July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET · or industrial processes, 3) significant...

July 2013 version

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the

Environmental Quality Board’s website at: www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant

environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the

EAW form.

Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be

addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.

Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period

following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and

completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.

1. Project title: Long Lake Creek Corridor Improvement Project – Phase II, Hennepin County

2. Proposer: 3. RGU

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

RESPEC Consulting and Services (Agent) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

Emily Javens, P.E. Michael Hayman, Project Manager

1935 West County Rd B2; Suite 320 15320 Minnetonka Blvd

Roseville, MN 55113 Minnetonka, MN 55345

Phone: 320-979-0084 Phone: 952-471-8226

Fax: 651-683-2277 Fax: 952-471-0682

[email protected] [email protected]

4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

Required: Discretionary:

EIS Scoping Citizen petition

Mandatory EAW RGU discretion

Proposer initiated

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):

MN Rule 4410.4300, Subpart 26 Stream Diversion.

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm

5. Project Location:

County:

Hennepin

City/Township:

City of Long Lake (230 and 240 Orono Orchard Rd, Long Lake)

PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range):

NW ¼, SW ¼, Sec 35, T118N, R23W and

SW ¼, SW ¼, Sec 35, T118N, R 23W

Watershed (81 major watershed scale):

Mississippi River (Twin Cities)

Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) # 07010206

GPS Coordinates:

44.9815o N, 93.5615

o W

Tax Parcel Numbers:

Parcel ID # 35-118-23-33-0035

Parcel ID # 35-118-23-33-0036

At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:

County map showing the general location of the project;

See Figure 1 of Appendix A.

U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy

acceptable); and


Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-

construction site plan.


6. Project Description:

a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50

words).

The Long Lake Creek Corridor Improvement Project – Phase II will restore the previously

ditched outlet channel of Long Lake similar to its historical meandering alignment and restore

a decommissioned wastewater treatment pond into a mixed type wetland. The purpose is to

improve water quality, increase habitat value, and create additional floodplain storage.

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including

infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.

Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical

manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment

or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,

and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.

Background. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District conducted a feasibility study in 2011

that identified a suite of improvements for Long Lake Creek. The creek flows from Long

Lake to Tanager Lake (which is impaired for nutrients) and then drains into Lake Minnetonka

at Browns Bay. This project is the second project (Phase II) identified in that study. It is an

opportunity to restore 10 acres of open space owned by the City of Long Lake similar to

historical conditions, providing numerous benefits to water quality and wildlife habitat. In the

1960’s, Long Lake Creek was channelized to construct a wastewater treatment pond

(WWTP), but was later decommissioned in 1978. This WWTP has been formally closed and

is currently operating as a stormwater pond.

Project Description. The project will include the establishment of a more natural, sinuous

channel that will be aligned through the former WWTP and will be surrounded by restored

wetlands. A portion of the dike originally constructed to separate the creek from the WWTP

will be removed, along with the WWTP outlet structure, allowing the two to become

reconnected. Implementation of the project as designed will result in improvements to stream

geomorphology, increased habitat, restored wetland and ecological functions, and increased

floodplain storage.

Construction Details. The main construction components will involve removal of excess

sediment within the pond, earthwork to form the new creek alignment and adjacent

floodplain, construction of a pretreatment basin, and planting of a diverse grouping of native

wetland vegetation.

Timeline. This project will start with dewatering the WWTP in late summer or early fall of

2014. Earthwork and sediment removal will be completed during the winter of 2014-2015

and final site stabilization and planting will be completed in the spring of 2015. The

contractor will be responsible for maintaining the wetland plantings for a period of at least

three years to ensure a robust native wetland community is established.

c. Project magnitude:

Total Project Acreage 10.6 acres

Linear project length 1250 linear feet (creek)

Number and type of residential units none

Commercial building area (in square feet) none

Industrial building area (in square feet) none

Institutional building area (in square feet) none

Other uses – wetland restoration 5.4 acres

Structure height(s) none

d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the

need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.

The project is being carried out by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, with funding from

the Metropolitan Council. The purposes of this restoration are to improve water quality,

provide habitat and add floodplain storage. As part of the project, invasive vegetation will be

removed and a focus on the wetland plantings should improve the area’s aesthetics. Tanager

Lake, currently impaired, is located two miles downstream of the project and should see

benefits to water quality. Overall, the neighborhood and general public will benefit from the

restoration project.

e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or

likely to happen? Yes No

If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for

environmental review.

f. 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. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after

development:

Before After Before After

Wetlands 0.4 ac 5.4 ac Lawn/landscaping 0.3 ac 0.3 ac

Deep water/streams 0.5 ac 1.7 ac Impervious surface 0.0 ac 0.0 ac

Wooded/forest 0.0 ac 0.0 ac Stormwater Pond

0.4 ac 0.4 ac

Brush/Grassland

3.4 ac 2.8 ac Other (describe):

Cropland 0.0 ac 0.0 ac Former Wastewater Treatment Pond

5.6 ac 0.0 ac

TOTAL 10.6 ac 10.6 ac.

8. Permits and approvals required:

List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications 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. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental

review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.

Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item

Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.

If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in

EAW Item No. 19.

PERMITS and PENDING GOVERNMENT REVIEW:

Unit of Government Type of Application Status

Army Corps of Engineers Wetland and Stream Restoration To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Conservation Act To be submitted

City of Long Lake Grading Permit To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion & Sediment Control To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Floodplain Alteration To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Waterbody Crossings & Structures To be submitted

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Management To be submitted

MN Pollution Control Agency NPDES Construction Permit To be submitted

MN Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Work Permit Under review

MN Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit To be submitted

9. Land use:

a. Describe:

i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,

trails, prime or unique farmlands.

Figure 4 in Appendix A shows the land uses surrounding the project area in each of the

following directions from the project site:

i. North – MN State Highway 12, residential development, and Long Lake

ii. West – floodplain mitigation ponds, single family homes residential area

iii. South – predominantly wetlands, golf course

iv. East – single family homes, forested wetlands

ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any

other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,

state, or federal agency.

The Long Lake Creek Corridor (LLC) Improvement Project is identified in the Capital

Improvement Program (CIP) of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s 2007

Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WMP). The feasibility study for

the LLC Improvement Project that identified water quality improvement projects

throughout the corridor, was reviewed by the Board of Managers in 2011. Additional

investigation was desired to identify opportunities for restoration of the Long Lake

WWTP in partnership with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)

and the City of Long Lake. In August 2013, the Board reviewed the feasibility study

for the Long Lake Creek Corridor Improvement Project-Phase II and found the project

to be a valuable stream, wetland and habitat restoration project.

iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and

scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.

This area is zoned park/open space by the City of Long Lake. It does not show up as

shoreland, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, or agricultural preserves.

b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a

above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.

The project fits well with the nearby residential homes, golf course, riparian creek areas and

wetlands. Neighborhood residents have given positive feedback to Minnehaha Creek

Watershed District in regards to this project. The environmental effects of this project will be

positive.

c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility

as discussed in Item 9b above.

No incompatibility issues have been noted.

10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:

a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible

geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,

or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the

project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to

address effects to geologic features.

No susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, karst

features or unconfined aquifers were noted. A clay liner approximately 1-2 feet thick is

present within the bottom of the WWTP and will be maintained through the project.

According to the Geologic Atlas for Hennepin County, the underlying geology is from the

early Paleozoic era and includes the Prairie du Chien Group and the St. Peter Sandstone

formation.

b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and

descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions

relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly

permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.

Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational

activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction

to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures.

Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to

Item 11.b.ii.

This wetland restoration/riparian corridor project will focus on Wetlands A and B and Long

Lake Creek as shown in Figure 5 of Appendix A. The upland areas are outside of the

construction limits and are predominantly loamy glacial till with lenses of stratified sediment.

Glacial till is greater than 20 feet in thickness. The former WWTP is lined with a 1-2’ thick

clay liner that provides structure to the pond. It sits above highly decomposed organic

material which dominates the low lying areas. Organic soil deposits are greater than 10 feet in

thickness. The soils in the low-lying areas are primarily Houghton and Muskego Soils, highly

decomposed calcareous organic soils, which are hydric. Small areas of loamy hydric mineral

soils can also be found in low-lying areas. The adjacent upland is dominated by Lester loam,

a non-hydric mineral soil formed in calcareous loamy glacial till (Figure 6 of Appendix A).

Although gradients of the upland soils range from 12 to 18 percent, construction will not

occur on the slopes. The restored wetland and channel will continue to be lined with clay to

provide structure and minimize potential erosion and sedimentation. Although highly

decomposed organic soils are slowly permeable and are prone to seepage, its water holding

capacity is very high and provides a good substrate for vegetation. To minimize engineering

concerns, organic soils will not be used for embankments. During the project, an estimated

9,500 CY of material will be removed from the site.

NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the

potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased

risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water

resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology,

soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.

N/A. This is not a silica sand project.

11. Water resources:

a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.

i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial

ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife

lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water.

Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d

Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters

Inventory number(s), if any.

Figure 7 of Appendix A shows the location of the nearby lakes, streams, and wetlands

designated as Public Waters by the DNR. There are three unnamed Public Water

Wetlands (PWW_27083600, PWW_27086200, and PWW_27085900) and three named

lakes including Long Lake (PWB_27016000), Tanager Lake (PWB_27014100) and Lake

Minnetonka (PWB_27013302).

Figure 8 of Appendix A shows the wetlands identified by the National Wetland

Inventory. Wetland delineation efforts identified a third wetland as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 10 shows the following impairments designated on the 2014 Draft 303d list by the

MPCA located within or just over one mile of the project site:

Long Lake – Mercury and Nutrients

Tanager Lake – Nutrients

Peavey Lake – Chloride and Nutrients

Lake Minnetonka – Mercury

ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is

within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,

including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or

nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.

The depth to groundwater is less than 10 feet in the low-lying areas of the project area

and is dominated by organic soils. Depth to groundwater is greater than 10 feet in the

adjacent upland areas.

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has established two Wellhead Protection

Areas (WHPAs) and with associated Drinking Water Supply Management Areas

(DWSMA) within the vicinity. The Long Lake East WHPA and DWSMA are 0.1 mile to

the north and the Long Lake West WHPA and DWSMA are 0.65 miles west (Figure 11

of Appendix A). Both DWSMAs are categorized as having “Low Vulnerability” to

contamination. There are no existing on-site wells, but the County Well Index shows

there are several well records available in the surrounding area (Figure 11 of Appendix

A).

b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate

the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.

i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of

all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.

1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any

pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste

loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater

infrastructure.

2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe

the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system.

3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment

methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate

impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.

There are no sources of wastewater produced at the site. The former Long Lake

Creek WWTP was formally closed in 1985 (see attached closure letter in Appendix

B) and has been operating as a stormwater pond since 1985.

ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and

post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site

(major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any

environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention

plans (SWPPPs) including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential best

management practice (BMP) site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify

specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil

limitations during and after project construction.

There will be no impervious surface areas added as part of this project and therefore

quantity of stormwater at the site will remain unchanged. As an added benefit, a pre-

treatment basin along the east edge of the project is designed to capture direct runoff

from existing homes along Stoneridge Circle.

The restored wetland is being constructed to improve the overall water quality of the

larger Long Lake watershed. The project is located downstream of Long Lake and

upstream of Tanager Lake, both impaired waters. Within the basin, Long Lake Creek

and the restored wetland will once again be connected, similar to its historic

configuration and the overall routing of the surface water will remain the same, with

Long Lake Creek discharging under Orono Orchard Road.

A SWPPP was prepared for the project that includes construction BMPs to prevent

erosion, control sediment, and provide temporary and permanent site stabilization.

Specific BMPs include items such as vehicle tracking control, a stabilized staging area,

silt fence, erosion control logs, inlet protection, and erosion control blanket. The

vegetative restoration is a major component of the project and a detailed design of seed

mixes and plantings was completed to maximize project benefits. Performance standards

are the core of the contractor’s responsibility to implement a multi-year maintenance

program.

iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater

(including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water

use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If

connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water

source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss

environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water

resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

environmental effects from the water appropriation.

Dewatering will be required to remove the water being held in the former wastewater

treatment pond in preparation for construction. In response to early comments from the

DNR, dewatering will occur in early fall to allow non-game species, such as frogs and

turtles, that spend winters in the bottom mucks of shallow ponds, to relocate to adjacent

ponded areas before surface waters freeze up.

iv. Surface Waters

a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features

such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss

direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including

the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed.

Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or

mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory

wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major

watershed, and identify those probable locations.

The purpose of this project is to restore wetlands and reconnect them to Long Lake

Creek. Given this objective, total avoidance of impacts to water resources is not possible.

To the greatest practical extent, measures to minimize negative impacts during

construction will be taken. These measures include scheduling activities to avoid high

water, using appropriate dewatering techniques, and implementing erosion prevention

and sediment control practices. Overall, the project is designed to increase the area of

wetlands, improve the wetland diversity and remove invasive species as part of this

restoration.

b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface

water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as

draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment,

aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental

effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management

Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically

altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of

watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.

There are no other anticipated physical effects to surface waters other than those

discussed in the previous question (11.b.iv.a.)

12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:

a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards

on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned

dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas

pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would

be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid,

minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental

hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.

The Long Lake Wastewater Treatment Facility was constructed in the mid-1960’s and

consisted of secondary treatment followed by an effluent polishing pond. The wastewater

treatment pond (WWTP) was constructed by excavating a basin on the east side of the creek

and constructing a separation dike between the creek and the pond. Record plans indicate the

pond was lined with clay. After completion of a new lift station in 1978, the wastewater

treatment facility was demolished with the exception of the 5 acre pond. The MPCA has

confirmed the biosolids have been removed and the Long Lake Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (POTW) permit has been terminated.

The former WWTP now operates as a stormwater pond. Numerous samples and analysis

have been performed on the sediment within the pond. An Environmental Site Assessment

(ESA) was performed prior to the construction of the Stoneridge Circle development and

subsequent material was removed by the City of Long Lake. As part of this project, the

sediment and clay liner of the pond were sampled per the MPCA’s “Managing Stormwater

Sediment Best Management Practice Guidance for Municipalities” document to determine if

there was any contamination. The test results found that the material within the pond, both

the sediment and clay liner, were below the Tier 1 Soil Reference Values. Therefore, the

material is suitable to be reused onsite or in other residential areas.

There are no known potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that

could be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Therefore, a

Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan for pre-existing conditions will not be created. In

the case that contamination or potential environmental hazards are discovered, the Minnehaha

Creek Project Manager would be notified immediately and construction would be put on hold

until the proper mitigation steps could be taken.

b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored

during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss

potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify

measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid

waste including source reduction and recycling.

The potential solid waste that may be generated may include trash, collected sediment,

concrete, asphalt and other demolition debris. All solid waste material to be removed from

the site will become property of the contractor and will need to be disposed of properly by the

contractor according to MPCA disposal requirements. On-site burial or abandonment of

materials is prohibited. The materials shall be stored on the site for as little time as possible

to minimize their potential effects. Any storage of materials on-site will need to be properly

contained to ensure that material is kept on-site and not transferred downstream during a

storm. The project will seek to balance the earthwork for the project to the maximum extent

that the soil properties allow. The proposed project will also remove man-made structures

and incorporate hydraulic improvements using natural features. A SWPPP has been

developed and included in the plan set to provide guidance to the contractor.

c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials

used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.

Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or

other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of

hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the

use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include

development of a spill prevention plan.

Potential Hazardous materials such as oil, gas, paints, lubricants, etc. located on site shall be

properly stored according to MPCA requirements. Materials which might contribute

pollutants to runoff, will be located in an enclosed, covered, and lockable container and

contain secondary confinement. Temporary on-site storage devices, specifications, and

locations must be submitted by the contractor for review and approval by the Project

Engineer.

All contractors' operations for equipment maintenance and fueling will be confined to a

single non-gravel location selected by the contractor. The contractor will be required to

excavate and remove all contaminated soils resulting from spilled materials. Berming around

any storage tanks will be required to contain spills. Should lubricants or fuel be accidentally

released from equipment entering the area, shall be immediately mitigated and reported to the

MCWD Project Manager. Construction vehicles and trucks will not be allowed to be washed

on the site.

The MCWD Project Manager should be notified immediately if any spills occur on-site. The

spills should be contained and mitigated immediately.

d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal.

Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal.

Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of

hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.

There is not any generation of hazardous wastes that are expected to occur as part of this

project. Should any incidents arise during construction, the MCWD Project Manager should

be notified immediately. The section above describes the storage of hazardous materials.

13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):

a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.

A wetland functional assessment was performed using Version 3.4 of the Minnesota Routine

Assessment Methodology (MnRAM). The assessment addressed fish and wildlife resources

as well as habitats and vegetation. The assessment is attached as Appendix C.

b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,

native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity

Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site.

Provide the license agreement number (LA-___) and/or correspondence number (ERDB ____)

from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate

if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe

the results.

A review of the Hennepin County Biological Survey indicated no special or rare features.

Multiple site visits over during June and July 2014 at different times of the day confirmed the

absence of special or rare fauna. Special or rare flora was not found during the wetland

functional assessment.

c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be

affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from

the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and

endangered species.

As discussed in the MnRAM assessment, the overall functional assessment of the area should

increase from pre-project conditions. Fish and wildlife resources of Long Lake Creek should

benefit from reduced water velocity and increased sinuosity and stream length. Wetland A

currently has a high quality vegetative community, with minimal invasive species. Wetland B

does not have high values, but should benefit from the overall efforts of the improvement

project. Maintaining the high vegetative quality of Wetland A after reconnection with Long

Lake Creek will be a focus of the project since riparian areas adjacent to Long Lake Creek

have heavy infestations of Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The invasive species

will be removed prior to construction, during construction and throughout the maintenance

period.

d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,

wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.

One measure identified in early conversations with the DNR included the need to schedule

the drawdown of the WWTP in early fall. This will be done in order to allow non-game

species, such as frogs and turtles that spend winters in the bottom mucks of shallow ponds, to

relocate to adjacent ponded areas before surface waters freeze.

14. Historic properties:

Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in

close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)

architectural features. Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project

construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

adverse effects to historic properties.

The State Historic Preservation Office was contacted and they found four historic and

archaeological features located near the project site, but nothing in the proposed construction

area. Documentation of the correspondence can be found in the Appendix D. The features that

turned up during research are shown in Figure 12 of Appendix A and include:

a. Long Lake / Union Cemetery / Tepee Hill

b. Historic House

c. Luce Line Railroad, Long Lake segment

d. Bridge 14.51 – Luce Line Trail over BNSF

15. Visual:

Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual

effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the

project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.

No potential negative visual related effects are anticipated. The project seeks to improve

aesthetics and will remove a portion of the dike allowing trail users to view the restored wetland.

16. Air:

a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any

emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air

pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including

any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of

any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.

Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.

There are not stationary source emissions on this project.

b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.

Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic

operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or

mitigate vehicle-related emissions.

This is not a traffic generation project and therefore does not have any air emission impacts.

c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and

odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under

item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby

sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate

the effects of dust and odors.

Earthwork will take place under frozen conditions during the winter and therefore dust and

odors should not be an issue.

17. Noise

Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project

construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1)

existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise

standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the

effects of noise.

The noise generated by the project would be limited to typical excavator, dump truck, and skid

loader noise. Start and end times will be specified in the contract to keep noise limited to hours

specified in the Long Lake City Ordinances.

18. Transportation

a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and

proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)

estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip

generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative

transportation modes.

b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements

necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system.

If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a

traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures

described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter

5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local

guidance,

c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.

N/A. This is not a traffic generating project.

19. Cumulative potential effects:

(Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable

EAW Items)

Appendix A.

Figures

A-1

Figure 1. Location Map - Hennepin County

A-2

Figure 2. US Geological Survey Map - Project Location

Project Location

A-3

Figure 3. Site Plan

A-4

Long Lake

golf course

forested wetlands

residential

WWTP

residential

residential

wetlands

Figure 4. Surrounding Land Use

A-5

Figure 5. Water Resources

A-6

Figure 6. Soils Map (Source: USDA WEB Soil Survey, 2014)

A-7

Figure 7. DNR Public Waters Map (DNR Data Deli, 2014)

A-8

Figure 8. National Wetlands Inventory Map

A-9

Figure 9. Observed Wetland Types

A-10

Figure 10. Impaired Waters Map - 2014 MPCA Draft 303d List

A-11

Figure 11. Wellhead Protection Areas, Drinking Water Supply Management Areas, and Locations for County Well Index Records

A-12

Tepee Hill Union Cemetery

House

Bridge

Figure 12. Historic and Archaeological Features

Appendix B.

MPCA Letter re:

Closure of Wastewater Treatment Pond

Appendix C.

Minnesota Routine Assessment

Methodology Report

before

MINNESOTA ROUTINE

ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY REPORT

LONG LAKE CREEK CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – PHASE II

Topical Report RSI-2449

by

RESPEC

1935 West County Road B2, Suite 320

Roseville, Minnesota 55113

prepared for

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

15320 Minnetonka Boulevard

Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345

August 2014

Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology Report

Long Lake Creek Corridor Improvement Project – Phase II

RSI-2449 C-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................ 4

4.1 VEGETATIVE BUFFERS ....................................................................................... 4

4.2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 4

5.0 SPECIAL FEATURES ................................................................................................... 9

6.0 FUNCTIONAL RATINGS ............................................................................................. 9

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 12

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 12

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

4-1 Species List of Wetland A ........................................................................................... 8

6-1 Functional Rating for Wetland A ................................................................................. 10

6-2 Functional Rating for Wetland B ................................................................................. 11

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1-1 Locations of Aquatic Resources .................................................................................. 1

3-1 Project Soils ................................................................................................................. 3

4-1 Wetland A Buffer—East Side ...................................................................................... 5

4-2 Wetland A Buffer—South Side ................................................................................... 6

4-3 Wetland B Buffer ......................................................................................................... 7



RSI-2449 C-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) report provides an existing conditions

assessment before completing the Long Lake Creek Corridor Improvement Project – Phase II

design. The fieldwork and assessment were performed in June and July 2014 by Mr. Joe

Pallardy (Biologist) and Mr. Greg Larson (Professional Soil Scientist) with RESPEC. The

wetlands are located in the city of Long Lake, south of U.S. Highway 12 in Hennepin County,

Minnesota. Hydrologically, the project sits in the Mississippi Metro Watershed and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Bank Service Area #7 (Wetland ID: 1, Township 118, Section 34,

Range 23).

The study area is bounded by Orono Orchard Road to the west, U.S. Highway 12 and the

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to the north, residential development and Stoneridge

Circle to the east, and a stormwater pond to the south. The study area contains five aquatic

resources: one floodplain mitigation pond adjacent and west of Long Lake Creek, Long Lake

Creek running northeast to southwest that bisects the area, Wetland B to the southwest and west

of Long Lake Creek, Wetland A to the east, and a stormwater pond to the south. The aquatic

resources located within the study boundary are illustrated in Figure 1-1. A nearby sixth water

resource (a stormwater pond to the northwest) was not included in this study. All wetlands and

ponds, except for Wetland B, are at least partially bounded by constructed berms.

Figure 1-1. Locations of Aquatic Resources.



RSI-2449 C-2

Wetland A is approximately 5.6 acres and is the primary wetland in this assessment. This

wetland is a decommissioned wastewater treatment pond (WWTP) constructed in the 1960s that

is currently serving as a stormwater pond. It was excavated in part from upland areas and lined

with clay. Wetland A is separated from Long Lake Creek (a ditched stream) by a berm. Although

the WWTP is functioning more as a wetland, the MnRAM ratings view it as a natural wetland

and must be analyzed accordingly. As a result, some of the MnRAM standardized responses

were modified. Wetland B is a small riparian wetland adjacent to Long Lake Creek and measures

approximately 0.4 acre.

The precipitation for the 3 months preceding the assessment was above normal. This report

reflects conditions on the ground at the dates of the assessment (during June and July 2014) and,

unless noted or implicit in the standard questions, does not reflect speculation on the future or

past conditions. Another assessment will be performed postproject to determine the success of

the project improvements.

2.0 HYDROLOGY

This chapter discusses the hydrology for each wetland. Classifications were based on the

Cowardin Classification System created in 1979 unless otherwise noted [Cowardin, 1979].

Wetland A: The maximum water depth is approximately 36 inches, with 80 percent inundated.

The wetland classification is predominantly Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently

Flooded (PUBH), with a Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded (PEMC) fringe1. With an

immediate drainage area of 37.2 acres2, this wetland is probably not sustainable given its small

catchment area. As a depressional/tributary wetland, this site has an outlet3 but no perennial inlet

and has a limited drainage area entering from the upstream subwatershed. The small drainage

area and absence of a perennial inlet are fitting rationale for reconnecting the wetland to the

floodplain. This wetland has not been drained or altered from its created size of 5.85 acres4.

1 PUBH and PEMC are deep marsh and shallow marsh, respectively, per Eggers and Reed [1997].

2 Drainage area was calculated using the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Level 9 Subwatershed and includes area of the mitigation ponds. The actual drainage area is likely smaller.

3 The outlet is above the current pool elevation. Despite above-normal precipitation during the period of assessment, water was not seen flowing from the outlet.

4 As mentioned, part of Wetland A was likely wetland before construction of the wastewater pond.



RSI-2449 C-3

Wetland B: This wetland was modified or perhaps created from cutting and filling associated

with straightening Long Lake Creek and creating the floodplain mitigation pond/wetland to the

north. The wetland best fits the Palustrine, Emergent, Saturated PEMB classification5. This

wetland has not been drained or altered from its original (perhaps created) size of 0.37 acre.

3.0 SOILS

The soils in the (original) topographic low are primarily Houghton and Muskego soils,

calcareous organic soils, as shown in Figure 3-1. The adjacent upland is dominated by Lester

loam, a nonhydric mineral soil formed in calcareous loamy glacial till. As indicated, construction

of the mitigation ponds and straightening Long Lake Creek prompted cutting upland areas and

filling lowland areas.

Figure 3-1. Project Soils.

5 Fresh meadow per Eggers and Reed [1997].



RSI-2449 C-4

4.0 VEGETATION

4.1 VEGETATIVE BUFFERS

The extent of vegetation for these wetlands is approximately 100 percent and the naturalized

buffer width averages 45 feet for Wetlands A and B. Photographs taken during the field review

illustrate the extent of the buffers, as illustrated in Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. Generally, vegetated

buffers around wetlands provide multiple benefits, including wildlife habitat, erosion protection,

and reduced surface water runoff. This buffer provides some protection for wetland water quality

and some habitat for birds. Several species of birds were observed during site visits including a

Common Egret (Casmerodius albus).

4.2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

The vegetative communities of both wetlands are described in the following text.

Wetland A: The shallow, open-water community is comprised of species like star duckweed

(Lemna trisulca), lesser duckweed (Lemna minor), and very small pondweed (Potamogeton

pusillus) that have coefficient of conservatism values of 5, 5, and 7, respectively. Plants with a

coefficient of conservatism score from 3 to 5 are indicative of a stable native plant community

that will tolerate moderate levels of disturbance. Plants with a coefficient of conservatism score

from 6 to 8 are indicative of a plant community with a late successional native plant community

that is fairly intolerant to disturbance and pollution. Common coontail had a coefficient of

conservatism score of 2, which is indicative of plants that are widespread and can tolerate high

levels of disturbance [Milburn et al., 2007]. Overall, the open-water community is comprised

solely of native plants with varying levels of tolerance to disturbance and pollution. In contrast,

the shallow marsh and upland buffer plant communities are comprised mostly of widespread

species and/or invasive species with coefficient of conservatism values ranging from 0 to 4.

These plants typify communities that will persist under high levels of disturbance and pollution

and are more indicative of a degraded plant community. The complete list of plants found in

Wetland A are provided in Table 4-1.

Wetland B: The wetland area was planted with a pasture mix that is mowed frequently. Drier

areas (upgradient of the wetland boundary) are dominated by bird’s foot trefoil, clover, timothy,

and oxeye daisy. The area within the wetland boundary is dominated by reed canarygrass.

Sedges are colonizing, but the exact sedge species could not be identified because of mowing.

Black willow has become established in a band along Long Lake Creek.

Figure 4-1. Wetland A Buffer—East Side.

Minnesota R

outine Assessm

ent Methodology R

eport

Long Lake Creek C

orridor Improvem

ent Project – P

hase II

RS

I-2448 C

-5

Figure 4-2. Wetland A Buffer—South Side.

Minnesota R

outine Assessm

ent Methodology R

eport

Long Lake Creek C

orridor Improvem

ent Project – P

hase II

RS

I-2448 C

-6

Figure 4-3. Wetland B Buffer.

Minnesota R

outine Assessm

ent Methodology R

eport

Long Lake Creek C

orridor Improvem

ent Project – P

hase II

RS

I-2448 C

-7



RSI-2448 C-8

Table 4-1. Species List of Wetland A

WETLAND TYPE PLANT COMMUNITY DOMINANT SPECIES PERCENT COVER

PUBH Type 5 Shallow, Open-Water

Communities

Lesser duckweed > 25–50

Star duckweed > 3–<10

Very small pondweed > 25–50

Common coontail > 25–50

PEMC Type 3 Shallow Marsh Narrow-leaved cattail > 75–100

N/A Upland Buffer

Giant goldenrod > 3–<10

American elm(a) > 3–<10

Bird's foot trefoil 0–3

Black willow(a) > 3–<10

Canada goldenrod > 3–<10

Cottonwood(a) > 3–<10

Gray dogwood > 3–<10

Boxelder(a) > 3–<10

Green ash(a) > 3–<10

Kentucky bluegrass > 3–<10

Sandbar willow > 3–<10

Smooth brome 0–3

Smooth sumac > 3–<10

Timothy 0–3

White clover > 3–<10

Wild honeysuckle > 3–<10

Vetch 0–3

Wild grape 0–3

Sweet clover 0–3

Buckthorn–both Rhamnus frangula and Rhamnus cathartica

>30

(a) Both shrub and tree



RSI-2448 C-9

5.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

No special features were observed at the site at the time of this assessment.

6.0 FUNCTIONAL RATINGS

The following sections describe the functional ratings for each wetland. Tables 6-1 and 6-2

summarize the functional ratings for wetland A and Wetland B, respectively.

Wetland A: Wetland A is a decommissioned wastewater pond encircled by a shallow marsh that

transitions to an upland buffer. The following three distinct plant communities are located within

Wetland A:

Shallow, Open Water Communities, Type 5, PUBH. This community had a high

vegetative index and comprised 70 percent of the entire area.

Shallow Marsh Type 3, PEMC. This community had a low vegetative index and

comprised 20 percent of the entire area.

Upland Buffer. N/A. This community had a low vegetative index because of the presence

of nonnative, invasive plants. The buffer comprised 10 percent of the entire area.

The highest-rated community was the shallow, open-water communities rated at 1. Averaging all

the communities together, the vegetative diversity and integrity of this wetland is low. A more

accurate look uses a weighted average. Using this method, this site shows a high vegetative

diversity and integrity.

High-functioning vegetative communities reflect the presence of diverse, native wetland species

and a lack of nonnative or invasive species. Overall, the largest plant community in this wetland

is in excellent condition.

Wetland B: This managed plant community, dominated by a “pasture mix,” had a low

vegetative index and comprised 90 percent of the entire area. A 30-foot-wide band of black

willow was located on the bank of Long Lake Creek.

This community had a low vegetative index because of the presence of nonnative plants. Buffer

comprised 10 percent of the entire area.



RSI-2448 C-10

Table 6-1. Functional Rating for Wetland A

FUNCTION RATING COMMENTS

Vegetative Diversity Low The rating reflects the dominance of nonnative-introduced species.

Additional Stormwater Needs Low The wetland is a small wetland with limited potential for stormwater treatment.

Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Low The wetland has a limited watershed.

Flood/Stormwater/Attenuation Low The wetland is small and near the outlet.

Maintenance of Downstream Water Quality Low The wetland is small and isolated from Long Lake Creek except during flood flows.

Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Low The wetland is small with a limited watershed.

Shoreline Protection Moderate The wetland is vegetated to Long Lake Creek, affording protection.

Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure

Low The wetland provides marginal habitat for birds and small mammals.

Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Not Applicable

Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat

Moderate Provides some habitat for amphibians and northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) were observed during the site visits.

Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural Moderate

The wetland is visible from nearby buildings or roads and is available for some recreational activities. The vegetated buffer, albeit dominated by nonnative species, provides hiking trails and habitat for birds and small mammals. Orchard Road Trail is located immediately to the west.

Wetland Restoration Moderate This site has potential as a restoration site, with significant gains to be made in vegetative function.

Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development

Low This wetland is small and low functioning.

Note: Of the MnRAM-produced functional ratings, only vegetative diversity was used as generated. Other functional ratings reflect the judgment of the reviewers.



RSI-2448 C-11

Table 6-2. Functional Rating for Wetland B

FUNCTION RATING COMMENT

Vegetative Diversity Low The rating reflects the dominance of nonnative-introduced species.

Additional Stormwater Needs Low The wetland is a small wetland with limited potential for stormwater treatment.

Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Low The wetland has a limited watershed.

Flood/Stormwater/Attenuation Low The wetland is small and near the outlet.

Maintenance of Downstream Water Quality Low The wetland is small and isolated from Long Lake Creek except during flood flows.

Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Low The wetland is small with a limited watershed.

Shoreline Protection Moderate The wetland is vegetated to Long Lake Creek, affording protection.

Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure

Low The wetland provides marginal habitat for birds and small mammals.

Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Not Applicable

Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat

Moderate Provides some habitat for amphibians and northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) were observed during the site visits.

Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural Moderate

The wetland is visible from nearby buildings or roads and is available for some recreational activities. The vegetated buffer, albeit dominated by nonnative species, provides hiking trails and habitat for birds and small mammals. Orchard Road Trail is located immediately to the west.

Wetland Restoration Moderate This site has potential as a restoration site, with significant gains to be made in vegetative function.

Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development

Low This wetland is small and low functioning.

Note: Of the MNRAM-produced functional ratings, only vegetative diversity was used as generated. Other functional ratings reflect the judgment of the reviewers.



RSI-2448 C-12

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The restoration efforts that could enhance the functional assessment of each wetland are

provided below.

Wetland A: Reconnecting the wetland, which is currently isolated with Long Lake Creek, will

improve hydrology-related functions such as flood storage. Wildlife habitat functions will also

benefit from decreased fragmentation and the linking of habitats. Restoration activities should be

undertaken to minimize the potential for increased nutrient loading from the current wetland.

Long Lake Creek could potentially be rerouted to flush material from the wetland that has been

stable.

Wetland B: Rehabiliting the existing pasture mix vegetation and converting it to native,

noninvasive hydrophytes would significantly improve vegetative function.

8.0 REFERENCES

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands

and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report

No. FWS/OBS/-79/31, prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Eggers, S. D. and D. M. Reed, 1997. Wetland Plants and Communities of Minnesota and

Wisconsin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, MN.

Milburn, S. A., M. Bourdaghs, and J. J. Husveth, 2007. Floristic Quality Assessment for

Minnesota Wetlands, prepared by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.

Appendix D.

Correspondence with

State Historic Preservation Office

D-1

Emily L. Javens

Subject: FW: SHPO request that meets EQB standards - Long Lake Creek restoration

Attachments: Archaeology.rtf; Historic.rtf

From: Thomas Cinadr [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:34 AM

To: Emily L. Javens

Subject: Re: SHPO request that meets EQB standards - Long Lake Creek restoration

THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.

This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources

database search you requested. The database search produced results

for only previously known archaeological sites and historic

properties. Please read the note below carefully.

Archaeological sites and historic properties were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic

Structures Inventory for the search area requested. Reports containing the results of the search are attached.

The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are

included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural

properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development

projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to

contain historic properties.

If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties,

you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly

Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at [email protected].

The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at

http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm

SHPO research hours are 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday.

The Office is closed on Mondays.

Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. West St. Paul, MN 55102

651-259-3453

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm

D-2

From: Emily L. Javens

Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:13 PM

To: '[email protected]'

Subject: SHPO request that meets EQB standards - Long Lake Creek restoration

Hi Mr. Cinadr,

I am working on an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We need a

letter from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding any historic features that may be present in our work

area, shown below, outlined in orange. Our project will consist of removing sediment from the water body on

the east side of the work area and restoring some wetland features and remeandering the currently ditched creek

that serves as the outlet for Long Lake.

Project location:

Hennepin County

230 and 240 Orono Orchard Road, Long Lake MN (outlots owned by the City of Long Lake)

Parcel IDs 35‐118‐23‐33‐0035 and 35‐118‐23‐33‐0036

PLS: NW ¼, SW ¼, Sec 35, T118N, R23W and SW ¼, SW ¼, Sec 35, T118N, R 23W

Lat/Long: 44.98o N, 93.56o W

Please let me know if I have not contacted the correct person or followed the correct procedure.

Thanks,

Emily

D-3

Emily L. Javens, P.E. Project Manager

RESPEC Consulting & Services – Established 1969

Engineering, Water & Natural Resources, Information Technologies

1935 West County Road B2, Suite 320; Roseville MN 55113

Phone: 651.788.7648 | Cell: 320.979.0084 www.respec.com Innovation|Collaboration|Inspiration

http://www.respec.com/

http://www.respec.com/

D-4

History/Architecture Inventory

PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS Twp Range Sec Quarters USGS Report NRHP CEF DOE Inventory Number

COUNTY: Hennepin

CITY/TOWNSHIP: Long Lake

Union Cemetery xxxx Wayzata Blvd. 118 23 35 C-W Excelsior xx-95-4H HE-LLC-008

Luce Line Railroad, Long Lake Segment 118 23 35 Excelsior MC-2003-1H HE-LLC-011

CITY/TOWNSHIP: Orono

house 105 Orono Orchard Rd. 118 23 35 SW-SW-SW Excelsior HE-88-1H HE-ORC-027

Bridge No. 14.51 Luce Line Trail over BNSF 118 23 35 NW-SW-SE Excelsior xx-95-4H Y HE-ORC-051

Archaeological Site Locations

Site Number Site Name Twp. Range Sec. Quarter Sections Acres Phase Site Description Tradition Context Reports NR CEF DOE

County:

21HE0100

Hennepin

Long Lake/Union Cemetery/Tepee Hill

118

23

35

C-W

8

2 or 3

AS

W-1

THY-94-01

Long Lake/Union Cemetery/Tepee Hill 118 23 35 C-W 8 2 or 3 AS W-1 MULT-95-02

Long Lake/Union Cemetery/Tepee Hill 118 23 35 C-W 8 2 or 3 AS W-1 HE-95-02



July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET · or industrial processes, 3) significant...

Documents

Transcript of July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET · or industrial processes, 3) significant...