d RrlMar 6 Y 35 � ry y Cwn1 lfs R.Q BR,ga,C +. Me er iC 135 F'Yryv rft a% I. f f L d1 Fred 8 6far arras q 917 £lmcr 1449 .17reeJ rat Ioa n E c3an .. , flf1Dn f /al ' I.Qflfi� � 7'f lJ MO d1.1 43 I 223.02 Lero ,Fart r tlstirl +c, Clarence sKnren 213 ! ,�. 21 120 &BartYlra PrILYXU kadKG J rhrtsL'r e en Pri6n[a� d �,R g • y� • o G1 • 20 YL1 +J fb(lrwJ € yA cF/ruen € • �'as 4 � ,�.�" y t .k r ! .4 24 � J{. of 7 &64 �' • q Ann. G "} 9�y Ru}}I Rad�e HD ann 6 scoe &bert € J[a re, tde. t frlson .Barbel er.r Arlynbf a 1935 Ft.bLkr • ,�", z.,,i PARK 4ti 111,7 3 08.5 ller z m r F73 6 41.31 • Rob[(t 7J5 9�7 lea a f.Sf.1 15 ' Lm € 21J [I;:71Pi worth € 2£Z /FadMri VA Ca ra 1 w r_s� v v sT." Fri i`L. v t. x. Gordan £dean srJ '� � eBDj/G � � "� 24. S � 'y. w � 91 M /P /rx4`ea Ardre..ls Y 2/Z v�uFG3 60 5 a6t/$ ro .'tv t R.tl. 112 o 78$ m The 3 Lloyd € is. ri.? 2 iD rcr Pte tfid 56.72. Gran d h/a/ #pr Minni 3. ^n w " 3' b ' 1D$.6 J 14d/1 91 I . q S, I /20 fe ome last. P ko sk y Po i .+H a o-a 1 sa 33 L'iu oL m4aq! a.7e m F {5 btb env e� s. 3 L�9 n P sti: /lb3 ' q y, fe9 � 174 /.b 80�S,S'Af40C) 'Wald € '. a $s ¢/68 791 EI rIL 50 � SO .GFICNE e. . .r,.. �kun �9clorfs P4v'.Sh Glrrl. i yD FD nr. S A air ? a llalda. v < V rY5 - ZL2 a a � U,alet H,,�bcrt 9 �" L.bnaJah [i t 3 s ' " "' f ° A1C3R 1 raberh ` L J/uraJ a 136.8 Nflen Schneude.r `� 26-s 1J 'rs 37.1 g /.d /; s �d F �a BAY- �, r.4,r h S 158 Charles Sahnsar 20 h'[rman P o N5.6 R� ti a q 6,';lwr ,! • 010 � or qnN r M2 Cern» T7itld7, teeltlin € 9D d 'd0 rYiri.S d a • 33.3 40 1 18 . 5` �3 kale cYchneider Szs n. rr03t i�s ru6iin Raberh aFd € ,muid '^' r � 2 233.5 Fken Naruietl% /mrra, .PD�uri a tat kmD� 0 °� jarvi 167 -I 8i} Ila 12D fsc. Zn "5 57z (1 �10 , 07 '.. z 1JH. cSecure+ Ra6ert sNfirr�. • dc&zidcf 6 tl �1 243D'I 6'S Lit arl� l 112 2°F 235 MyrfJe J? ar O 2773 Q tai �y .1311fOrJ atei .P.1tln� Y G/i��[4n fl ✓f7 - r1Q 37 YD COraral Q &3.7 - CMCrder l�uiouJ 120 S4 x,:nmfs b d� was r N.n. uorcr .AUro..1 ItQ • /6d fiP m q2 g Fyn T.�1. R[rr 71.2 .Saierrsan 61 } AeAnelh Gerald ;�'1 e is 192J3 o 8d. f 7 17�a'n f A YiILL ., ♦Ar. i- N { tx�iarn Fr 9 p l(ti" klr.urrt�5 `:. � S�'�4�' tEl t , �' !ir&rd €A,th /S9 r � s ^ 2 Hertrert -� ,�m�. TruS tCe a� c Dnsan 9� 77 rc eXS: rJeBe Q' hi99 78 78 eGn. SJUrLQJ real • f/on'rch LkUferf k /lae rrS €C. eze/ -r 7.5 ` 6. €f7 /rrE SI /erae, Ale.3ba N,zD11 • JT3 c6auer aaU cet e.r alf h• !! MyrHCs Orcix]rde r ',' 9© 5D3 96 /a lla ;�f'( 95 .DLrroe 1 elal 4d 3! 75.7 Sa 1 rcra 3 /� 3 4 y,SfhnQiC([Y MLLr. m • Keith MtCa1/t1m maihu f re n'rf r e 9tl 6ehr[lxfs 67 75 cra.l 120 e w'ayrer yD S- 6repq i � d2! P 737 llaro/d r[nspn 115 ��� e. 80. tl$ F 3. s - e �, f X.t /Z ✓F %s 11. lbi yl G/d f1'!a( �1 H. J. IF.EA. c�aJre{ G .,.' .1f L / 4t hbs t /10 ! N RlS. •.x H ?errata a z,:d Loma s. s b r YuF �1°or IY7 15 7 /16 as 1 rte= v a y, h Figure 1 e7 cy "'�5; M7yfi + 6 YFL ren E Ken7J11 21 Lb . u[Cttt G.fiuha her 81 Kai ba J4.I . llf5.l KfGCei 71Ni S E Yy d3J 1 LR, .rm. e.efl i POW d e s DOUGLAS Y4. q5 f e '. lido R21W �' R20W _ _ DAKOTA COUNTY 1300 1400 150 1600 15 44*45 49 54900 -M GS "53 340 000 FEET (WIS.) T 115 N T 114 4951 42 .. L Tr P� - - - -- NA / CD na / i s� o o 70 -� i �V ���' /'� n / i - >� n CD CD � n ITl Q _ cn Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651 - 259 -5738 t a DEPARTMENT OE NATURAL RESOURCES TRANSMITTED VIA E —MAIL August 9, 2010 John Hinzman, Community Developer Director City of Hastings 1014 Street East Hastings, MN 55033 jhinzman @cit.hastings.mn.us RE: Captains Bay Marina Expansion, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Hinzman: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Central Region has reviewed the EAW for the Captains Bay Marina Expansion located in Hastings, Washington County. From a natural resource perspective, the EAW does not provide sufficient information to be able to adequately discern potential impacts to resources and therefore we find the document incomplete (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 2a. Insufficient information). Items that require further attention are discussed below. • Item 10. Cover types should address the water surface area that will be displaced as a result of the project. Item 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources states that for both part a. and b. that the DNR is reviewing this request. The Natural Heritage Information System database review results should be included in the document in order for reviewers to be able to assess the potential impacts to these resources. In addition, the response anticipated from Lisa Joyal, DNR, only partially addresses this item. 11.a needs to include a discussion on what resources are located on or near the site and how they would be affected by the project. Item 11.b should include a discussion on mitigation measures the proposer plans to employ if impacts to resources are probable. • Item 12. Physical impacts on water resources response provided is "no ". The proposed project is for the construction of 4 additional slips. The slips are described as being floatable slips accessible by post- supported docks. Slip and dock construction will result in a surface water acreage impact. www.mndnz.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �r1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM 0 F 10% POST - CONSUMER WASTE Captains Bay Marina Expansion EAW August 9, 2010 • Item 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions should include a description of soils found on the site in part b. Item 25. Nearby resources The EAW identifies that a request for review has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. As mentioned in Item 11 above, this information should be provided within the EAW in order for reviewers to be able to adequately assess the potential for significant effects. Other nearby resources of consideration were not identified in the EAW that should be mentioned that include Lake Rebecca Park and Lock & Dam #2. Item 29. Cumulative impacts The EAW must provide some information about potential cumulative impacts in order to support the EIS need decision according to the rules. The EAW currently states that "cumulative impacts are not anticipated" which does not correctly answer this Item. The discussion should include other marinas in the vicinity for example. For assistance, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Guidelines can be found at http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/documents/eawrules.j2df Also, the EAW form submitted does not appear to be current version or form information was abbreviated during preparation. The most recent form can be found at http: / /www.egb.state.mn.us Note for future preparations, the complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651- 259 -5738, or by e -mail at melissa.doperalski@state.mn.us CC: Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Liz Harper, Gerald Johnson, Bryan Lueth, Molly Shodeen, Lisa Joyal, Jan Shaw Wolff, Central REAT (DNR) Nick Rowse (USFWS) Jon Larsen (EQB) HS10 Captains Bay Marina Expansion EAW.doc Mirinesota Pollution Con 520 Lafayette Road North SC, Paul, MN 55155 -4194 651- 296 -6300 1 800- 657 -3864 1 651- 282 -5332 TTY www.pca.state.mn.us August 4, 2010 Mr. John Hinman Community Development Director City of Hastings 101 East 4"' ,Street Hastings, MN 55033 Re: Captains Bay Marina Expansion Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Mr. Hinzman: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Captains Bay Marina Expansion project (Project) in Hastings, Minnesota. The Project proposes to add additional slips to the existing marina located on the east bank of the Mississippi River. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Permits and approvals required (Item S) • From the description in the EAW it does not appear that a Construction Stormwater (CSW) permit will be required, that is, it seems unlikely that one acre of surface land would be disturbed, unless a construction staging area greater than one acre is cleared or graded for use. • There may be a need for a CSW permit if there is dredging required for this activity and if there is a spoil pile greater than one acre and if there will not be a State Disposal System Dredging permit issued (i.e, too small amount) that would otherwisc control the dredge spoil pile runoff issues. Water quality; surface water runoff (Item 17) It should be noted that the Project will be conducted in a portion of the Mississippi River that is on the MPCA 2010 Draft 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load list of impaired waters for turbidity. Cumulative potential effects item) 29 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. Given the proximity of the proposed Project to the nearby TH 61- Hastings Bridge Project, a brief discussion focused on these related activities seems appropriate. St. Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar I Printed on 100% post- consumer recycled paper Mr. John Hinzman Page 2 August 4, 2010 We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. Please provide specific 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 permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project 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- 757 -2508. Sincerely, UaNzvt lwtwta.✓ Karen Kromar Planner Principal Environmental Review and Feedlot Section Regional Division KK: bt cc: Craig Affeldt, MPCA, St, Paul Larry Zdon, MPCA, St. Paul John Hensel, MPCA, St. Paul August 10, 2010 Mr. John Hinzman Hastings Community Development Director 101 e Street East Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Captains Bay Marina Expansion Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20773 -1 Dear Mr. Hinzman: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed expansion of Captains Bay Marina on the Mississippi River in Hastings, Minnesota. The following comments are offered concerning the EAW. Item 11— Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources The EAW does not include the necessary response information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) regarding the potential presence of sensitive wildlife or ecological resources, or habitats on or near the site, and if present, an indication of whether or not they might be affected by the proposed project. This information is necessary in part to determine whether or not the proposed project has the potential for causing significant environmental effects, and whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may need to be prepared. The document indicates that a request for the information has been made to the MDNR. The information requested of MDNR staff will need to be included in the City's `Response to Comments' document distributed to EAW reviewers. If the results of the inquiry to MDNR indicate the proposed marina expansion may have the potential to impact any sensitive wildlife or ecological resources in the vicinity, the decision on the need for an EIS may need to be delayed until EAW reviewers have the opportunity to review the new information. Item 25c — Nearby Resources: Designated Parks, Recreation Areas or Trails The EAW does not fully respond to the query for information regarding archeological, historical or architectural resources. With regard to whether or not the project site is on or in proximity to "Designated parks, recreation areas or trails ", in addition to the project site's location being within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, the EAW site is also within 0.5 mile of both the planned Mississippi River Regional Trail on the Dakota County side of the river and the proposed Mississippi River Regional Trail on the Washington County side of the river. Metropolitan Council staff review finds that the project raises no apparent issues of consistency with Council policies. This preliminary decision could change however, pending review of the forthcoming response information from MDNR's Natural Heritage and Nongame Program staff. The Council will take no formal action on the document. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Jim Larsen, PE, principal reviewer for this project, at 651- 602 -1159. Sincerely, Phyllis Hanson, Manager Local Planning Assistance cc: Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District 16 Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator Response to DNR Comments Item 10. Cover types. Should address the water surface area that will be displayed as a result of the project. Item 12. Physical impacts on water resourecs response provide is "no." The proposed project is for the construction of 4 additional slips. The slips are described as being floatable slips accessible by post- supported docks. Slip and dock construction will result in a surface water acreage impace. Response: The square footage of the walkway area for the 4 slips is 1212 sq. ft. Item 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources states that for both part a. and b. that the DNR is reviewing this request. The Natural Heritage Information System database review results should be included in the document in order for reviewers to be able to assess the potential impacts to these responses. In addition, the response needs to include a discussion on what resources are located on or near the site and how they would be affected by the project. Item 11.b should include a discussion on mitigation mearues the proposed plans to employ if impacts to resources are probable. Response: The Natural Heritage Information System has responded to the EAW. Their response states, "Several rare mussels have been documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the proposed project. As mussels are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation, it is important that effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the project." Item 19: Geological hazards and soil conditions should include a description of soils found on the site in part B. The project is located within water, not on land where soil will be disturbed. The adjacent land is composed of algansee loamy sand per the Washington County Soil Survey Map. Item 25. Nearby resources. The Eaw identifies that a request for review has been submitted to the State Historical Office. As mentioned in Item 11 above, this information should be provided within the EAW in order for reviewers to be able to adequately assess the potential for signifcnat effects. Other nearby resources of consideration were not indentified in the EAW that should be mentioned that include Lake Rebecca Park and Lock and Dam #2. Response: The State Historic Office has responded to the EAW and found that a Segment of the 9 -Foot Navigation Channel and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific railroad are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The effects on these items, along with Lake Rebecca Park and Lock and Dam #2 will be minimal due to the small expansion area of four docks and due to the fact no dredging will occur. Item 29. Cumulative impacts. The EAW must provide some information about potential cululative impacts in order to support the EIS need decision according to the rules. The EAW currently states that "cumulative impacts are not anticipated" which does not correcty answer this item. The discussion should include marinas in the vicinity for example. Response: There is a marina to the south of Captain's Bay marina. The cumulative impacts to this marina may include a slight increase in traffic from the increase in dock spaces. As only four docks are being added, a large increase in traffic is not expected. Response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permits and approvals required (Item 8) • From the description in the EAW it does not appear that a Construction Stormwater (CSW) permit will be required, that is, it seems unlikely that one acre of surface land would be disturbed, unless a construction staging area greater than one acre is cleared or graded for use. • There may be a need for a CSW permit if there is dredging required for this activity and if there is a spoil pile greater than one acre and if there will not be a State Disposal System Dredging permit issues (i.e. too small amount) that would otherwise control the dredge spoil runoff issues. Response: Less than one acre of surface land will be disturbed. There will be no dredging needed for the slips. The only work in the river will be to put the support posts for the slips and for the walkways. Thus, there also will not be a spoil pile. Water quality: surface water runoff (Item 17) It should be noted that the Project will be conducted in a portion of the Mississippi River that is on the MPCA 2010 Draft 303 (d) Total Maximum Daily Load list of impaired waters for turbidity. Response: This will be noted. Cumulative potential effects (item 29) 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. Given the proximity of the proposed Project to the nearby TH 61— Hastings Bridge Project, a brief discussion focused on these related activities seems appropriate. Response: There should not be any cumulative potential effects with this project and with the TH 61- Hastings Bridge Project. Trucks may deliver the slip construction material or it may be delivered via the river, but neither method will have any affect cumulative effect on the bridge project. Response to Metropolitan Council Item 11— Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources The EAW does not include the necessary response information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) regarding the potential presence of sensitive wildlife or ecological resources, or habitats on or near the site, and if present, an indication of whether or not they might be affected by the proposed project. This information is necessary in part to determine whether or not the proposed project has the potential for causing significant environmental effects, and whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may need to be prepared. The document indicates that a request for the information has been made to the MDNR. The information requested of MDNR staff will need to be included in the City's 'Response to Comments' document distributed to EAW reviewers. If the results of the inquiry to MDNR indicate the proposed marina expansion may have the potential to impact any sensitive wildlife or ecological resources in the vicinity, the decision on the need for an EIS may need to be delayed until EAW reviewers have the opportunity to review the new information. Response: The Natural Heritage Information System has responded to the EAW. Their response states, "Several rare mussels have been documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the proposed project. As mussels are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation, it is important that effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the project." Item 25c — Nearby Resources: Designated Parks, Recreation Areas or Trails The EAW does not fully respond to the query for information regarding archeological, historical or architectural resources. With regard to whether or not the project site is on or in proximity to "Designated parks, recreation areas or trails ", in addition to the project site's location being within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, the EAW site is also within 0.5 mile of both the planned Mississippi River Regional Trail on the Dakota County side of the river and the proposed Mississippi River Regional Trail on the Washington County side of the river. Response: The State Historic Office has responded to the EAW and found that a Segment of the 9 -Foot Navigation Channel and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific railroad are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The effects on these items, along with Lake Rebecca Park and Lock and Dam #2 will be minimal due to the small expansion area of four docks.