SOUTH ST. LOUIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SOUTH ST. LOUIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT"

Transcription

1 SOUTH ST. LOUIS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORD OF DECISION In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Sargent Creek Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project in St. Louis County, Minnesota. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District proposes to restore approximately 4,500 feet of Sargent Creek, a designated trout stream in Duluth, MN; St. Louis County, Minnesota. Natural Channel Design methodology will be used to restore the creek to an appropriate plan, profile and dimension. Trout habitat components are an integral part of the design. Several access trails will be built off of the Willard Munger Trail to access the project site. 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Minn. R , subp. 26, the proposed Project requires preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a diversion, realignment, or channelization of any designated trout stream, or affecting greater than 500 feet of natural watercourse with a total drainage area of ten or more square miles, unless exempted by part , subpart 14, item E, or 17. The local government unit shall be the Responsible Government Unit (RGU). 3. The South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) is the RGU and the Project Proposer. 4. The South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District prepared an EAW pursuant to Minnesota Rules, parts and On April 12, 2018, the SWCD distributed the EAW to the official EQB mailing list. A Public Notice was published in the Duluth News Tribune on April 16, A press release was also distributed. The EAW notice appeared in the EQB Monitor on April 23, In accordance with Minn. R , a 30-day EAW comment period commenced on April 23, 2018 and ended on May 23, Comments were accepted by mail and During the 30-day EAW public review and comment period, the SWCD received comments on from the agencies and individuals listed below: A.) Linda Ross-Sellner, Citizen (April 25, 2018) B.) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Karen Kromar, (May 22, 2018) C.) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Anne Marguerite Coyle, (May 22, 2018) D.) Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, Kelly Gragg-Johnson (January 5, 2018 and 1

2 May 11, 2018) The comment letters are included in this Record of Decision as attachments. The comments received and the RGU s responses are provided below: Commenter A Linda Ross-Sellner commented on several aspects of the project. Some of these comments do not address the accuracy or completeness of the EAW, the potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the Project is commenced, or the need for an EIS as defined in Minnesota Rules, Part These comments have been noted but will not receive a specific response. RGU responses to applicable comments are provided below: Comment A1: The commenter notes that the funding source for the project is unclear. Response A1: The commenter is correct. The funding source is noted in the Introduction but should have been more specific. The funding source should have also been included under Section 9: Permits and Approvals Required. The Funding Source is the MN Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Session Laws 2012, First Special Session chapter 1, article 1, section 9, subdivision 3, which was amended to read: Flood Hazard Mitigation, Stream Restoration Grants: (a) For the purposes specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 12A.12, subdivision 2. Funds may be used to acquire or relocate structures damaged or threatened by the impacts resulting from the rain storm and are also available for the local share of acquisition and relocation flood mitigation projects. Of this appropriation, $9,000,000 is from the bond proceeds fund and $1,000,000 is from the general fund. (b) This appropriation may also be used for stream restoration projects in the area included in DR Comment A2: The commenter notes that the Access Trails will degrade habitat and increase the sediment load in the creek. Response A2: The Access Trails will temporarily impact the local environment. The project site is remote and building a temporary access to the site is necessary. The SWCD has taken all available measures to limit the impacts that the access trails have on the local environment including the following: 1. Locating the trails in areas with the most natural grade to avoid areas with greater erosion potential. 2. Limiting the trails to 14 feet wide. 3. Restoring the trails with biodegradable erosion control blanket and restoring them as soon as possible after the project is complete. 4. Arranging for the use of the Munger Trail with the MN DNR so that additional access trails do not need to be built. Comment A3: The commenter notes that the diverting the stream into new, unstabilized channels will cause scour and sedimentation. Response A3: The creek will not be diverted through new channels. It will be diverted through pipes using a large pump. Comment A4: The commenter notes that reshaping and re-aligning the stream will increase sedimentation. Response A4: There will be short-term sediment impacts to the creek when it is being diverted and then returned to the channel. These impacts are expected to be no greater than impacts from a 2-year rain event. Moving the channel away from large eroding banks will reduce longterm sediment impacts. 2

3 Comment A5: The commenter notes that working in the stream channel will contribute sediment load and impact fish habitat. Response A5: There will be temporary impacts to the stream including to the fish habitat. The project s goal is to create positive, long-term hydrological and ecological impacts that will make up for the negative short-term impacts. Comment A6: The commenter notes a concern regarding the type of soils and steep topography in regards to high erosion potential. Response A6: The RGU appreciates this comment. See Response A2. A formal Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has also been prepared to guide erosion and sediment control activities over the course of the project in order to minimize the impacts of the project as much as possible. Comment A7: The commenter notes a concern that the EAW states that the character and quantity of pre- and post- project stormwater runoff will be the same. Response A7: The RGU maintains that the pre- and post- project stormwater runoff scenario will be the same as no development or impervious surfaces are being created as part of this project. The design plans call for all disturbed areas to be restored to their original contours and stabilized either with tree and shrub plantings, seed and mulch, or erosion control blanket. The RGU expects that within one growing season the site will be completely stabilized. A three-year vegetation maintenance plan is included as part of this project in order to ensure that the site fully recovers post-construction. Commenter B The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) reviewed the EAW and submitted several comments regarding the accuracy and completeness of the EAW. The RGU greatly appreciates these comments and will make the following changes and improvements to the EAW and SWPPP as requested by the MPCA. Comment B1: Regarding the Project Description (Item 6). The MPCA notes that although the project is within the geographic area of the St. Louis River Area of Concern, it is unrelated to the EPA-approved activities for the A.O.C. and that using the A.O.C. as a justification for the project is inaccurate. Response B1: The comment is correct and is greatly appreciated. The connection made between the project and formal, federally-approved plans for the A.O.C. was unintentional and the RGU greatly regrets suggesting that the project is affiliated with the A.O.C. program. All language indicating or suggesting a link between the project and the A.O.C. has been removed from the EAW including in the following sections: 6.a.; 6.b.; 6.d.; and 11.a. Comment B2: Regarding Permits and Approvals (Item 8). The MPCA notes that the 401 Water Quality Certification is inaccurately listed under the Army Corps of Engineers and should be listed under the MPCA instead. Response B2: The comment is correct. The RGU regrets inaccurately combining these two programs and will correct the EAW to reflect the MPCA s authority over the 401 program. Comment B3: Regarding Water Resources (Item 11). The MPCA notes the difference between disturbance that occurs below the Ordinary High Water Level and disturbance that occurs above the Ordinary High Water Level. The MPCA notes that different agencies regulate these areas and that an NPDES permit would not be required if disturbance above the OHWL is less than one acre. Response B3: The RGU appreciates this comment. The RGU calculated the disturbed area above the OHWL to be greater than one acre, therefore NPDES permit coverage has been acquired. 3

4 Comment B4: Regarding Water Resources (Item 11). The MPCA notes that the EAW does not include information on what erosion and sediment controls would be used in the event of heavy rainfall. The MPCA notes that the SWPPP should include the specific protective actions that will be undertaken should a heavy rainfall event occur during the course of the project. Response B4: The comment is correct. Information relating to what specific actions will be taken to mitigate erosion in the event of a heavy rainfall has been added to the SWPPP. Comment B5: Regarding Water Resources (Item 11). The MPCA notes that information is missing from the SWPPP including project boundaries, phasing, grading and BMP locations. Response B5: The comment is correct. The RGU regrets that the SWPPP was incomplete. The project plans provide this information and have been added to the SWPPP by reference. Comment B6: Regarding Water Resources (Item 11). The MPCA notes that because of Sargent Creek s designated trout stream status, redundant down-gradient sediment control must be in place during construction activity. The MPCA notes that the SWPPP must include this information, in addition to the directive to immediately stabilize soils if they are to remain unworked for seven consecutive days. Response B6: The RGU appreciates the comment. The redundant down-gradient controls are required under Appendix A of the NPDES general permit, which has been acquired. The requirement that soils left unworked for more than seven days be stabilized is included in the SWPPP under Section 2. Comment B7: Regarding Noise (Item 17). The MPCA recommends that all construction equipment be fitted with appropriate mufflers in order to maintain appropriate noise standards during construction. Response B7: The RGU appreciates this comment and will take all available measures to limit the noise impacts on Trail-users from this project. Commenter C The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed the EAW and submitted several comments affirming the RGU s plans. Response C The SWCD appreciates the MN DNR s review of the project and comments on the EAW. Commenter D The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identified the Duluth Short Line Railroad Corridor Historic District (currently, the Willard Munger Trail) as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The agency concluded that, provided that the railroad (Trail) grade/bed is not impacted, and that any damage to the asphalt surface is restored, the project will have no adverse effects on the historic property. SHPO also commented that they do not address requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR 800. Response D The SWCD appreciates SHPO s review of the Project and comments on the EAW. CONCLUSIONS Based on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, comments received during the comment period, and responses to the questions raised and issues identified, the South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District, as the Responsible Governmental Unit for this environmental review, concludes the following: 4

5 1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this "Record of Decision" document, and related documentation for the project, were prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minn. Rules, Parts to The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this "Record of Decision" document, and related documentation for the project have satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained. 3. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based upon the above findings and the evaluation of the following four criteria (per Minn. Rules, Parts Subp. 7): A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Project proposer, including other EISs. RECORD OF DECISION Based on consideration of the criteria and factors specified in the Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules (Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 6 and 7) to determine whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, and on the Findings of Fact and Coclusions in this matter, the South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District determines that the proposed Sargent Creek Floodplain and Channel Restoration Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Consequently, the South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District makes a Negative Declaration and does not require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. ORDER Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions: The South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District determines that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the Sargent Creek Floodplain and Channel Restoration Project in St. Louis County, Minnesota. Any Findings that might be properly termed Conclusions and any Conclusions that might be properly termed Findings are hereby adopted as such. Dated this 24 th day of May, South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District Kate Kubiak, Conservation Specialist 5

6 COMMENTS RECEIVED 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17