Agenda - Council - 08/22/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SLATE OF DEPARTMENT OF 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · NATURAL ST, PAUL, MINNESOTA DNR IN FORA~,TION May 23, !994 Rvan Schroeder Rhmse. v Cftv Administrator 1~!53 ,~o~hen Boulevard Ramsey, MN 55303 RE: Sunwood Drive N\V bern, ecu Kr39ton Street & Counb, Road 116 Enxdronmental A.~sessment Worksheet (fA\V) RESOURC ,, ............ 55155-40 .. , Dear Mr. Schroeder: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the above-mentioned project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. \Ve appreciate efforts taken by the Ciw to coordinate v,dth DN'R persorme] the project's design and potential alignment during the plannir{g process. We are concerned that the prbje. Jt will iea~'to urmecessan, impacts to DNR protected water resources, particularly protected waters 2-673W and 2- li4P. The'EAW correctly indicates that a DN-R srotected waters permit is resuired for the project as proposed. 2-ne associated permit process require's demonstration of both publfc need and that no other nractical ahernatJves to protected waters impacts exist. Although safer5.,, cost, and future development botentials are important components of the roadway planning process, only alignment designs v,;hich mos~ hmit protected waters impacts would likely be permitted. The alternatives analysis provided in the EAW minimalh, considers the emdronmental costs associated with the various alignments and nrovides little detail regkrding potential mitigation of wetland impacts. The preferred ahgnments, (iA ~ 2B), will result in the disruption and partial loss of two protected wetlands. Although the EAW indicates that the proposed roadway will fill approximately 0.8 acres of Type IE wetland, uncertainty., exists because a formal wetland delineation was not completed at the time o~ EAW preparation. It is ven, likely that this 0.8 acre estimate is low. Furthermore, regardless of the amounu, the EAW should deta{il proposed mitigation for all expected project-related wetland impacts. We also note that the preferred alignment results 52 the permanent conversion of 11.1 acres of wildlife habitat rather than the 6.3 acres indicated in the EAW. When reviewing other alignment options, use of roadwa'¢ ahgm:nents lB & 2C would require less wetland ~Jll. Tn_is approach avoids one wetland crossing, require~ less clearing and grubbing of wooded areas, and provides a good align_mere along w/th the shortest driving distance. The EAW indicates that the disadvantages of this approach consist of more excavation, a more curved and slower route, the purchase and relocation of one residence, and a short sigh~-distance at one road crossing. The environmgma] costs of this approach are less than those associated with the preferred alignment. Other enviromnentalh, sound approaches could signxificantly reduce wetland/mpacts by either routing the roadway north of Sunfish Lake or by bridging wetlands along the routes already considered. h is uncertahn from the information provided whether stormwater runoff will be directh, dischareed into wetlands from the roadways or stree:~ storm sewers. The DN'R does not support place~em of ur~rreated s:ormwater runoff 52to wetlands. ,AJthough sedimentation basins and sNm.mers are mentioned as ~retreatmem measures, Figures 15 & ~6 do not show detention basin placement. These measures require further ctarLfication to better assess proposed protection measures for wetlands. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER