STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Transcription

1

2 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY 1-GV-461 RELIEF LIFT STATION AND FORCEMAIN PROJECT CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND GOLDEN VALLEY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) St. Louis Park/Golden Valley 1-GV-461 Relief Lift Station and Forcemain Project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following,, and Order. Project Description 1. The MCES proposes to construct the 1-GV-461 Relief to provide additional capacity for wastewater flows from the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The Project consists of the construction of a new pump (lift) station and 8,800 feet of new 18-inch sewer pipe to handle a wastewater flow of up to 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd). 2. The proposed Project involves installation of a pressurized 18-inch diameter forcemain from a lift station located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 100 and Interstate 394 (I-394) to existing MCES forcemains and , known as the Plymouth Forcemains. A lift station will be constructed on vacant property bordered by Lilac Drive, Douglas Avenue, and Princeton Avenue. The new forcemain will be routed from the lift station north on Lilac Drive, west under Highway 100 on Wayzata Boulevard, north under I-394 to Circle Down, west on Circle Down and Golden Hills Drive, north on Xenia Avenue, Turners Crossroad, and under Highway 55 to the Plymouth Forcemains. Tunnels of up to 72 inches in diameter will be installed at the I-394, Canadian- Pacific Line Railroad tracks, and Highway 55 crossings. 3. Current peak flows in MCES gravity interceptor 1-GV-461 utilize 85 percent of the interceptor s existing capacity. Planned redevelopment along I-394 and Highway 100 in northern St. Louis Park and southern Golden Valley will produce wastewater flows exceeding the capacity of 1-GV-461 that serves these areas. To provide additional capacity, a new lift station and forcemain will be constructed to redirect 5.0 mgd peak flow from the 1-GV-461 service area to the Plymouth Forcemains. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 Procedural History 4. MCES submitted a facilities plan for the proposed Project to the MPCA on March 1, The Project was determined to exceed the threshold for a mandatory EAW in accordance with Minn. R , subp. 18.A. 5. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 18.A, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R , the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 13, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to media in Isanti, Chisago, Washington, Ramsey, Dakota, Scott, Carver, Hennepin, and Wright Counties, as well as other interested parties, on June 13, The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 13, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at 7. The public comment period for the EAW began on June 13, 2011, and ended on July 13, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received a comment letter from one governmental unit and no letters from citizens. See Appendix A to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 8. Under Minn. R , the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7. These criteria are: A. The 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 D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs 2

4 The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 9. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects (Minn. R , subp. 7. A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 10. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the following: Air quality impacts related to noise, dust and odor Water quality impacts related to construction activities Traffic impacts related to construction activities 11. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Air quality impacts related to noise, dust and odor 12. Construction equipment will generate noise. These impacts will be mitigated by the use of proper muffling equipment and limiting construction activities to daylight hours or those permitted by local ordinances. 13. Dust emissions will temporarily increase due to excavation, earth moving, and vehicle traffic during construction. Impacts from dust generated during construction can be mitigated through sweeping and watering of the road and construction sites, and establishing vegetative cover. 14. Upon completion of the Project, the lift station and vents for collection systems may generate odor during normal operations. Such odors may at times be noticeable; however, the actual effects on human health or the environment are not significant. Odor control methods can be incorporated, if necessary, to mitigate odors from the lift station or collection system. 15. The air quality impacts related to the generation of dust emissions and equipment noise will be short-term and temporary in nature. Odor impacts from the lift station and vents in the collection system are not expected to be significant. If nuisance conditions were to develop, odor control methods can be incorporated to mitigate impacts. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 16. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality impacts related to noise, dust and odors. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process, and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 3

5 17. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Water quality impacts related to construction activities 18. The Project will generate stormwater runoff during construction of the lift station and forcemain. The extent of construction stormwater impacts will depend on the length of time required to reestablish vegetative cover and the effectiveness of interim erosion control measures. 19. Erosion and sediment control best management practices will be installed during construction activities as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Construction Stormwater Permit issued by MPCA. In addition, a detailed Erosion Control Plan will be prepared and submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization for review and comment. Erosion control measures generally include silt fences, ditch checks, inlet protection, street sweeping, dust control, preservation of existing vegetation, stabilization of site exits, erosion control blankets, riprap at storm sewer outlets, and good housekeeping practices for material storage and waste control. These measures will be documented in detailed plans and specifications for the Project. 20. Installation of the forcemain pipeline and bedding material have potential to create enhanced subsurface drainage pathways that could convey contaminants to the groundwater. The extent of this potential impact is dependent on factors such as the length of time excavated trenches are open, soil composition, depth to groundwater, and the proximity of any existing contaminated sites to the areas undergoing excavation. Some areas of the Project have highly permeable soils, making them more susceptible to groundwater contamination. 21. Mitigation measures to prevent groundwater contamination will include minimizing the time the construction trench is open, using appropriate spill and containment procedures for construction equipment, and sealing and pressure testing the forcemain prior to coming online. 22. The MPCA finds that potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur due to construction activities on the Project would be reversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality due to construction can be addressed through best management practices and other erosion control measures as required by the stormwater permit issued by the MPCA and the regulatory requirements of the local watershed authorities. MCES will have an established plan in place for reporting and handling spills to minimize potential contamination of surface and groundwaters. 23. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to water quality impacts related to construction of the Project. The impacts on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 4

6 24. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Traffic impacts related to construction activities 25. Construction of the forcemain will create temporary effects on traffic in the Project area resulting in possible local traffic congestion and detours around the construction activity. Open trench construction methods will be used for local city and county streets. Generally, the construction trench will be narrow enough to permit a limited flow of traffic through the Project construction zone. 26. The proposed improvements consist of primarily underground utility construction that would not significantly impact the area. The proposed alignment of the forcemain will be, as much as possible, located within existing rights-of-way and easements of local, county, and state roadways and parcels. Any impacts to local traffic will be short-term and reversible. 27. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to traffic impacts resulting from construction activities. The impacts on local traffic that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 28. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to traffic impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Cumulative Potential Effects 29. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the cumulative potential effects. In making this determination, the MPCA must consider whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project (Minn. R subp.7.b). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 30. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project. The cumulative effects related to growth and development that will be enabled by the Project. These include increased residential and commercial development. 5

7 31. The mitigation of the secondary effects from growth and development must be managed by ongoing planning on the local, county, and state level, including ongoing comprehensive water and land use planning, and the application of relevant requirements of rules and ordinances in permits or approvals issued by local, county, and state jurisdictions. 32. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects. 33. Based on information on the Project obtained from the proposer, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 34. The MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects related to cumulative potential effects. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 35. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority" (Minn. R , subp. 7.C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 36. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government MPCA MPCA MPCA Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DOT) Hennepin County City of Golden Valley City of St. Louis Park Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Canadian Pacific Railroad Permit or Approval Required Plans and Specifications Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for construction License for Utility Crossing of Public Lands and Waters Utility Permit on Truck Highway Right-of-Way (Form 2525) Utility Permit for work in Roadway Right-of-Way Utility Permit for work in Roadway Right-of-Way Utility Permit for work in Roadway Right-of-Way Application Form for Development Proposal Grading and Land Alteration/Erosion Control Permits Stormwater Management Plan Right-of-Way Permit/easement 6

8 37. MPCA Plans and Specifications. Construction plans and specifications for the Project are submitted to the MPCA for technical review and approval. This review is performed to ensure that the facility design is consistent with good engineering practice and state and federal criteria. 38. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit. A General NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit is required when a project will disturb one or more acres. It provides for the use of best management practices to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion plan that describes the specific measures to be implemented and also addresses phased construction, vehicle tracking of sediment, inspection of erosion control measures implemented, and time frames in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also requires adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed. 39. MDNR Temporary Water Appropriation Permit. The permit is for certain temporary appropriations for the purpose of construction dewatering. Temporary water appropriation applies to projects involving a one-time, limited time (not more than 12 months), nonrecurring appropriation of state water totaling one million gallons per year, or 10,000 gallons per day. 40. MDNR License for Utility Crossings of Public Lands and Waters. A license is required for the passage of any utility over, under, or across any state land or public waters. Standards and criteria of the MDNR include route design, structure design, construction methods, safety considerations, and right-of-way maintenance to provide maximum protection and preservation of the natural environment and to minimize any adverse effects, which may result from utility crossings. 41. Mn/DOT Utility Permit on Trunk Highway Right-of-Way. The permit ensures that the work will be accomplished in a manner that will not be detrimental to the right-of-way and that will safeguard the public, and that the right-of-way on trunk highways is restored to its original condition. 42. Hennepin County Utility Permit for Work in County Road Right-of-Way. The permit assures that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with the county s ordinances and codes. 43. Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park Utility Permits. These permits assure that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with ordinances and codes and provides for inspections. 44. Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission Application for Development Proposal. Projects are reviewed to ensure conformance with the policies within the watershed management plan and that they achieve the water quality control standards and design criteria adopted by the commission. 45. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The watershed district regulates land disturbing activities and requires controls for runoff of sediment to protect wetlands and other surface waters during construction and after completion of construction of the project. The permits issued assure that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with the watershed district s rules. 7

9 46. Canadian Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way Permit. This permit is used to ensure that the utilities will be constructed in a manner that will not disrupt service or adversely affect the rail lines. 47. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 48. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs (Minn. R , subp. 7. D). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 49. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. Facilities plan Data presented in the EAW Permits and environmental review of similar projects 50. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 51. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 52. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 8

10

11 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council Environmental Services St. Louis Park/Golden Valley 1-GV-461 Relief Environmental Assessment Worksheet COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED 1. Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office. Letter received June 24, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office. Letter received June 24, Comment 1-1: Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Response: No response required.

12