My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 09/15/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2010 - 2019
>
2015
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 09/15/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 10:46:01 AM
Creation date
12/16/2015 11:25:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
09/15/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STATE OF RECE/VED <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURq-d, o.... <br />500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155-40 <br />10 <br />DNR INFORMATION <br />(612) 296-6157 <br />May 23, 1994 <br />Ryan Schroeder <br />Ramsey City Administrator <br />15153 Nowthen Boulevard <br />Ramsey, MN 55303 <br />RE: Sunwood Drive NW betweenKrypton Street & County Road 116 <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) <br />Dear Mr. Schroeder: <br />The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the above-mentioned project. <br />We offer the following comments for your consideration. <br />We appreciate efforts taken by the City to coordinate with DNR personnel the project's design and <br />potential alignment during the planning process. We are concerned that the project will lead to <br />unnecessary impacts to DNR protected water resources, particularly protected waters 2-673W and 2- <br />114P. The EAW correctly indicates that a DNR protected waters permit is required for the project as <br />proposed. The associated permit process requires demonstration of both public_need and that no other <br />practical alternatives to protected waters impacts exist Although safety, cost, and future -development <br />potentials are important components of the roadway planning process, only: alignment designs which most <br />limit protected waters impacts would likely be permitted:` <br />The alternatives analysis provided in the EAW minimally` considers the environmental costs associated <br />with the various alignments and provides little detail regarding i5otentialmitigation of wetland impacts. <br />The preferred alignments, (1A & 2B), will result in the disruption and partial loss of two protected <br />wetlands. Although the EAW indicates that the proposed roadway will fill approximately 0.8 acres of <br />Type III wetland, uncertainty exists because a formal wetland delineation was not completed at the time <br />of EAW preparation. It is very likely that this 0.8 acre estimate is low. Furthermore, regardless of the <br />amount, the EAW should detail proposed mitigation for all expected project -related wetland impacts. <br />We also note that the preferred alignment results in the permanent conversion of 11.1 acres of wildlife <br />habitat rather than the 6.3 acres indicated in the EAW. <br />When reviewing other alignment options, use of roadway alignments 1B & 2C would require less wetland <br />fill. This approach avoids one wetland crossing, requires less clearing and grubbing of wooded areas, and <br />provides a good alignment along with the shortest driving distance. The EAW indicates that the <br />disadvantages of this approach consist of more excavation, a more curved and slower route, the purchase <br />and relocation of one residence, and a short sight -distance at one road crossing. The environmental costs <br />of this approach are less than those associated with the preferred alignment. <br />Other environmentally sound approaches could significantly reduce wetland impacts by either routing the <br />roadway north of Sunfish Lake or by bridging wetlands along the`routes already 'considered. <br />It is uncertain from the information provided whether stormwater runoff will be directly discharged into <br />wetlands from the roadways or street storm sewers. The DNR cities not support placement of untreated <br />stormwater runoff into wetlands. Although sedimentation basins and skimmers are mentioned as <br />pretreatment measures, Figures 15 & 16 do not show detention basin placement. These measures <br />require further clarification to better assess proposed protection measures for wetlands. <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.