Memo - EAW, Parker Office Project
. I Economic Developmen~
MEMORANDUM
TO: II Honorable Mayor and City Council
FRo~p6im Kerrigan, Director of Planning & Economic Development
DATE: October 7 r 2004
SUBJECT: EAW r Parker Office Project
In response to the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) petition that has been
received for this project, the City Council has scheduled the following:
. October 12 - Work session to discuss information submitted by interested
parties concerning arguments for or against the need for undertaking an EAW
. . October 19 - City Council action on the EAW request
At the October 12 meeting, Chris Meehan of Wenck Associates, Inc., will be present to
discuss his review of the information that has been received. This consulting firm has
been retained by the City to address this matter. Wenck Associates, Inc., is presently
the consulting engineer to the Minnehaha Watershed District.
Attached is a memo from Mr. Meehan. His conclusion is that all of the issues identified
by Liesch, a consultant representing Nine Mile Cove Association, will need to be
addressed by the developer of the subject project to secure approval from the Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District.
Both the Nine Mile Cove Association and the project developer have been provided
notice of the future meeting schedule. They have been informed that for the October 12
work session public input is usually not solicited and that they will have the ability to
provide public comment on October 19.
Attachments
. Letter from Liesch, dated October 1 , 2004
. Letter from Jim Parker, dated October 4,2004
. Letter from Wenck Associates, Inc., dated October 7, 2004
. . Letter to Anne Worrell, Nine Mile Cove Association, James Parker, and David
Rosedahl from James Kerrigan, dated October 1 , 2004
. Miscellaneous information re: EAW
"
. .
- --- .".. - -. - -. . . - . - -. : ---~~ -. . -- - --:
~
....
-
. LIE:StH
HYDROGEOLOGISTS . ENGINEERS " ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
October 1, 2004
Nancy Anderson, City Planner
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Hwy 169/2nd Avenue Office Condo Site, Hopkins,:MN
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Liesch Associates, Inc. (Liesch) had been requested by the Nine Mile Cove Association to review
the environmental issues concerning the proposed multitenat office development at 2nd Avenue
South in Hopkins proposed by Advance Development, LLC. Liesch has reviewed the facts of the
. project, has spoken with Mr. Bob Obermeyer, engineer for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
and have several concerns relative to its potential environmental impact to the site and the
surrounding community. We believe the facts warrant that this project be further scrutinized via a
fonnal enviromnental review process in the fonn of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
As you know the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requires two permits for this project - a
wetland replacement pennit and a grading permit. The grading permit includes requirements for
conformance with district water quality and flood protection standards. The wetland permit
application has been submitted, but is incomplete. The grading permit application has not been
submitted. There are questions and concerns regarding the 100-year floodplain elevation at the site
and the floodplain fill rights transferred from the site to another site in 1990. According to MR.
Obermayer, the 100-year floodplain at the culvert draining under Trunk Highway 169 is 878. The
IOO-year flood elevation of the remainder of the site (locations where fill is proposed) will be
something higher than that. In addition, questions need to be addressed about the transfer of flood
rights for this project and their effect.
The Advance proposal computes its floodplain encroachment using a 100-year floodplain elevation
of 877. The acrnal lOO-year floodplain elevation is greater than 878. A December 10, 1997 letter
from a listing realtor, referring to information provided by City of Hopkins and a representative of
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, says 94% of the land is considered at or below the IOO-year
floodplain elevation of 879. The project would need more fill than proposed to assure the first floor
elevations of all structures are at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation, and the project
. would certainly have more floodplain encroachment than indicated on the preliminary plans
submitted to the City for approval.
A December 15, 1987 memorandum to the 1-1inneapolis Employee Retirement Fund (MERF - tbe
prior landowner) from their consulting engineer assesses the feasibility of MERF purchasing tbe
-I.
www.liescn.com ;;
Page 2
October 1, 2004
property to use floodplain fill lights to compensate for over-filling another site. [The property .
purchase and floodpbin fill rights transfer \vas subsequently done.] Tllis memorandum states:
The parcel in question has an area of about 5.5 acres. Five of these acres lie below elevation
878 which is the projected 100-year flood elevation for Nine Mile Creek at this location.
According to existing NIvlCVlD standards, the owner of floodplain acreage may fill 20
percent on an area basis of floodplain property. Thus, 0.2 x 5 acres = 1 acre of land that
could be filled. During a telephone conversation with the Nine Mile District Engineer, Mr.
Obenneyer, he indicated that concephmlly the fill could be placed anywhere on the site and
still meet District standards. He did note that as a practical matter other regulatory agencies
\vould enter in when a project was achwlIy proposed. Thus, a conceptual one acre
development pad placed at the southern end of the site would maximize the volume
available for floodplain transfer. Based upon a review of existing City topographical maps,
it is my [IvrERF consulting engineer] opinion that adequate floodplain encroachment rights
exist on the tax-forfeit project and could be transferred to the Peace Valley Townhome site
to offset the floodplain volume sought by the NMCWD.
This mernonmdum raises the question of\vhether there is an error in the 1990 Declaration between
the MERF and 1\1MC\VD on how much floodplain fill is available to be used. A copy of the
supP01iing documentation has been attached.
As noted above, the NMC\VD standards allowed that approximately 1 acre of the site could be e
filled. The MERF consulting engineer believed that, by selecting an acre that would maximize the
volume of fill in the floodplain, enough floodplain encroachment lights could be generated to offset
the floodplain volume sought by the NMCWD. In tIns discussion, both the floodplain storage
deficit being mitigated and tile floodplain encroachment rights being transferred to mitigate the
deficit are volume measurements.
The 1990 Declaration between MERF and NMCWD transfers 3.14 acres of floodplain fill rights to
compensate for 2.51 acre-feet of excess fill in the floodplain at the other site. It indicates that there
is the potential to fill another 0.42 acres of floodplain. If these figures are conect, they indicate
3.56 acres of this approximately 5.5 acre site could have been filled (-65%). As noted above, the
1\1J\1C'vVD standards were 20% of the floodplain portion of a site. It appears there was an error in
the Declaration whereby a smaller area (say,~l acre) could be filled which would allow up to 3.56
acre-feet (~3.5 feet of fill) below the 100-year floodplain elevation. If there is a misprint in the
document and it was intended to transfer volume rather than area, the site would have 0.42 acre-feet
(678 CY) of floodplain storage, not 0.42 acres of floodplain fill, available for use.
Regarding NMC\VD permits, the prelinlinary drawings provided shows the proposal includes
\vetland and floodplain fill. The runoff from the access road appears to drain directly to the
\vetland. The drainage [Tom the office building and parking area appears to drain directly to the
floodplain contiguous to the wetland. Importantly, the information presented by Advance did not
address nm-off rate control, water quality control or wetland mitigation all significant factors
consideling the proximity to the wetland amI the site development plans. .
As noted above, it is cl ear that Advance Development has not fully taken into account the
floodplain, wetland and surface water issues at this site. These concems should not be cursorily
waived. The wetland, floodplain and surface water quality issues represent concerns which require
J.
www.liesch.com ~
-- --
!
~.. _~_. _ _ :""'" . - lll' - - ~ ..~~ . - ... - . - .. -. --, --.. . '- - - - .;. ..- ;}. - - - - -
Page 3
October 1, 2004
. further and in depth environmental analysis. It is clear that this development does not meet the
EA W exemption criteria as outlined in part 4410.4600, subpart 10. The EA W process truly
represents the best and most prudent mechanism to assess the wetland, floodplain, surface water
quality and other associated issues in order for the City and its constituency to better understand
what kind of impact this development would truly have on the area.
We appreciate your consideration of these important issues. Please contact us at (763) 489-3100
should you have any questions or comments. Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ik l::'--: ~
(l/2A-bJ'. c -v-r'/y?/}f L - .
Harry L. lsummi tt
Principal
Dana 1. Wagner, CIllvlM
. Principal
Nine Mile Cove Association
\ \granite\prj$\go\forms\temp 1 ate\] etter_dol
.
~
www.liesch.com ::;
.. ..--
- ~ 0
J,
IvEHO
TO: Mr. Jonn Chenoweth .
f/,r, Jim Schwi etz
Minneapolis Employees Retire~ent Fund
FROr'; Ji m t'lahady
E. A. Hickok and Associates
DATE: Dece~ber 15, 1987
RE: Feasibi1it)' of using existing floodplain encroachment rights
available on a state-owned tax forfeit property to co~pensate for
the alleged floodplain deficit at the Peace Valley Townbomes site.
Purpose .
T i12 pu rp os e or th is memorandum is to assess the feasi bil i ty of purchas i ng a
5.5 acre state-ol"lned tax forfeit parcel- of land located west of County Road 18,
s au th of Seven til Street and east of Second Avenue in Hopk i ns to compensate for
~ a deficit or 2.48 acre-feet of floodplain storage alleged by the Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District (Ni'iWCD). The memo will consider several questfons:
1] if the parcel is purchased, does sufficient floodplain encroachment volume
_exist to sa-::.isTY NI~WCD requiremef1ts, and 2) assuming purchase and transfer of
-Fl ood? 1 ai n encroachment ri ghts to HERF, what are the opt; Qns for deve 1 oprnent
or sale of ~he parcel?
Op";on 1: P~rchase of the Percel and Transfer of Floodplain
Encroachment Rights
The parcel in questi on has an area of about 5.5 acres. Five of these acres
1 ie below elevation 378 whiCh is the projected lOO-year nood elevation for .
Nine Nile Creek at this location. Accord,ng to existing NMCto/D standards, the
owner of floodplaif1 acreage may fill 20 percent on an area basis of floodplain
property. Thus, .2 x S acres = 1 acre of land that cou:Tcrbe filled. During a
telephone conversation with the District Engineer, Mr. Obermeyer, he indicated
tha t conceptu all; the fi 11 could be placed anywhere on the site and still meet
District standards. He did note that as a practical matter other regulatory
agencies WOUld enter in I.hen a project was actually proposed. Thus, a
conceptual one acre deve10pment pad placed at the southern end of the site
would maximize the volume available for floodplain encroachment transfer (see
Site A, Figure 1). Based upon a review of existing CHy topographical maps,
it is my opinion that adequate floodplain encroachment rights exist on the
tu-forfeit project and could be transferred to the Peace Valley Townhome site
to offset the floodplain vOlume sought by the N~1CWO.
.
---
-/>
- -
,
Option 2: Purchase, Transfer and Subsequent Oevelop~ent and/or Sale
. A$suming MERF purcnases the parce1 and transfers the available floodplain
encroachment rights to the Peace Valley site, several options remain for
subsequent development and/or sale of the property.
The most probable configuration for a development is shown as Site B in Figure
L It would be located in the northern portion of the si te nex.t to the
existing 878 contour. Assuming actual fill placement which covered an acre of
additional land, about 1.33 acre-feet of existing stormwater storage volume
would be lost. A permit would be needed from the NMCWD, the ONR and the US
Anny Corps of Engi neers to place fi 11 in the wetl and area on thi 5 property.
When I proposed thi 5 concept to the Oi stri ct Eng; neer, he indicated it would
require a vari ance from Oi stri ct standards because the fl oodp 1 ai n ri ghts \IOU 1 d
have already been used and compensation for any additional fill would have to
occur. Whil e the Oi stl"l ct Engi neer coul d not commit the Board to thi s decision
( Le., whether or not t.o all ow fi 11 i n9 and compensatory excavati on l. he did
note that this type of project and compensation has occurred in the past.
Assum; ng the Watershed Board approved thi s concept, + one acre could be fill ed
in the northern portion of the site and 2.48 acre-feet of cOQpensatory
excavation could occur in the southern portion of the site. This volume of
compensation would be equivalent to about 1.25 feet of excavation over a
two-acre area.
Bes; des deve 1 opment, another al ternat; ve avail ab 1 e to MERF after the purchase
and transfer of the rights is the sale of the parcel to the City. At several
Park Board and Council meetings. the Ci ty voi ced their interest in acqui ring
and/or using this parcel for park. purposes. The City could purchase and fnl
a larger portion of the site because it has existing encroachment. rights
available to it due to the proximity of the adjacent park property.
Assumpti ons
The foregoi ng ana lysi s rests upon several as sumpti ons wh i eh must be noted.
. First, the volume analysis and .location of the site itself is based upon maps
supplied by the City which could be in error. The aerial topography dates
from the mid-1950's. The site location was transferred to the aerial map
using a photocopy of a City plat map. No detailed legal description was
obtained from the County recorder, nor were the property boundaries located in
the field. Second, a development scheme consisting of filling and
compensatory excavation would include review and approval not only by the
NMCWD, but al so by the ONR and the Corps of Engi neers. These two agencies
have been contacted by phone, but caul d not prom; se any sort of approval
without a more detailed analYSis and plan to revielt. Third, little is knovm
about.th~ existing soil conditions on-site. The underlying soil is likely
organ 1 C 1 n nature and any proposed structures woul d prob ab ly i nvol ve the use
of piles to support a foundation.
Conclusions
The purchase of the property for the direct transfer of floodplain rights
appears feasible based upon telephone conversations with the District Engineer.
Purchase, transfer and development and/or sale or the property involves more
unkowns which could impact i>lERF's ab; 1 itj to recoup their investment costs.
.
.
""!
I., ". " . f.
:,,~'~I:~~ ~ . ; I. ! , ~ I t ill
, ~......~ ~.
",f - - :;-:- - ..' , . , I, ":~t:
'f" -.- ,- I -' ~ \,~ .;.;..\
<(~V':' ;'-l' .~."\ :~
(l~ . [,L " , . ~- ~. .
"_.. ~~~~ I .~ ',:
~ .' IIJ
\.1 .......
OJ, "'~.
.. -- . '"': .. ~ I .. ~ ~
coE.1/4 C~fI"'Hc-.~
- .. '~
. .
.' ,
. . ~ ..
.. ~r':, '.1"1 '
.. '.:.-i'~',
- ... ,11':,:
.,
" ' ,
;i:r.'~' ..~ ..'.:;;", ...'I,f, " .
',' . - . :" ~.
. '.'
. ;,;i:t;i ,1,j?~:'\' :;.: ; . ""0 .I~ - - ,
'.1 " r' ~ ......
/ .~..I
...~; ~
, '-f' . ,:.,
.
. , "
r .
'" .~ -, - ..
.:- :.~ i ~ 'I "
~ 1'. ~
- ..~F -~
':,~!,l~;~;~~t,: ,.,..(; ,- ,
X r god.
" ,
I ':"
0 ..'
r . . f
. ~t ,
,.
. J
. .. ,"li?
'.
..
:
,.
~'. .., ..
"
..
..-......- .
.",. ..
,
I ~
:. .. '. ~ - -
r(~~ ~ \
<,; -_:: ~'~: : ,
.. oi .. '
I <
'" \ 8)8 ~ '
..
J ,
.. "r.~ lit . .
..
" ,"'
~ '" ' ,
" " ....
. ' .,~' ... ."".
" ~.. ~'i
. . ., , ;
-' "
~' .-- ,.:......
,","
I I
,
,~ ., ,
,. I
. !.:.'\....
.
.
. . .
-
- ..
-
... .~- . (.;. 5'6 .~ b bL,- \: l \..0)( I-V'lv
1-
DECLARATION
I
. Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a public corporation organized and existing
under Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter "Declarant"), does hereby state the
following:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of a certain tract of land situated in the City of
Hopkins, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
That part of Section 25, Township 117. Range 22, described as
follows: Commencing at Northeast Corner of Northeast 1/4 of
Southwest 1/4; thence South 633 feet to center of Nine Mile Creek;
thence Northwesterly along same to North line of Southwest 1/4,
thence East 508 feet to beginning, except road (hereinafter
"Parcel AU); and
WHEREAS, Declarant is also the owner of a certain tract of land situated in the City of
Hopkins, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
COM ON THE E LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 AT A PT 395
12/100 Fr S FROM THE NE COR OF SAID SE 114 TH WL Y AT
AN ANGLE OF 87 DEG 29 MIN WITH SAID E LINE A DIS OF
400 FT TO PT OF BEG TH CONT WL Y ON THE EXT OF
LAST DESC LINE 179 8110 FI' TH SPAR WIrn THE E LINE
OF SAID NE 1/4 OF SE 114 A DIS OF 767 FT TH E TO A PT
ON E LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DIS 1132 12/100 FT S FROM
. NE COR OF NE 114 OF SE 1/4 TH N ALONG ELINE 357 Fr
TH \VL Y A T AN ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 92 DEG 31 MrN A
DIS OF 400 FT ill N TO BEG EX ROADS Section 25, Township
117, Range 22. City of Hopkins, PID 25 117 22 41 0003
(hereinafter "Parcel B"); and
WHEREAS, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (hereinafter "Watershed District")
issued a grading and land alteration permit to Declarant's predecessor in titlc and the original
developer of Parcel A on or about February 16, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Watershed District has determined that the grading and land alteration
done by Declarant's predecessor in title on Parcel A has resulted in an alleged flood plain storage
deficit on Parcel A of 2.51 acre-feet; and
WHEREAS, to satisfy the Watershed District, Declarant is transferring from Parcel B to
Parcel A 3.14 acres of flood plain encroachment rights,
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant states the following conditions as a covenant running
with the land described as Parcel B:
(1) That 3.14 acres of flood plain encroachment rights are transferred from
Parcel B to Parcel A.
(2) No fill or encroachment in excess of .42 acres wili be allowed on Parcel B,
except as may be approved by authorized governmental bodies in conformance with then
applicable laws, ordinances. rules and regulations pertaining to the public waters, flood
. plains, and wetlands.
I
['1 t- \SI .~ A
(3) A copy ~f this Declaration shall be filed in the Office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Nlinnesota. .
IN -WITNESS WHEREOF, J?ecJffant has C:}l.erl this Declaration to be executed in its
name by its Executive Director this <;7'-1 day of C12 t-M ~ . 1994.
MINNEAPOLIS EMPLOYEES
R IREMENT FUND
\
By
or
STATE OF MINNESOTA ;
. ss.
.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN :
f1 The foregoing instrument was .cknow led ged before me, a Notary Public, this 029 f<1 day
of Wl-n.)A.1 , 1994, by James M. Hacking, as Executive Director of the
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a publi oration organized and existing under
Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota. ? AJ '
e
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFfED BY:
Richard J. Nardi, Esq. e ROBERT R, ~ARDt
- NOTARY PUBUC . MINNESOTA
Registration No. 165852 RAMSEY COUNTY
Willeke & Daniels " . My commIulon explrM 4-1904:l8
201 Ridgedale Avenue
Minneapolis, 1.1N 55403
Telephone: 870-4-CX)()
File No. 6529-23
.
2
, t , ,
DECLARATION
.
. Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a public corporation organized and existing
under Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter "Declarant"), does hereby state the
following:
WHEREASt Declarant is the owner of a certain tract of land situated in the City of
Hopkins, County of Hennepin. State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
That part of Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, described as
follows: Commencing at Northeast Corner of Northeast 1/4 of
Southwest 1/4; thence South 633 feet to center of Nine Mile Creek;
thence Northwesterly along same to North line of Southwest 1/4,
thence East 508 feet to beginning, except road (hereinafter
"Parcel AU); and
WHEREASt the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (hereinafter "Watershed District")
issued a grading and land alteration permit to Declarant's predecessor in title and the original
developer of Parcel A on or about February 16, 1-983; and
WHEREASt the Watershed District has determined that the grading and land alteration
done by Declarant's predecessor in title on Parcel A has resulted in an alleged flood plain storage
deficit on Parcel A of 2.51 acre-feet; and
VVHEREAS, to satisfy the Watershed District, Declarant has transferred to Parcel A 3.14
acres of flood plain encroachment rights from other land situated in the City of Hopkins, County
. of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
COM ON THE E LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 AT A PT 395
12/100 Ff S FROM THE NE COR OF SAID SE 1/4 TH WL Y AT
AN ANGLE OF 87 DEG 29 MIN WITH SAID E LINE A DIS OF
400 FT TO PT OF BEG TH CONT WL Y ON THE EXT OF
LAST DESC LINE 1798/10 Fr TH S PAR WITH THE ELINE
OF SAID NE 114 OF SE 1/4 A DIS OF 767 Ff TH E TO A PT
ON E LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 DIS 1132 12/100 FT S FROM
NE COR OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TH N ALONG ELINE 357 FT
TH WL Y AT AN ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 92 DEG 31 MIN A
DIS OF 400 Fr TH N TO BEG EX ROADS Section 25, Township
117, Range 22. City of Hopkins, PID 25 117 22 41 0003
(hereinafter "Parcel B"); and
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant states the following conditions as a covenant running
with the land described as Parcel A:
(1) No further fill or encroachment will be allowed on Parcel A, except as
further filling, if any, may be approved by authorized governmental bodies in
conformance with then applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regula[ions pertaining to
the public waters, flood plains, and wetlands,
(2) A copy of this Declaration shall be filed in the Office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
.
1
r; yl\~~ l ~ fS
IN WITNESS WHER~OF, Dec~t has caw this Declaration to be executed in its
name by its Executive Director this ~ day of a~J16.a--L , 1994.
MINNEAPOLIS EIvIPLOYEES .
RETIREMENT FUND
I
irector
ST ATE OF MINNESOTA :
. 55.
.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN :
lJlte foregoing msournent was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, this~ day
of \ ill/h~'/ t 1994. by James M. Hacking. as Executive Director of the
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a public co oration organized and existing under
Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota.
;;} ~<<0'
THIS lNSTRUM:ENT DRAFfED BY:
e ROBERT R. NARDI e
Richard J. Nardi, Esq. . - NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOT^
RAMSEY COUNTY9-Q6
Registtation No. 165852 My commlUlOn OXlllres <4-1
Will eke & Daniels ..- -
201 Ridgeda1e Avenue
:Minneapolis, 11N 55403
Telephone: 870~4000
File No. 6529-23
.
2
, ' . --- ~ ~----.
" (..
<
t BURNEr ,- Dakota County Office
18-75 PlUIl Dtlv~
1~ f .'\ I I , E4$-Ml. UN ssw
61214S~.S9SC
Jl~~ Cl-2.s.n
Decemb~r 101 1997
Minneapolis Employee Retirement Fund .
Mr. Lawrence Brafl-dts
300 Baker Building
706 2nd Aver),1,le SO\-ltn
Minneapolis. MN 55402
RE: Peace Valley land marketing results. .
Dear Mr. Brandt$.;
.
Tn regards to your request for information on the marketing results for the Peaoe Vaney
. vacant l-and parcel in the City of Hopkins. The Usting agreement provided 11'\)' office with
five months ofmMket time to sell the property, from May 28. 1997 through October 31,
1997. 111 tJ-,is. time period 1 was contact ed by roughly a hal f dozen prospective buyers
through newspaper classified ads or the mulHple lisling service.,
The mO$.t serious prospect earn!:: about from my efforts. thr9ugh the MLS CommercIal
Ex.change of the Minnea polis Associati on of Realtors. The prospective buyer and their
represer1tatives cOndtlcted an investig~tion on the development capabilities of this site for
their planned use of the vao8ot hmd. BElsed on information provided by the city of
Hopkins and il repn:'fierHativc with the Nine Mtie Creek Watershed Di.stl'icl~ the results of
their re~~arch coincided with the Limited AppraiSitI "fMarke-t Value condul;ted by Towle
Real Est~te in Mar!;.h of 1995.
The 5.5 acre site has approximately 1 J, 7 50 square feet, six percent, of potentially
buildable land. withom providing additional soil flU. The rCn'lll.ining ninety four perccnt
of [/lod is considered at oc- below the one hundred year floou plain elevation of 879 feet,
and ~.;tr require additional fil1 to build upon. A restrictive covell ant prevails over the
subject property tl1fit limitg the amount of acceptable fill Ullhe sites Hood pl~in "rea,
totaling 0.42 ACres for development. The filling of !load plain land requires th~
rcpl~cement offload plain el~;~where within the watershed district on 11 one to on~ tado.
in addi,iofi, the location of thi~ oxisting buildable site is snrro'!.mded by flood plain maldflg
ar;:Ci;S~ difficult Elnd depleting the allowable fill needed for the sites buildiug pad and
reqllircd piuking area. '].1....':;, ('::JS)L.\ ~'!i S.S '> "- Lc/2,'-.J, DY_
. ~ -J ,,',L--: ,._..........rt... - . ~
().~2..'" \ 2"c..l-::' -"-6' "0.. y.S,O'--\D9~
tBG:t
L ~ I f c
L r l ':)i
- ---
. r -~. t- - I I ~ r; 7 T H;' '-,. n3 ~~j lI:J j I t, & ((I~' Y :: Ii (I r F AX NO. 6 ~ IOSSO]
. ..J 0,-'''' j_ ',...j . 1... !:... _ ~ I: f', 3
.
~
.
Mr. Lawrence Brandts
December 10, ! 997
Page 2
Tn conclusion. the cleve lopment tJotential forthis site appears to be logistically difficult
and financially expensi'Ve, At the listed price of $50.000.00. the pros.pective buyer
dei;ided to pass on this property without making an offer to purchase.
Therefore. to conlinl.l~ 1Q market this land for sale, with the reasonable expectation ora
timely olosirtg. will require R significant price reduction and a target market approach.
The amount of the reduction !;holJid be determined by acquiring contractor estimates for
the al1lClunl of fill required to L:lre-"te access to the buildable site. The marketing e01ph~sl!l
should be pl~ced on a minimrl!T1 improvement type of use, sucb as, outdoor billboard e
RdvertisiClg.
In closing, I wauld be interested in an ~xch,l$ive listing agreement, to target market this
property for sale at a pdce to be determined by further market analys19. If you should
hAve {lny questions or require Rdditionat infonnation, my office phone number is 683w
8293. and mobile phone is 819-0055.
SinCf;rely,
.C;~\4-.~~
Steven H. Horsman
Bumet Realty
Enclosed: 2
.
----.-,.
. ADVANCE SURVEYING & ElvGIlvEERTlvG CO.
5300 Highway 10 I lvfinnetonka, NIN 55345 Phone (952) 4747964 Fax (952) 4748267
October 4, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Council Persons
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343-7573
BY IvfESSENGER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
r am a land surveyor and civil engineer who has for many years operated my small business out
of the basement of our home in Minnetonka, lvrinnesota The business has slowly grown and we
are in need of a new office. In 2001, we bought a 5 acre piece of property that was zoned fOT
business use on the West side of Highway 169, just south of the Lincoln - 5th Street exit in
Hopkins, Minnesota. We have, since then tested the property and determined what part of the
property was wetland and what part was not. We submitted an application to the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed so that they could see if they agreed with our determination of the wetlands limits.
They convened a technical panel on site and made some small modifications to the boundary of
the wetland as our wetland delineator had marked and we surveyed and documented that wetland
. boundary. It turns out that about 1.5 acres of the site is not wetland nor flood plain and the
balance of the property is wetland and/or flood plain. We proposed to build an office building on
the part ofllie property that is not wetland nor flood plain. We don't have a way to get from 2nd
A venue, the only street that provides access to the property, to the part that is buildable without
crossing the wetland and flood plain. The location for the driveway that encroaches the least
involves less than 0.2 acres encroachment The area where the building and parking lot is
planned is a mound of fill from Highway 169 construction on which some box elder trees and
cottonwoods have grovrn. There is no grass or brush in the area under these trees and my
landscape architect tells me that near the highway, the high speed traffic sprays a salt film into
the air and it settles on the adjoining property to quite a distance making it difficult for some
types of vegetation to flourish. The noise level from the traffic on the highway is very high. The
building will provide some protection to the neighborhood from the salt spray and noise and will
make it possible for some landscaping types to flourish. The driveway does cross through an
area that is covered with reed canary grass which is considered by the Nine Mile Watershed to be
an "invasive species" to the extent that if a replacement watershed is offered to them that
contains this vegetation, they will rej eet it
The City of HJp!-in~ pl~TLning CD!TIIT1jssion recommended the project, as submitted for approval
recently and the project was scheduled to come before the City Council on September 21, 2004.
Th~t meeting was scheduled for September 7,2004 but was postponed at my request to give an
opportunity to the Nine Mile Cove Home Owners Association (a luxury cluster home develop~
ment located about 500 feet south and west of the proposed office building) to meet with us and
. discuss ways in wbich the landscaping on the project could be made more acceptable to them.
When my wife al1d I met wifh the representatives of that group, they told us that: (1) they had
consulted v.rith an attorney regarding our project; (2) they were very opposed to our project and .
intended to delay and defeat it in any way they could; (3) that the developer who sold them their
homes had told them that nothing would ever be built on my property; (4) that while the City
Council might approve our project, that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed was more sensitive to
environmental concerns, that some of their members had served on that Watershed Board and
that it was unlikely that we would receive approval from them; (5) that other projects had been
attempted on this property and had failed and (6) that they preferred, as their view, to have the
trees on our property rather than our proposed office building.
That neighborhood group has petitioned the Ivlinnesota Environmen-'-ll!1 Qualiry board and you are
considering whether and EA W should be required for the project
Ivlinnesota Rules Section 4410.1000 Projects requiring an EA W spells out which projects will be
required to have an EA W prepared. The drafters of the legislation intended that some smaller
projects would not be subject to the requirements and included a Section 4410.4600 and I have
pasted in Suhp. 10 of this Section:
Subp. 10. industrial, commercia{, and insntutkmal facilities. The follovTmg projects are
exempt:
A_ Construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commer-
cial, or institutional facility of less than the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor
space:
(1) third or fourth class city or unincorporated area, 50,000 square feet, e
(2) second class city, 75,000 square feet, or
(3) first class city, 100,000 square feet, if no part of the development is within a shoreland
area, delineated flood plain, state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the
Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, is exempt.
Hopkins is a third class city and our building has less than 38,000 square feet of gross floor space
and is exempt under this section. If one were trying hard to argue that the project is not exempt,
one might say that the drafters of this legislation intended the delineated flood plain part of (3)
above, applying to first class cities, also somehow applies to third class cities. Even if one read
their intent this way, and that would seem like a stretch of the language to me, the reason for such
a clause would be that the drafters realized that even a small project could potentially cause
adverse flooding effects and thus should not be exempt because of that possibility. In the case of
this project, that possibility does not exist. We attach a document in which the former O\Vllers of
this property and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District entered into, stipulating that, although
some permitted flood plain encroachment rights had been transferred from tills property tv
another property, that 0.42 acres offload plain encroachment rights remain with this property and
the amount of encroachment into the flood plain is proposed by this project is less than 0.42
acres. Further, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed has jurisdiction over this project and \\iill insist
that the rate and quality of stOffil water flow from the project be the same or better than before
the project was built. .
- -.---
. It is hard for me to see how our justice system could look at these facts and find that the project is
not exempt.
It is not uncommon for parcels of land to be bypassed as a metro area develops and spreads
outward. Many parcels have problems that make their development less attractive. Later, as the
metro area grows and land values rise, these parcels eventually become feasible to develop. It is
also not lll1common for adjacent residents to say "not in my back yard" and to oppose the devel-
opment of such parcels. They are concerned about the possible impact of such development on
their property values. "While this is understandable, if a project is developed in accordance -with
ordinances that are there to protect property values and govern land use, there is no reason why
their property values should be affected adversely. The development of such parcels lessens
urban sprawl, lessens tax burdens for the community and in some cases, such as this one, adds
good paying jobs to the economy. It would seem that the owners of such parcels should have a
right to develop them in a la-wful fasmon and the 17,000 or so residents of Hopkins who are not
complaining and who would benefit from the project should be considered.
I don't object to neighbors asking that City ordinances relating to proper development of a
project be strictly enforced. I believe that local government and local ordinances are the best way
to regulate orderly development and protect property values. I have experienced, with other
projects, a vocal neighborhood group attempting to take control away from local officials. They
do this by pressuring various state and federal agencies into extending their jurisdiction to cover
the project they oppose. A client of mine had a housing project in the City of Shorewood,
. Minnesota A state agency, that was set up to protect archeological artifacts, was pressured into
requiring a permit and an expensive and time consuming archeological study was required for a
housing project Even though there was no evidence that any such archeological artifacts might
exist on the site and the study concluded that there were none, the neighborhood group had
achieved its goal of delaying and discouraging the project. The state agency was all too willing
to extend its authority even though one could argue that it should have been clear that the neigh-
borhood group had very little concern with archeology and a great deal of concern about delaying
and discouraging the proj ect in any way possible. The same group then complained to other state
and federal agencies and caused additional delay and expense. The proj ect finally was
developed, but I thought at the time how unfair to my client the whole procedure had been and
what a shame it was that the price paid for his homes, by the residents of the very state that was
"protecting" them, had been needlessly inflated by these tactics.
I hope that, with your cooperation, I can build my office and get back to doing my job of being a
surveyor and engineer. I have included copies of the most recent version of our site plan, floor
plans, building elevations and landscape plans and of this letter for the use of all who will help
you in considering L\is matter.
Sincerely,
ADV ANCE SURVE~GINEER1NG CO.
~ 0 . (J~
1V\'1_Q,;Q ~... l 0-"- 'I) ..
. ~Jes H. Parker P.E. & P.L.S. No. 9235, President
.~ .
. "_0_-
~ f.)c -I,. ,----- C( 3 K' - -
~ 'C l \~k I - ,) - '-1 ,s ----
--!' ~- - 1..:- ~5 - kL-'
-. DECLARA TION
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a public corporation organized and existing .
under Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter "Declarant"), does hereby state the
following:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of a certain tract of land situated in the City of
Hopkins, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
( That part of Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, described as
e'if s~_ -.J follows: Commencing at Northeast Corner of Northeast 1/4 of
J.' ", l' ':.f.,t'? South west 1/4; the nee South 633 fee t to center of Nine Mile Creek;
: :J~ V\CJI thence Northwesterly along same to North hne of Southwest 1(4,
rlOtl..'-'\ 31 '- tfence East 508 feet to beginning, except road (hereinafter
tP' < Parcel A"); and
r'~
WHEREAS, Declarant is also the owner of a certain tract of land situated in the City of
Hopkins, County of Henne pin, S tate of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
{\K COM ON THE E LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1(4 AT A PT 395
12/100 IT S FROM THE NE COR OF SAID SE 114 TH WL Y AT
. Va(J J- AN ANGLE OF 87 DEG 29 MJN--WITH SAID E LINE A DIS OF
J af 400 IT TO PT OF BEG TH CONT WLY ON THE EXT OF
LAST DESC LINE 179 8/10 Ff TH S PAR WIlli THE ELINE
OF SAID NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 A DIS OF 767 Ff TH E TO APT
ON E LINE OF t\TE 114 OF SE 1/4 DIS 1132 12/100 Fr S FROM
NE COR OF NE 114 OF SE 114 TH N ALONG ELINE 357 FT .
TH WL Y AT AN ANGLE TO THE LEFf OF 92 DEG 31 MIN A
DIS OF 400 FT TH N TO BEG EX ROADS Section 25, Township
117, Range 22. City of Hopkins, Pill 25 117 22 41 0003
(hereinafter "Parcel B "); and
WHEREAS, the Nine Mile Creek Vi atershed District (hereinafter 'Watershed District")
issued a grading and land alteration permit to Declarant's predecessor in title and the,original
developer of Parcel A on or about February 16, 1983; and !
WHEREAS, the Watershed District has determined that the grading and land alteration
done by Declarant's predecessor in title on Parcel A has resulted in an alleged flood plain storage
deficit on Parcel A of 2.51 acre-feet; and
WHEREAS, to satisfy the Watershed Dismct, Declarant is transferring from Parcel B to
Parcel A 3.14 acres of flood plain encroachment rights,
NO'V, THEREFORE, Declarant st3.tes the following conditions as a covenant running
with the land described as Parcel B:
-- "--.-.--
(1) That 3.14 acres of flood plain encroachment rights are transferred from
Parcel B to Parcel A.
(2) No fill or encroachment in excess of .42 acres will be allowed on Parcel B,
except as may be approved by authorized governmental bodies in conformance with then
applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the public waters, flood e
plains, and wetlands.
1
,
~.
c.
. . (3) A copy of this Declaration shall be filed in the Office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County. Minnesota.
IN WTI'NESS WHEREOF, R,ec)l;ant has ct1ed this Declaration to be executed in its
name by its Executive Director this <:7'" 1 day of C~ (;n f;uA , 1994.
MINNEAPOLIS EMPLOYEES
MENT FUND
,
By
or
STATE OF MlNNESOT A :
. ss.
.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN :
I1Thef~regOing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, thisc29 -ft1 day
of 'CI2tn6..tJ;1 , 1994, by James M. Hacking, as Executive Director of" the
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund, a publi oration organized and existing under
Chapter 422A of the laws of Minnesota. ?AJ
. !
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFfED BY:
,
Richard J. Nardi, Esq. . ROBERT R, NARDI
. NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA /
Registration No. 165852 RAMSEY COUNTY
Willeke & Daniels My coma~~l expil-. 4-~ i
201 Ridgedale Avenue
:Minneapolis, fvIN 55403
Telephone:. 870-4-0(}(}
File No. 6529-23
_._0..
e
2
.
- -
'-, ~4Wencl< Wenck Associales, Inc_
1800 Pioneer Croek Center .
~&- .~.- P_O_ Box 249
__=_=-=-=---'-~-1r('-'~~i~~?LiJ Maple Plain, MN 55359-0240
-------, -, :_-4b-'!t.!.l'~~';al..,\W~.~-"'j
(763) 4 79--4200
October 7,2004 Fax (763) 479--4242
E-mail: wenckmp@wenck_culTI
Mr. Jim KelTigan
City of Hopkins
1010 First S trcct South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Re: Hwy 169/2nd Avenue Office Condo Site, Hopkins, MN
Wenck File #0428-04
Dear Mr. Kenigan:
At the request of the City of Hopkins, \Venck Associates, Inc. reviewed the infonnation
submitted to the City by Advance Development, LLC for the proposed multi-tenant
office development at 2nd A venue South. The infonl1ation was evaluated for potential
environmental impacts associated with the project that may result in the need for an
EnvirOllli1ental Assessment Worksheet (EA W).
Revie\ved material included the following: .
L Letter from Advance Surveying and Engineering Co. to the City of Hopkins, dateu
October 4, 1004.
2. Letter fTOm Liesch Associates, I11c. to the City of Hopkins, dated October 4, 2004.
3. Teclmical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated August 2, 2004_
4. Site Plan Review by the City of Hopkins, dated September 15,2004.
5. Letter from the Environmental Quality Board to City of Hopkins, dated September
15,2004.
6. Grading Plan by Advance Surveying & Engineeling Co., revised October 4, 2004.
Review ofthe submitted materials identified the following environmental impacts:
. The project proposes to fill in the floodplain; however, floodplain fill impacts
have not been properly calculated for the project nor has compensatory storage
been proposed to offset such filling. Floodplain fill impacts were reported for the
project based on a 1 OO-year elevation of 877.0'. The impacts should be
recalculated to reflect the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) lOa-year elevation of 878.0'. Floodplain fill
impacts should also he reported as a volume in addition to sllrface area.
. The project proposes to fill 0.l9-acres of type 3 wetland based on US Circular 39 e
classification. The \V ctland Conservation Act (WCA) requires a wetland
replacement plan for this site prior to construction that has been approved by a
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The wetland replacement plan for this project
C:\Docurtlcnls ;)Ild Settil1gs\w.,::l]H.l~rsoll\LocJ.] SeHings"Temp(Jrary Intemct File5\OLK 1 D''L-Kerrigan Jilll~H evie\v MeIl1Drandum.uoc-l11JI,V
Mr. Jim Kerrigan
. City of Hopkins
October 7, 2004
Page 2
currently has not been approved by the TEP. The wetland mitigation plan still
requires additional sequencing, and must provide replacement and mitigation
wetland sites to satisfy WCA regulations.
. Stormwater runoff from the proposed driveway area is not treated before
discharging into adj acent wetlands.
Based on our review, we concur with the City's findings that the project does not exceed
thresholds that would trigger a mandatory EA Wunder MilU1esota Rules 4410.4300.
Potential environmental impacts associated with this project would be best addresseu
through the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) permit program. Mr. Bob
Obelmeyer, District Engineer for NMCWD, stated in a telephone conversation on
October 6, 2004 that they have not received a formal permit application and have not
issued a permit for this project. A Watershed District permit for the project will need to
be issued before construction can proceed. The NMCWD serves as the local
. governmental unit responsible for administering the WCA for wetlands located within
Hopkins.
Consistent with previous practice, any approval by the City is contingent on Watershed
District approval. Floodplain, wetland, and stormwater impacts for this project will be
addressed through the NMCWD permit process. Based on these findings, it is our
recommendation that the developer, Advance Development, LLC, follow the standard
permitting process and resolve floodplain, wetland, and stormwater issues with the
NMCWD.
Floodplain, wetland, stOlmwater issues identified in the Liesch letter dated October 4,
2004 will be addressed through the NMCWD pemlit.
After review of the findings, the proposed development should not require an
Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet since associated environmental impacts are
addressed through the NMCWD permit program.
Sincerely.
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
. Chris Meehan, P.E.
c:\do~ummts and sCilings\n51U1dcP.ion\local SCltlng::;:\tcmporary intel1lct fil\':s\olk I d\l~kenigan ilm-review mernorandum.do-C:-rrl.il\\'
City oj%pkins
1010 'First Street 50utfi · ~H~}pkillsl 0,f1{ 55343-7573 · Pnone: 952-935-8474 · 'Fa;:c 952.935-1834
'111c[j adc{rcss: WW7//.nopkjllsmn.com .
October 1, 2004
Anne Worrell
Nine Mile Cove Ass'n. President
978 Nine Mile Cove
Hopkins, MN 55343
James Parker
5300 Highway 101 S.
Minnetonka, MN 55345
David Rosedahl, Petitioner
2200 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: Parker Building Project, Hopkins, MN, EAW Petition
Dear Ms_ Worrell, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Rosedahl:
This will serve as a follow-up to the Hopkins City Council discussion of September 21 .
concerning this project. The resolution approved by the Council that night details the following
schedule for City consideration of the EAW request:
. October 4 - submission to the City (Hopkins Planning department) of information
regarding the need or lack of need for undertaking an EAW_
. October 12, 6:30 p.m., Raspberry Room, Hopkins City Hall- The City Council will
have a work session with City staff and its consultant to discuss the information
received by the October 4 date. Public input is usually not solicited at these work
session meetings.
. October 19, 7:30 p.m., Raspberry Room, Hopkins City Hall- This is a regularly
scheduled City Council meeting. At this meeting it is anticipated that a decision will be
made on the EAW petition. Public input will be taken on the petition request at this
meeting.
If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact City Planner Nancy Anderson
at 952-Ei48-6342.
,
Sincerely, . 4
,- - i//
( I ;::,.. :...-- F'"
"--" .'
Jim Ke~dgan
Planning & Ecdnomic Development Director .
l
Parllll'firlJi "".tl1 tlif L'OmT/1!ll1it:!1 to 'En/lance tlie QuaMy of Ll~fe
· hr.<pirc + 'Edilwte + hi l'l)/T'[' + D>mmurtica.tc .
The Environmental Review Process
. The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973 EIS can be prepared. The EQB's rules specify the
established a formal process for reviewing the projects and situations tD which the exemptiDn applies.
environmental impacts of major developmental projects.
The purpose of the review is to provide information tD The EA W process contains the following steps. The
units of government on the environmental impacts of a process typically requires 2-3 months to complete.
project before approvals or necessary permits are
issued. After projects are completed, unanticipated
environmental consequences can be very costly to 1_ The RGU determines if an EA W is needed fDr the
undo, and environmentally sensitive areas can be project
impossible to restore. Environmental review creates the 2. The RGD obtains data needed for the completion Df
opportunity to anticipate and correct these problems tbe EA W form from the project's proposer.
before projects are built. The process operates 3. The RGU completes the EA W form and distributes it
according to rules (legally binding regulations) adopted to reviewing agencies. The member agencies of the EQB
by the Environmental Quality Board, but it is carried out receive and review all EA Ws as do other local, state and
by a local governmental unit or state agency (which is federal agencies.
termed the "RGU", for Responsible Governmental Unit). 4. Notice of the EA W is published in the EOB Monitor
The primary role of the EQB is to advise local units and and a press release is given to a local newspaper.
state agencies on the proper prDcedures for 5. Any interested person can review the EA Wand
environmental review and to monitor the effectiveness submit written comments to the RGU for 30 days
of the process in general. following the Monitor notice. Comments may address
the accuracy and completeness of information,
The EIS and EA W additional environmental effects or corrective actions
that should be considered and the potential for
Prior to any governmental approval of a project with significant environmental effects due to the project.
"potential for significant environmental effects," an 6. The RGU considers the EA W information and the
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) must be prepared. comments received and officially decides if the project
. An EIS identifies the likely environmental impacts of the "has the potential for significant environmental effects_"
project along with ways to lessen or avoid significant If not, the environmental review process is over. (Any
impacts either through alternative means of appeal of this decision must be made in district court
accomplishing the project or by redesigning aspects Df within 30 days.)
the proj eel.
The EIS process contains the following steps.
There are two routes to an EIS -- it may be mandatory or
it may be ordered by a unit of government upon the J. The RGU determines if an ElS is needed.
determination that a project has "potential for 2. An EA W form is completed by the RGU and the
significant environmental effects." ErSs are mandatory project's proposer as an aid in 'scoping' the E1S. The
for projects whose nature, size, or location makes it EA W is distributed to reviewing agencies and noticed
inevitable that there is the potential for significant in the EOB Monitor. A press release is provided to a
environmental effects. When not mandatory, case-by- local newspaper.
case decisions on the need for an EIS arc based on a six- 3. A 3D-day scoping period follows the notice allowing
page questionnaire about the project and its potential for public review of the EA Wand input into a decision
environmental effects called an Environmental on the issues to be analyzed. A public meeting is held
Assessment Worksheet (EA W). during this period to receive verbal comments. The
purpose of the scoping is to focus the EIS analysis on
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet. (EA W) may the pemnent issues and to determine what "reasonable
be prepared for two reasons. Most are required by alternatives" will be compared to the project.
mandatory categories in the rules, which cover projects 4. The RGD makes an official scoping decision which
ofa nature, size, or location which "may have the outlines the contents of the EIS.
potential for significant environmental effects" Other 5. A summary of the scoping decision is published in
EA Ws are ordered by governmental units either on their the EOB Monitor and a press release is supplied to a
own initiative or as a result ofa citizen petition when the local newspaper. (The Monitornotice is termed an ElS
facts indicate the project "may have the potential for Preparation Notice_)
significant environmental effects". 6. The scoped issues are analyzed with economic and
. sociological impacts being considered in addition to
Exemptions environmental impacts. The results of the analysis are
compiled into a draft EIS document. Frequently, a
Some projects are automatically exempted from review consulting firm is hired to assist the RGU with the
under this program. If a project is exempted, no EA W or analysis and the document.
review program. Other environmentally related . The name, address, and telephonc number of the
governmental actions are also noticed in the Monitor, representative of the petitioners_ (The .
from time to time. representative will receive notification of the RGU's
decision on the need for an EA Wand will
Citizen Petitions automatically receive a copy of the EA W if one is
prepared.)
Since only projects in certain categories (based on size,
type, and location) will automatically receive . A brief description of the potential environmental
environmental review, Minnesota law provides for a effccts which may result from the project
public petition process as part ofthc environmental
review program. When 25 citizens are aware of a project . 'Materia! evidence' indicating that, because of the
which may have the potential for significant nature Dr location ofthe proposed project, there
environmental impacts, they can use the petition may be a potential [or significant environmental
process to initiate consideration of environmental effects.
review if the project is not exempted by thc EQB's rules.
. Signature and mailing addresseS, iucluding city,
The petition is a process for fonnally asking a local state, alld zip code, of at least 25 persons_ Only 25
governmental unit or a state agency to consider signatures are required because the government
preparing an EA W. The agency or local authority which agency's decision should be based on the potential
becomes the RGU on a petition is nonnally the one for significant environmental impacts_ [t is not
which issues the primary permits for a proposed project necessary to demonstrate widespread public
to be built. For most projects, the RGU is the local concern about the project.
gOI'ernment.
The petitioners bear the burden of making a case that
The petition process is not a means for resolving a the particular project warrants an EA W despite the fact
disagreement with local government over whether a that the Mandatory EA W requirements are not
project should be built. If environmental concerns arc exceeded. The petitlon must do more than raise
involved, people can use the petition to bring their case questions or concerns - it must present facts that tend
to the attention of the RGU, but petitioning does not to demonsrrate that something about the location and .
create an additional source of approval for projects, nor nature of the project makes it more deserving of review
does it bring the state government into the dispute_ that most other similar projects. Examples o[typcs of
evidence that have been submitted include: maps, site
A second limitation to petitions is that they arc plans, photographs, testimonial letters, letters from
generally ineffective when a land use conflict is the expert agencies, existing reports. The petition should
principal issue and environmental effects are minor. A also explain how the evidence demonstrates that there
deeision on whether an EA W is needed must be based may be potential for significant environmental effects_
on potcntial environmental impacts.
The complete petition should be sent to the
Thc rules define "environmental" to mean physical environmental review staff of the EQB at the address
conditions, including: land, air, water, minerals, flora, listed below. The petitioners must also notify the
fauna, ambient noise, energy resources, and artifacts or project proposer in writing that they have filed a
natural features of historic. geologic or aesthetic petition. The EQB will forward the petition to the
significance_ designated RGU within five days if it is complete. The
RGU must decide whether to prepare an EA W within 30
Before filing a petition, concerned citizens should also working days. Petitioners are responsible for contacting
give thought to whether any potential impacts on the the RGU concerning the decision-making procedures for
physical environment are noteworthy_ Every the petition_
development project has some impacts on
endronmenta! conditions. However, environmental Further Information
review is only appropriate when there may be the
potential for significant environmental impacts. If there More information about the environmental review
is nothing out of the ordinary about the project or its program can be obtained by calling the following
setting, it is unlikely that an EA W will be ordered. telephone numbers: 651-296-8253_ Toll-free voice
mailbox (leave message and phone number): 1-800-657-
The petition must include the following: 3794.Additional questions c:m be directed to:
. A description of the proposed project Environmental Quality Board e
300 Centennial Building
. The name of the project's proposer. (Also, the 658 Cedar Strcet
petitioners must notify the proposer in writing that St. Paul, MN 55]55
a petition has been filed_)
Environmental Assessment Worksheet process 1f
. Chaw,
..Jl...
Environmental-Assessment Worksheet process
EAW Guidelines provides information about preparing an Environ- An EAW is also prepared as the first step in scoping an EIS if
mental Assessment Worksheet to detennine whether an required for a project. A different approach is necessary to an-
Environmental Impact Statement is needed for a project. The EAW swering questions o~ t~e EAW when it is used for scoping
is defined by state statute as a "brief document which is designed purposes, see ChapterA.
to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is Prohibi~ion on governmental approvals and on
required for a proposed action. " .
The purpose ofthe EAW process is to disclose information about construction during review
Whenever a EAW is mandatory or has been ordered, or when a
potential environmental impacts ofthe project; it is natan ap- petition for an EAW has beeil properly filed, state law directs that
proval process. The information disclosed in the EAW process has no final governmental decision may be made to grant a permit,
two functions: to determine whether an EIS is needed, and to approve or begin a project and that construction on the project
indicate how the project can be modified to lessen its environ- may not begin until environmental review is compieted. When an
mental impacts; such modifications. may be imposed as permit 'tAW is required, review is completed when either the RG,U deter-
conditions by regulatory agencies._ The information comes from mines that no EIS is needed - issuance of a negative ded<lration-
tnree sources: the EAW, comments made on the EAW and re- Dr when the EIS is completed aoci found adequate.-A final govern.
sponses by the RGU and project proposer to the comments. All mental decision is one tnat conveys rights to the projeq: proposer,
three sources are important. but the EAW generally provides the whether the last or an intennediate decision. Final decisions
most significant information. include preliminary as well as final plat approvais since they
. The EAW process involves four major steps: convey rights that may be difficult to alter or undo, conditional
Step 1. The project proposer supplies all necessary data to the use permits and zoning decisions if associated with a specific
Responsible Governmental Unit. which is assigned responsibility project. The Guide ta Minnesota Environmental Review Rules
to conduct the review according to the EQB rules. provides additional information about prohibited approvals.
Step 2.The RGU prepares the EAW by completing the standard How the RGU is determined
form supplied by the Environmental Quality Board. Environmental Quality Board rules assign respohsibility for pre-
Step 3. The EAW is distributed with public notice of its availabil- paring the EAW and determining the need for an EIS to a specific
unit of government The Responsible Governmental Unit is gener-
ity for review. The comment period is 30 calendar days. Certain ally the unit with the greatest responsibility for approiling or
state, federal and local agendesalways receive EAWs far review. supervising the project as a whole. For a mandatory EAW, the rule
Any person may review and comment in writing on an EAW. A automatically assigns the RGU as part ofthe mandatory category
pubric meeting to receive oral comments is optional at the discre- text. For an EAW initiated by citizen petition, the EQB chair Dr
tion of the RGU, but is not commonly held. staff designee' assigns the RGU. If a unit of government orders an
Step 4. The RGU responds to the comments received and makes EAW or responds to a request of the project proposer, that unit is
a decision on the need for an EIS based on the EAW, comments the RGU. A state agency is always the RGU for projects it will con-
received and responses to the comments. The RGU and other units duct.
of government may require modifications to the project to miti-
gate environmental impacts as disclosed through the EAW process. Responsibility for EAW preparation and costs
When an EAW is required Project proposers are required to supply any data or,other infor.
mation in their possession or to which they have reasonable access
An EAW is required for any project listed in the mandatory EAW to the RGU, which prepares the EAWafter reviewing the submit.
categories in the rules at part 4410.4300, This listing, as well as ted information. Sometimes an RGU will hire consurtants to
mandatory EIS and exemption categories, can also be found in the prepare all or part otthe EAW or to independently review the
EQ6's Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules. An EAW !Imposer's submittal. This topic is covered in detail in the next
is also required whenever any governmental unit with approval chapter.
authority over the project determines that available evidence The environmental revi?w statutes do not address the issue of
e indicates that the project may have the potential for significant charging for EAW costs, however. some local units of government
environmental effects. This typically occurs in response to a nave enacted ordinances that allow them to recoup at least part
citizen petiti on.
Environmental Quality Board 1
-._-
~~
""-;c;
Environmental Assessment Worksheet process Clrapr}:r
.- .
tc
- .
-..L-":;::":....
and the need for an EIS on the project Without draft and final criteria in this rule, " considering the following factors (part
versions of the EAW, minor errors or omissions should be noted 4410.1700, subparts 6 and 7):
only if they bear On larger issues. If a reviewer feers that the . A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
process is impeded by a lack of information that could be reason-
ably obtained, the reviewer should ask for the information during . B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
the comment period rather than issuing a comment letter. projects;
All substantive comments received during the comment period . C The extent to which environmental effects are subject to
must be given a written response by the RGU. The number of mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and
comment letters received by the RGU varies widely. For Some . D. The extent to which environmental effects can be antid-
projects only one or two letters are received, usually from state pated and controlled as a result of other available environmental
agencies. On other projects, dozens of letters may be received studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
from concerned citizens. If the project is controversial and the including other Environmental impact Statements.
RGU anticipates many public letters, it may be advantageous to
hold a public meeting to hear comments and to answer the The rules also require the RGU to document how it reached a
public's questioflS. decision: "The RGU shall maintain a record, including specific
findings of fact, supporting its decision. The record must include
RGU response to comments and decision on the specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the
need for an EIS EAW. This record shall either be a separately prepared document
The rules require most RGUs to make a decision on the need for or contained within the records of the governmental unit" (part
an EIS between three working days and 30 days after the com- 4410.1700, subpart 4).
ment period ends; this time frame applies to aU RGUs where the For most RGUs, the staff or a consultant will draft a proposed or
decision is made by a councilor board that only meets occasion- sample record of decision document for consideration and pos-
ally. If the decision will be made by a single individual. such 2S by
an agency commissioner, then the decision must be made within sible adoption by the councilor board. This document may be in .
the fonn of a resolution or it may be adopted by a resolution.
15 working days, although a 15 working day extension may be Other RGUs may satisfy the requirements for a decision record
requested from the EQB chair. An RGU may postpone its decision through detailed meeting minutes that reflect discussion of the
for 30 days under certain circumstances as discussed below. relevant information from the EAW, comments and responses
As part of the pro(ess of determining if an EIS will be needed, the about impacts, mitigation and regulatory oversight.
RGU must respond in writing to all substantive comments reo The re(ord of decision should do more than rely on the absence of
ceived during the comment period. Late comments may be
responded to if the RGU chooses to do so. Each person or unit adverse comments to justify a decision not to order an EIS. The
that submitted timely and substantive mmments must be sent the RGU is obligated to examine the facts, consider the criteria and
draw its own conclusions about the significance of potential
RGU's response to those comments. Usually the responses are environmental effects, and it is the purpose of the record of deci.
sent along with the notice of the EIS need decision, however, in sion to document that the RGU fulfiUed this obligation.
certain cases, it may be advisable to send out responses in ad-
vance of the decision to solicit comments before the E1S need Among the four criteria, the first and the third are usually the
decision is made. The RGU may ask the proposer to help prepare most relevant. The first deals with the nature and significance of
responses if the comments ask for changes in the project Dr a the environmental effects that will or could result from the
commitment to mitigation, or question the purpose or value of project. It relies directly on the EAW information and may be
the project. augmented by information from the comments and responses.
The purpose of the EAW, comments and comment responses is to The third criterion is frequently the main justification for why an
E1S is not required. Projects often have impacts that could be
provide the record on which the RGU can base a decision about significant if not for permit conditions and other aspects of public
whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. EIS need is regulatory authority. However, the RGU must be careful to rely on
described in the rules: . An EIS shall be ordered for projects that ongoing public regulatory authority to prevent environmental
have the potential for significant environmental effects" (part impacts only where is it reasonable to conclude that such author-
44iO.1700, subpart i). ity will adequately handle the potential problem.
In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant The second and fourth criteria are less often important in the EIS
environmental effects, the RGU "shall compare the impacts that need decision. The fourth (riterion enters in only where the same
may reasonablr be expected to occur from the project with the informatIon that would be sought in an EIS already is available .
through past studies, including other impact statements. This
Environmental Quality Board 3
-r!f
. Chail~r Environmental Assessment Worksheet process
t:l
='
of their expenses for preparing an EAW. Inmost cases; these are RGU may charge a copying fee. The RGU should afso make extra
relatively small since the proposer incurs most data costs. copies for requests by the public.
The 3D-day comment period The- RGU must also send a press release to at least one newspaper
After receiving a completed EAW from the RGU, the Environmen- in the project area announcing the ava/lability of the EAW for
tal Quality Board staff publishes a notice in the EQB Monitor, public review; a paid legal notice is optional. The press release
which is distributed bj~eekly on Mondays. The public comment briefly describes_ the project, explains thi!tan EAW is available for
. -'-review arid cOrTUlle-ritand gives details such as when comments
period begIns an the distribution date of the EQB Monitoreon- are -due, where to send comments arid how to obtain a copy for
taining the EAW notice. The 3D-day comment period usually ends - review. If there will be a public meeting for oral comments, it
On a Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. unless indicated otherwise by the should be announced in the press release. The RGU should keep a
RGU; comments must reach the RGU by this deadline. record documenting that ii complied With the requirement to
At the same time the EAW is sent to the Environmental Quality supply a press release in case tne release is not published. The
Board staff, the RGU must also send copies to all offices on the law requires that a press release be distributed, not that it be
EQB's official distribution list Available online or from the EQB, published.
the distribution list includes State, fedehd, regional and local units Anyone who wishes may revie.w and commanton theEAW during
of governmentthat haveexperiise and resporisibilitiesin the
environmental area, as well. as several libraries that selVe as . the comment period. Unless the RGU holds an optional public
repositories for environmental reports. In addition, cbpiesshould meeting, all co mments must be submitted in writing within the 30
be made available locally for public re",iew, at such locations as a days. The rules suggest that comments address: the accuracy and
loea/library or the RGU offices. The rules require that a copy be completeness of the infonnation, potential.impacts that may
given to any person submitting a written request, although the warrant further investigation before the project is commenced
. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PROCESS
30 CALENDAR DAYS.
.. ~
EAW PREPARATION
~~--------~-----~----~-----------------~
r r~ ! ROU pro..~-' ! D~ "_I r r~'I'" ru '"w... ~w r
derennlnes subrnill EAW~ submittal fur . completl! nolifies EAWand to dr~tribullan list is~ues
EAWls mmpleted data completenrn; returns to . proposer approves It for : press
necessary .pcrtlens ~ RGU -proposer if lnsamplete . dlstnbutien release
,'. .' ' ,.'.
, - . 1T05WORKINGDAYS __ 1T05WORKINGPAV5 ~
VARIES
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD El5 NEED DECISION
.....-- - ------ --~ ~-- --- ----- -- -- ------~
! Noti~ """,,", 1. EJ)IJ M~"', ! """ RG' ""'. 'pro/," r ~,..~,d~ ! RGU ,,,""'. ,.'" p,-",'" . "" !
7 to 21 days after receipt of EAW; carnmenl needs EI5, prepares judicial appeal netice of Monitor 7 tll 21 days
3D-day commllnt period begins perted findings offact; and period being~ - decision after receipt of dedsion
ends responds to mrnments
conli1<U:~ 30 CALENDAR DAYS 3 WORKING DAYS TO 3D bAYS. 1 T05 WORKING PAYS - 1tO 2.1 CALENDAR DAYS
., Can vary tlepending on RGU.
NOTES
Time frames are diagramed as prescribed in the rules and should be considered minimum estimates.
Day can mean either calendar or working day depending on the timeframe listed for a specific event. lithe text fists 15 orfewer days, they are working days;
calendar days are 16 or more days (4410.0200, subpart 1 2). Working days exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal state holidays.
How to count a period of time. The first day of any time period is not counted butthe filla! day is counted (part 44100.0200, subpart 12). The last day of the
. time period ends with normal business hours, generally at 4:30 p.m. No time period can end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal state holiday.
The 3D-day period for EAW comments begins on the biweekly publication date of the EQB Monitor, which is always on Monday. Thirty days Irom a Monday
always falls on a Wednesday, so the comment periods end on Wednesday unless it is a legal hotiday.
2 EA W Guidelines
"'~F';:-
Clwifer Environmental Assessment Worksheet process
<- .
...........:.;.,:....=~
situation rarely occurs, in part because the environmental issues project description information is so incomplete or inaccurate that
are usually quite specific to the projectin question. The second reviewers are not given a fair chance to review the true project.
criterion, cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated
further proiects, has historically been given little attention. The Appeal of an RGU decision
issue of cumulative impacts, however, is currently in the forefront, The decision of the RGU to prepare or not prepare an EIS Can be
although it remains difficult to apply in practice often because appealed in the county district court where the project would take
little is known about other potential projects unless they are also place. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date on
under review at the same time. Nevertheless, the RGU must be which the RGU makes its decision; usually the date the councilor
alert to the possibility that an EfS could be needed because of board takes the action. There is no administrative appeal of an
cumulative impacts of multiple projects. The RGU should address RGU; the EQB has no jurisdiction to review an RGU's decision.
the project's interaction with other past, present and future
projects in the vicinity when answering EAW questions. Use of a federal Environmental Assessment as a
substitute for the EAW form
Delay of Ers decision due to insufficient Rule amendments in 1997 authorize the automatic substitution of
information a federal Environmental Assessment in place of the EAW form as
The RGU may postpone its decision onthe need for an EIS for up long as the EA <,!ddresses all the environmental effects identified
to 30 additional calendar days int determines that "information by the EAW form. This avoids the need for two different review
necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or sig- documents for projects that require both a state EA Wand federal
nifkance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl review.
but could be reasonably obtained" (part 4410.1700, subpart 22). NOTE: Only the document can be substituted - a/l procedural
This provision is intended to provide for a postponement onl\' on aspects of the state EAW process must still be followed.
the basis of important missing information that bears on the
question of potential for significant environmental impacts. If the Alternative Urban Areawide Review in lieu of an
missing information is not critical to the EIS need decision in the EAW .
opinion of the RGU, the decision should not be delayed. The A more comprehensive and often more expeditious review can be
infDrmation can be developed later as part of an appropriate accomplished through the Alternative Urban Areawide Review
permitting process. In its record of decision, the RGU can describe process, If several different projects in the same area will require
the information and how it will be obtained and used. preparation of an EAW, or if an RGU has concerns about overall
If the project proposer agrees, an RGU can extend the postpone- development in an area where some projects require review and
ment beyond the 30 days stated in the rules. In unusual cases others do not, the situation may be best suited for an Alternative
where importantinformation is found to be lacking from the EAW, . Urban Areawide Review. RGUs (an find guidance about the AUAR
the RGU may simply withdraw the EAW, revise it and restart the process in Chapter 5 of the Guide to Minnesota Environmental
3D-day comment period. This can norrnatly only be justified ifthe Review Rules or by consulting the EQB staff.
.
4 EAW Guidelines
. Revised 2/99
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORK-SHEET
Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EA W Guidelines will be
available in Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant enVironmental effects. The EA W 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 niuSt be included if the EA W is prepared
electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 3D-day comment period following
notice of the EA W in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of
information, potential impacts that wan-ant fwiher investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title
2. Proposer 3. RGU
Contact person Contact person
Title Title
Address Address
City, state, ZIP City, state, ZIP
Phone Phone
Fax Fax
. E-mail E-mail
4. Reason for EA W preparation (l;heck one)
EIS scoping Mandatory EA W Citizen petition ROD discretion
Proposer volunteered
If EA W or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name
5. Project location . County CityrroVil1lship
Y4 1,4 Section Township Range
Attach each of the following to the EA W:
. County map showing the general location of the project;
. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries
(photocopy acceptable);
. Site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
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 will produce 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.
. c. Explain the project purpose; lithe project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need
for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
d. Are future stages oftrus development including development on any outlots planned or likely to .
happen? _Yes No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes _No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage
Number of residential units: unattached attached maximum units per building
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office Manufacturing
Retail Other industrial
Warehouse Insti tutio nal
Light industrial Agriculturat
Other commercial (specify)
Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings
8. Permits and approvals required. List all knov,n local, state and federal penuits, 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.
Unit of government Tvpe ofapplication Status
9. Land use. Describe CUlTm! and recent past land use and development on the site and on adj acent lands. .
Discussproject compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential
conflicts involve enviromnental matters. Identify any 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.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site \vith each of the following coverrypes before and after
development:
Before After Before After
Types 1-8 wetLands La w11J1andscapillg
Wooded/forest Impervious surfaces
Brush/Grassland Other (describe)
Cropland
TOTAL
If Before and After totals are not equal. explain why:
I]. 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.
b. .'\Ie any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concem) species, Tare plant communities or
other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies
or regionally Tare plant communities on or near the site? _Yes No
If yes, describe the reSOUTCe and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate ifa site survey of the .
resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DI'\1R Natural Helitage and Nongame
Research program has b;:en contacted give the correspondence reference number: . Describe
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
.
.
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? _Yes _No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the
water resources affected are on the PWI: . Describe alternatives considered and proposed
mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
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)? ...:__Yes ~No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be
made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration. quantity and purpose of any
appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, ifknown. Identify
any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology
used to determine.
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 _No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
Yes _No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
. conflicts with other uses.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to
be moved:
acres ; cubic yards . Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and
identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used
during and after project construction.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe pemlal1ent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
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.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater
produced or treated at the site.
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition
after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the
discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems,
discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe
anypretJ:eatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of
. wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.
d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location
and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements
necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. .
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: lllll1lll1um average
to bedrock: minimum average
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site
map: sinkholes, shallow limestone fonnations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or
minimize envirorunentalproblems due to any of these hazards.
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) dassifications, ifknoWll; Discuss soil granularity
and potential for groundwater contamination from \vastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and cDmpositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of
disposal. For proj ects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan;
describe ho\\' the projectv.rill be modified for recycling. Ifhazardous waste is generated, indicate if
there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identifY measures to be
used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. lithe use oftoxic or hazardous matelials will
lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or
eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petrolewn .
products Dr other materials, except water. Desclibe any emergency response containment plans.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added . Existing spaces (if project involves expansion)
Estimated total average
daily traffic generated . Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and
time of occurrence
. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected
roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. Hthe project is \vithin the Twin Cities
metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system.
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. Note: lithe project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult
EA TV Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.
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 pol1utants (consult EA W Guidelines for a listing) and any
greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nin'ous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals
(cWoro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe
any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the
impacts on air quality.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the projt::ct generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? _Yes No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on .
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
I
. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, hist0l1cal or architectural resources? _Yes _No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _Yes _No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _Yes _No
Scenic views and vistas? _Yes _No
Other unique resources? _Yes _No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
26. Visual impacts. \Vill 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? Yes _No
If yes, explain.
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 ofa local, regional, state or federal agency?
_Yes _No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any
conflicts will be resolved. lino, explain.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _Yes _No. If yes, describe the
new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action
with respect to the project must be assessed in the EA W; see EAW Guidelines for details.)
29. Cumulative impacts. 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 EA W in such a way as to cause
cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due
to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this
fOl1n).
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts
not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being donefor EIS scopittg; instead,
address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA w: 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 considered for 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 docwnent is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
. The EA W describes the complete p_roject; 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 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60,
respectively.
. . Copies of this EA W are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature Date
Title .
Environmental AssessmentWorksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at
Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EA W Guidelines, contact:
Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, JvlN 55155, 651-296-8253, or
v.'ww .mnplan.state .run. us
.
.
Environmental Review
By Chris Smith
he 1\1innesota Environmental are ordered by governmental units size, or location make it inevitable that
Policy Act established a formal either upon their own initiative or by there is a potential far significant envi-
process for reviewing the envi- citizen petition. A discretionary EA\V ranmental effects. In other cases, the
ronrnental impacts of maj Or is particularly appropriate for public need for an EIS is discretionary with
developmental projects. The projects with some possibility of signifi- the RGU. State law requires that the
purpose of review is to provide cant adverse environmental impacts project proposer pay the RGU for
information to cities and other or with the perception of such impacts. all the reasonable costs incurred to
governmental units on the envi- By preparing a discretionary EA W, prepare the EIS, which is usually at
ronrnental impacts of a project before the RGU can identify adverse impacts least $100,000. The EIS is not a means
approvals or necessary permits are and their severity, forestalling potential ta approve or disapprove a project.. but
issued. Environmental review creates delays if a petition is filed. The EA W is simply a source of information to
the opportunity to anticipate and cor- process typically requires two to three guide approval decisions. The EIS can
rect problems before projects are built. months to complete. only point out problems and solutions;
The process operates according to rules CitizeJJ petitions. Only certain it cannot enforce them.
adopted by the Environmental Quality projects require mandatory emiron- Moratorium. A moratorium is auto-
Board (EQB). mental review. For other projects, matically placed on action or project
. Responsible Governmental Unit. 25 citizens may petition for environ- apprav-a! and construction when
Determining the Responsible Govern- mental review "vith the EQB. "When environmental rev'lew is required or
mental Unit (RGU) is the first step the petition is complete, the EQB requested by citizen petition. A project
in the environmental review process. vvill assign the appropriate RGU and may not proceed and permits authoriz-
The RGU is the govemmental unit fonvard the petition to that unit. The ing the project may not be issued when
responsible for enviromnental review. petition asks the RGU to consider pre- environmental review is pending.
Typically, the RGU is the unit of paring an EA W. The petitioners have Once all review is complete, govem-
government "i'Vith the greatest authority the burden to prove that the project mental units "i'Vith authority over the
over the project as a whole. The RGU warrants :an EAW. The petition must project may proceed to make final
is responsible for preparing the Envi- present facts that tend to demonstrate decisions on the project.
ronmental Assessment Worksheet that something about the location and Condtuion. Environmental review
(EAW) and the Environmental Impact nature of the project makes it deserving should be initiated as early as possible.
Statement (EIS) if required by law. A of review. The RGU romt decide If the project fits into a mandatory
governmental unit is not disqualified ::.::= whether to prepare an EA W within review category, the RGU should be
from acting as the _RGU simply be- 30 working days of receipt of the peti- advised as soon as the project proposer
cause it is the project p"foposer. The tion and notifY the petitioners within can thoroughly describe the project's
rules offer no mechanism for disqualifY- five working days of its decision. A location and basic features. For other
ing an RGU because of an alleged bias. hearing or testimony is not required. projects, the sooner the public and
Environmental Assessment An aggrieved party may appeal the RGU are advised, the sooner the need
W01'ksheet. An EA W is a brief docu- decision in the district court within for environmental review can be deter-
ment providing basic information 30 days of the RGV's decision. mined. For additional information,
about the environmental impacts of a Environmental Impact Statement. see the Guide to Minnesota Environmental
proj ect. Its primary legal purpose is Prior to any governmental approval Review R~des. Copies are available by
to provide the information needed to of a project with the "potential for contacting the EQB at (651) 296-8253
determine whether the project has the significant environmental effects, " or (800) 657-3794. tr
potential for "significant environmental an EIS must be prepared. An EIS is a
effects" and whether an EIS is needed. thorough study of a project that identi- Chris Smith is a Jomm stciff attame}' with
. The EA W also provides permit infor- fies the likely environmental impacts of
mation, informs the public about a the project, and ways to lessen or avoid the League of Nlinnesota Cities, He is cur-
project, and helps identify ways to such impacts through alternative means rently an attomey in the Mirme~~lis office
protect the environment. Most EA Ws of accomplishing the project or rede- oj Dorsey & vVhitney LLP practwng In the
are mandatory due to the project's signing aspects of the project. An EIS area of p~lblicfirzance. Chris may be reached
nature, size, -or location. Other EA W s is rmdatory for projects whose nature, at (612) 340-2600.
TnTV 1 Q Q Q Mr"''''I'~nT~ c: r T r I' , 1
"------