3.12 Otsego Creek Restoration Project EAW Findings of Fact
Request for
City Council Action
DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT REQUESTOR: MEETING DATE:
Planning City Planner Licht 12 June 2023
PRESENTER(s) REVIEWED BY: ITEM #:
Consent City Administrator/Finance Director Flaherty
City Engineer Wagner
3.12 – Otsego Creek EAW
STRATEGIC VISION
MEETS: THE CITY OF OTSEGO:
Is a strong organization that is committed to leading the community through innovative
communication.
X Has proactively expanded infrastructure to responsibly provide core services.
Is committed to delivery of quality emergency service responsive to community needs and
expectations in a cost-effective manner.
X Is a social community with diverse housing, service options, and employment opportunities.
X Is a distinctive, connected community known for its beauty and natural surroundings.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends adoption of findings of fact that Otsego Creek project does not have potential for
significant environmental effects and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED?
No
No
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION:
The City is proposing a public improvement project consisting of modifying Otsego Creek within the Prairie
Pointe plat. This will include excavation and filling within the existing creek in the project site to re-
meander the main channel and add overflow berms. Other construction activities will include installation
of turf reinforcement mats, select tree removal, reseeding banks, and installation of two twin culverts.
Work will be completed by contractors hired by the City. The Project site is a natural area and will remain
as such post project. No equipment, process, or structures are present at the site in existing conditions and
will not be added or modified by the Project. The construction of the Project is anticipated to start in Fall
2023 and be completed in Spring 2024.
The project required preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet in accordance with
Minnesota Rules 4410.3200, Subp. 27 for stream diversions. City staff and AE2S has prepared the EAW
document. The EAW was published and distributed to government agencies and noticed publicly in
accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500. Public notice includes publication in the Elk River Star News
and posting on the City website. The EAW is also published by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) via
their website for public comment during a 30-day comment period. EQB notice of availability of the EAW
was published on 18 April 2023 with the comment period ending on 18 May 2023.
The City received comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. City staff and AE2S have prepared responses to the comments that
were received and findings of fact that the project has does not have potential for significant
environmental effects that would warrant consideration of an Environmental Impact Statement.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
▪ Findings of Fact and Decision
POSSIBLE MOTION
PLEASE WORD MOTION AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR IN THE MINUTES:
Motion to adopt findings of fact that the Otsego Creek project does not have potential for significant
environmental effects and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not to be required, as
presented.
BUDGET INFORMATION
FUNDING: BUDGETED:
Fund 408 – Otsego Creek Watershed
Yes
1
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Otsego Creek Restoration
Location: City of Otsego owned outlot North of 76th Street NE and East of Marlowe Ave NE
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU): City of Otsego
RGU Proposer / Project Contact
Contact Persons City of Otsego
Ronald J Wagner
City of Otsego
Ronald J Wagner
Title Otsego City Engineer Otsego City Engineer
Address 13400 90th Street NE 13400 90th Street NE
City, State, Zip Otsego, MN 55330 Otsego, MN 55330
Phone 763-852-0478 763-852-0478
E-mail RonW@HAA-inc.com RonW@HAA-inc.com
I. Administrative Background
Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, the City of Otsego has prepared an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Otsego Creek project (Project). The City of Otsego is the project
proposer and the Responsible Government Unit (RGU).
II. EAW Notification and Distribution
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and
comments, to the required EAW circulation list on April 11, 2023 (Exhibit A). An Environmental Review
Notice was published in the EQB monitor on April 18, 2023. A Press Release was published in the Elk
River Star News on April 22nd, 2023 (Exhibit B).
III. Substantive Comments / Comments Received and Responses to these Comments
The public comment period for the project ran from April 18, 2023to May 18, 2023. The City received
two agency comment letters during the public comment period. The following section provides a
summary of these comments and the responses to them (Exhibit C includes the complete comments and
comment response).
Agency Comments and Responses
Agency Comment Response
Minnesota
Department of
Transportation
After a review of the draft EAW, it does
not appear to have any direct or indirect
impact on MnDOT right-of-way or
highway. MnDOT District 3 staff would
not have any comment to provide to the
draft EAW.
Comment noted
Minnesota
Department of 1.DNR Comment Section 10.b. This 1.Previous discussion with the
2
Natural
Resources
section does not discuss how the
differences between the floodplain
mapped in 1992, which does not
show a floodplain within the
project area, and the new
preliminary floodplain map are
impacting the design of the project.
This section should also discuss
how relevant floodplain ordinances
might apply to the project, and how
the presence of the floodplain will
be incorporated into project design.
2.DNR Comment Section 11.a. This
section should also describe the
geology of the site and the glacial
till (Grantsburg Lobe) that is
present from the surface soils to
the bedrock 141 feet below grade.
3.DNR Comment Section 12.ii.
Stormwater. This section states
that channel grading will improve
channel stability and bank health.
However, the channel will be
reshaped into a trapezoidal cross
section that is more akin to a
drainage ditch than a natural
stream. Side slopes are to be
covered in permanent turf
reinforcement mat to maintain
that cross section and there is no
discussion or plan to reconnect
the stream to the floodplain.
Woody debris habitat is removed
and there is no description of any
cover (e.g. wood, large rocks,
overhanding vegetation) in the
stream channel design.
4.DNR Comment Section 12.iv. Surface
Waters. The EAW does not describe
any delineated wetlands within the
project area even though the EAW
states that the project will be applying
for a no-loss under the Wetland
Conservation Act. This section should
describe the size, type, and quality of
the wetland that exist within the
DNR had requirements of the
preliminary flood plain
enforced and were later
recanted due to the flood
plain not yet being adopted.
The design however, does
meet the required minimum
100 year stage increase
allowed by FEMA within the
preliminary flood plain.
2.The EAW focused on
describing the surficial soils
that are within the project
area that will be modified by
the project because the
project does not involve deep
excavation or foundations.
Section 11.b. of the EAW
details the soils information of
the site relevant to the
project.
3.The existing cross section
geometry is not conducive to
channel stability and has
frequent stretches of
exposed soil held by tree
roots. The City has
determined with the DNR
Streams Division that the
stream meanders should be
reduced to lessen the
magnitude of cut banks as
described above. Natural
cover such as wood and
rocks can be incorporated
into the project and these
additions will be reviewed as
part of the Work in Public
Waters permitting process.
4.The presence of wetlands will
be confirmed by specialists as
part of the project design. If no
wetlands are determined to
exist, the no-loss wetland
application will be omitted
from the project. The City is
3
project area as well as the proposed
new wetlands that will be created as a
part of the project.
5.DNR Comment Section 12.iv.
Surface Waters. There is no
information included in the EAW
that summarizes physical changes
to the stream channel. It would be
useful to understand the City’s
approach in designing the new
stream channel, such as new vs.
existing channel cross section,
slope, and radii of curvature of the
channel bends. The EAW mentions
a reduction in sediment transport,
but does not describe how this
conclusion was reached or provide
context to know if that will be
beneficial or harmful to stream
stability. The plans included in the
EAW include a longitudinal profile
of elevations, but do not indicate
existing vs. proposed elevations,
nor do they clarify what is the
stream bottom vs. surrounding
floodplain. Without more
information than what was
included in the EAW, it is not
possible to effectively evaluate
the stream channel design.
6.DNR Comment Section 12.iv.
Surface Waters. The DNR does not
consider this project to have the
benefits of a stream restoration. As
currently designed, the stream
loses channel length through the
straightening of some meanders, it
does not hydrologically connect to
the floodplain, it does not
emphasize the creation of habitat,
and it proposes the addition of a
culvert under a future roadway.
The DNR would appreciate the
opportunity to coordinate on a
stream restoration design that is of
ecological benefit and meets the
drainage needs of the City of
currently working through the
Public Waters Permit to
complete this process.
5.The City has worked with the
DNR Streams Division in
creating the stream design
and the DNR Streams
Division has deemed the
design acceptable. See
Attachment A of the EAW for
profile and cross section
views of the project.
6.Coordination will be
conducted with the DNR
Water Resources Division as
part of the work within the
Work in Public Waters
permitting process.
7.Response: Minimal aquatic
species are present given the
lack of vegetation in the
streambed. Some aquatic
invertebrates may live in the
stream, and the predominant
fish species is Common Carp
migrating downstream from
School Lake. The MPCA Water
Quality Dashboard does not
list any biological or
geomorphological
assessment, instead stating
there is insufficient data.
8.Native seed mix will be
incorporated into the project
within the drainage easement
extents. The project will meet
requirements specified in the
MPARS permitting process.
9.Tree removal will occur as
part of the channel grading,
but only in regards to access
for grading the channel and
the culvert crossing. The
culvert crossing area has
already been cleared under
4
Otsego. Please contact DNR Area
Hydrologist, James Bedell
(james.bedell@state.mn.us; 320-
223-7850) and Clean Water Legacy
Specialist, Nick Proulx
(nick.proulx@state.mn.us; 651-259-
5850) for further coordination.
7.DNR Comment Section 14, Fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and
sensitive ecological resources. The
EAW does not mention any aquatic
organisms in this section, despite a
stream being the focus of this project.
Are pools and riffles included in the
design of the stream channel to
provide different habitats used by
fish, or is the bed slope planned to be
uniform? Without better information,
it is not possible to evaluate habitat
impacts. There is fish and aquatic
invertebrate survey data available for
this reach of Otsego Creek from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
on their water quality data access
website. The EAW should describe the
state of the current habitat, and what
organisms are living in the stream, or
what potentially could live in the
stream with improved habitat.
8.DNR Comment Section 14, Fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and
sensitive ecological resources. The
EAW mentions revegetating with turf
mats, but does not describe the
vegetation that will be established
upon completion of the project. Turf
is usually comprised of non-native
species that offer little ecological
benefit. We recommend using native
seed mixes and plantings to the
greatest degree possible. Please refer
to the Board of Soil and Water
Resources for a list of appropriate
state seed mixes. Please also be
aware that native seed mixes do not
require fertilizer, which can be a
pollutant when applied to
DNR permit for utility
crossings. Tree clearing will
be kept to a minimum but in
order to complete the
remeandering required by
the DNR Streams Division
tree removal is unavoidable.
10.A tree inventory and
replacement summary will
be completed as part of the
project design in line with
the MPARS permit
requirements.
5
streambanks.
9.The EAW indicates that there will
be significant tree removal as a
part of this project. The timing of
tree removal will be important to
limit impacts to bird and bat
species Please be aware that the
Northern Long-eared bat was
recently up-listed to the status of
federally endangered. This follows
precipitous declines of more than
90% since the species federal
listing as threatened in 2015. To
ensure compliance with federal
law, please refer to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service’s online
Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) tool to better
understand how this change in
status could affect your project.
10.The EAW should describe the tree
species being removed and the
types or species that will be
planted upon completion of the
project.
IV. Comparison of Potential Impacts with Evaluation Criteria
Minnesota EQB rule 4410.1770, Subp. 6 and 7 govern when an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
needed. An EIS is needed if the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts. The four
criteria for a project to have significant environmental impacts and the comparison to the impacts of the
Project are as follows:
a. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project include:
Surface Waters
The project will impact one acre of wetlands by re-meandering the creek. But these
impacts will be offset through the creation of new wetlands in the oxbows. The project
will be altering Otsego Creek. No other surface waters will be altered by the project. The
goal of the Project is to return Otsego Creek to a more natural state. The Project will
improve water quality by improving the channel geomorphology and reducing sediment
transport.
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Communities
6
The wildlife expected on the Project site includes species typically present in residential
settings. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was used to gather information on natural resources
that could be affected by the project. The IPaC identified one threatened species, one
endangered species, and one candidate species. The City of Otsego reviewed the species
list and determined that the Project will have no effect on any of the listed species. The
IPaC also returned 12 species of note for migratory birds. The City of Otsego reviewed
the migratory birds list and determined that the project will have no effect on the
species of note. The Project will change Otsego Creek where the aquatic species live.
The oxbows created in the stream will create new habitats for aquatic life.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
99 tones of CO2-equivalance emitted were calculated to be emitted by construction
related activities. There will not be any GHG emissions on the project site due to regular
operations. Since no ongoing GHG emissions are created by the project, no mitigation
was identified.
Noise
There are no existing sources of noise currently on the project site. The construction
activities on the site will produce noise. To mitigate the noise and effects on the nearby
residents, construction activity will be limited to the City of Otsego’s established
construction hours (Monday through Friday: 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.; Saturday: 8:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m.; Sunday or Federal Holidays: no work allowed).
b. Cumulative Potential Effects
The project related environmental effects are limited to the immediate area and to
Otsego Creek itself. There are no other known projects within the sane geographic area
and timeframe with environmental effects that could result in cumulative
environmental effects. There are no reasonably foreseeable future projects that may
interact with the environmental effects of the proposed project.
c. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority
The following permits or approvals will be required as a part of this project:
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources
Work in Public Waters Applied For
City of Otsego
Wetland Conservation Act
Approval Applied For
US Army Corps of
Engineers
404 Individual Permit Applied For
7
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
NPDES Construction
Stormwater Permit Applied For
The potential impacts identified as part of the Project can be addressed through these
regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a
result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the
project proposer
All design and construction staff are very familiar with the project area. The City has
previously restored over 10,000 linear feet of Otsego Creek. No problems are
anticipated that City staff has not encountered and successfully solved many times in
similar projects in or near the project area. The City finds that the environmental effects
of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review
process, regulatory agency permitting, and experience on similar projects.
V. Conclusion and Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
Based on the information provided above and in the EAW, it is determined that the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental impacts. The EAW has identified areas where the
potential for environmental impacts exists, but appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated
into the Project plans. The required approvals and permits to mitigate the environmental effects will be
obtained.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, the Project does not have the potential
for significant environmental impacts to trigger the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Exhibits
A: EAW Distribution List
B: Notice of Availability
C: Comment and Comment Responses
Exhibit A: EAW Distribution List
Agency/
Organization Mailing Address Email Address
Environmental
Quality Board
Environmental Quality Board
Environmental Review Program
520 Lafayette Road N – 2nd Floor
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Via EQB Monitor
Department of
Agriculture
Stephan Roos
Department of Agriculture
625 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
stephan.roos@state.mn.us
Department of
Commerce
Ray Kirsch
Department of Commerce
85 Seventh Place East, Suite 280
St. Paul, MN 55101
raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us
Department of
Health
Department of Health
Environmental Health Division
625 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
health.review@state.mn.us
Department of
Natural Resources
Jill Townley
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Unit
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
jill.townley@state.mn.us
Pollution Control
Agency
Karen Kromar
Pollution Control Agency
Environmental Review Unit
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155
karen.kromar@state.mn.us
Board of Water and
Soil Resources
Melissa King
Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155
melissa.king@state.mn.us
Department of
Transportation
Katherine Lind
Department of Transportation
Mn/DOT Office of Environmental
Stewardship
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 620
St. Paul, MN 55155
katherine.lind@state.mn.us
State Archaeologist
Amanda Gronhovd
Office of the State Archaeologist
Kellogg Center
328 W. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
mn.osa@state.mn.us
Indian Affairs
Council
Melissa Cerda
Indian Affairs Council
161 St. Anthony Avenue, Suite 919
St. Paul, MN 55103
melissa.cerda@state.mn.us
State Historic
Preservation Office
Sarah Beimers
Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Office
50 Sherburne Ave, Suite 203
St. Paul, MN 55155
ENReviewSHPO@state.mn.us
Hennepin County
Library
Erin Cavell
Hennepin County Library – Minneapolis
Central Business/Science/Gov Docs –
2nd Floor
300 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 54401-1995
govdoc@hclib.org
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Project Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Minnesota-Wisconsin Field Office E.S.
4101 American Boulevard E
Bloomington, MN 55425-1665
Shauna_Marquardt@fws.gov
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Chad Konickson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
180 Fifth Street East, Suite #700 St.
Paul, MN 55101-1678
usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
David Ogulei
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
US EPA, Region 5
Office of Regional Administrator 77
West Jackson Boulevard Chicago,
Illinois 60604
R5NEPA@epa.gov
Regional
Development Library
for Region 7W
Great River Regional Library
1300 West St. Germain Street
St. Cloud, MN 56301-3667
saintcloudlibrary@grrl.lib.mn.us
Wright County andrew.grean@mn.nacdnet.net
Exhibit B: Notice of Availability
1
Samantha Heiberg
From:Laura Wehr
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2023 3:37 PM
To:Samantha Heiberg
Subject:FW: City of Otsego - Otsego Creek EAW Available for Public Comment - Wright County,
MN
Laura Wehr, E.I.T., CFM
Laura.wehr@ae2s.com
612.364.5509
From: Cruikshank, Thomas (DOT) <Thomas.Cruikshank@state.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 10:35 AM
To: ronw@haa-inc.com
Cc: Lind, Katherine (DOT) <Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us>; Voss, Steven (DOT) <steve.voss@state.mn.us>; Laura Wehr
<Laura.Wehr@AE2S.com>
Subject: RE: City of Otsego - Otsego Creek EAW Available for Public Comment - Wright County, MN
Hello Ron,
MnDOT District 3 staff have received an EAW for Otsego Creek. After review of the draft EAW, it does not appear to
have any direct or indirect impact on MnDOT right-of-way or highways. MnDOT District 3 staff would not have any
comments to provide to the draft EAW. Feel free to reach out with any questions.
Thanks,
Tom Cruikshank
Principal Planner | District 3
3725 12th Street North, St. Cloud, MN 56303-2107
Phone: (320) 223-6526 I Cell: (320) 267-9859
Email: thomas.cruikshank@state.mn.us
From: Lind, Katherine (DOT) <Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:26 AM
To: Cruikshank, Thomas (DOT) <Thomas.Cruikshank@state.mn.us>; Voss, Steven (DOT) <steve.voss@state.mn.us>
Subject: FW: City of Otsego - Otsego Creek EAW Available for Public Comment - Wright County, MN
The following Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been forwarded for your
District’s possible review and comment.
Exhibit C: Comment and Comment Responses
2
The EAW document may be viewed/accessed via the weblink :
https://www.ci.otsego.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B5E9EA6DA-857D-4088-B396-
1EB0F2DBA26D%7D/uploads/Otsego_Creek_Draft_EAW(R).pdf
Any transportation or MnDOT right of way concerns the District may have should be provided
directly to the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) indicated on the transmittal (see email
forwarded, below).
Please note the comment period for this EAW closes on: May 18, 2023
Katherine Lind
Environmental Review Specialist
Office: 651-366-4296
Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Central Office | Office of Environmental Stewardship (OES)
395 John Ireland Blvd, Mail Stop 620
St Paul, MN 55155
From: Laura Wehr <Laura.Wehr@AE2S.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 1:13 PM
To: ronw@haa-inc.com
Cc: D. DANIEL LICHT <ddl@planningco.com>
Subject: City of Otsego - Otsego Creek EAW Available for Public Comment - Wright County, MN
Good Afternoon,
On behalf of the City of Otsego, please find the link below to download the EAW for the Otsego Creek Project. The City
has approved the release of this document for public comment. This EAW is available for public comment starting April
18, 2023.
Please submit all comments by May 18, 2023 to:
Ron Wagner
Otsego City Engineer
13400 90th Street NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Link to EAW: https://www.ci.otsego.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B5E9EA6DA-857D-4088-B396-
1EB0F2DBA26D%7D/uploads/Otsego_Creek_Draft_EAW(R).pdf
Thank you,
This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.
3
Laura Wehr, E.I.T., CFM
Assistant Project Manager
laura.wehr@ae2s.com
Office: 763.463.5036
Mobile: 612.364.5509
Water Tower Business Center
6901 E Fish Lake Rd, Suite 184
Maple Grove, MN 55369
AE2S is an Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
This e-mail message and any documents included hereto may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or a delegate authorized to receive for the recipient), you are
hereby notified that any review, retaining, dissemination, copying, or use of content by you or others is strictly prohibited. Please
immediately notify the sender and delete this message if you have received it in error.
1
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
May 18, 2023
Ronald J Wagner, City Engineer
City of Otsego
13400 90th Street NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Ronald J Wagner,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Otsego Creek Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) located in Wright County. The DNR has some concerns over the realignment of Otsego Creek
and the missed opportunity for a stream restoration that could improve the overall ecological health of
the stream system as well as water quality. Even though the EAW describes the project as a stream
restoration in multiple sections, many aspects of the project are more akin to a drainage improvement
project. Therefore, we respectfully submit the following comments for your consideration:
1. Section 10.b. This section does not discuss how the differences between the floodplain
mapped in 1992, which does not show a floodplain within the project area, and the new
preliminary floodplain map are impacting the design of the project. This section should also
discuss how relevant floodplain ordinances might apply to the project, and how the presence
of the floodplain will be incorporated into project design.
2. Section 11.a. This section should also describe the geology of the site and the glacial till
(Grantsburg Lobe) that is present from the surface soils to the bedrock 141 feet below grade.
3. Section 12.ii. Stormwater. This section states that channel grading will improve channel
stability and bank health. However, the channel will be reshaped into a trapezoidal cross
section that is more akin to a drainage ditch than a natural stream. Side slopes are to be
covered in permanent turf reinforcement mat to maintain that cross section and there is no
discussion or plan to reconnect the stream to the floodplain. Woody debris habitat is
removed and there is no description of any cover (e.g. wood, large rocks, overhanding
vegetation) in the stream channel design.
4. Section 12.iv. Surface Waters.
o The EAW does not describe any delineated wetlands within the project area even
though the EAW states that the project will be applying for a no-loss under the Wetland
Conservation Act. This section should describe the size, type, and quality of the wetlands
2
that exist within the project area as well as the proposed new wetlands that will be
created as a part of the project.
o There is no information included in the EAW that summarizes physical changes to the
stream channel. It would be useful to understand the City’s approach in designing the
new stream channel, such as new vs. existing channel cross section, slope, and radii of
curvature of the channel bends. The EAW mentions a reduction in sediment transport,
but does not describe how this conclusion was reached or provide context to know if
that will be beneficial or harmful to stream stability. The plans included in the EAW
include a longitudinal profile of elevations, but do not indicate existing vs. proposed
elevations, nor do they clarify what is the stream bottom vs. surrounding floodplain.
Without more information than what was included in the EAW, it is not possible to
effectively evaluate the stream channel design.
o The DNR does not consider this project to have the benefits of a stream restoration. As
currently designed, the stream loses channel length through the straightening of some
meanders, it does not hydrologically connect to the floodplain, it does not emphasize
the creation of habitat, and it proposes the addition of a culvert under a future
roadway. The DNR would appreciate the opportunity to coordinate on a stream
restoration design that is of ecological benefit and meets the drainage needs of the City
of Otsego. Please contact DNR Area Hydrologist, James Bedell
(james.bedell@state.mn.us; 320-223-7850) and Clean Water Legacy Specialist, Nick
Proulx (nick.proulx@state.mn.us; 651-259-5850) for further coordination.
5. Section 14, Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
o The EAW does not mention any aquatic organisms in this section, despite a stream
being the focus of this project. Are pools and riffles included in the design of the stream
channel to provide different habitats used by fish, or is the bed slope planned to be
uniform? Without better information, it is not possible to evaluate habitat impacts.
There is fish and aquatic invertebrate survey data available for this reach of Otsego
Creek from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on their water quality data access
website. The EAW should describe the state of the current habitat, and what organisms
are living in the stream, or what potentially could live in the stream with improved
habitat.
o The EAW mentions revegetating with turf mats, but does not describe the vegetation
that will be established upon completion of the proj ect. Turf is usually comprised of
non-native species that offer little ecological benefit. We recommend using native seed
mixes and plantings to the greatest degree possible. Please refer to the Board of Soil
and Water Resources for a list of appropriate state seed mixes. Please also be aware
that native seed mixes do not require fertilizer, which can be a pollutant when applied
to streambanks.
o The EAW indicates that there will be significant tree removal as a part of this project.
The timing of tree removal will be important to limit impacts to bird and bat species
Please be aware that the Northern Long-eared bat was recently up-listed to the status
of federally endangered. This follows precipitous declines of more than 90% since the
species federal listing as threatened in 2015. To ensure compliance with federal law,
3
please refer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) tool to better understand how this change in status could affect your
project.
o The EAW should describe the tree species being removed and the types or species that
will be planted upon completion of the project.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer
1
Hello,
Our responses to the comments received from the DNR as part of the Otsego Creek EAW are in red
below. We appreciate the DNR’s feedback and would like to work through these comments and
concerns as part of the Work in Public Waters permitting process.
1.DNR Comment Section 10.b. This section does not discuss how the differences between the
floodplain mapped in 1992, which does not show a floodplain within the project area, and
the new preliminary floodplain map are impacting the design of the project. This section
should also discuss how relevant floodplain ordinances might apply to the project, and how
the presence of the floodplain will be incorporated into project design.
o Response: Previous discussion with the DNR had requirements of the preliminary flood
plain enforced and were later recanted due to the flood plain not yet being adopted.
The design however, does meet the required minimum 100 year stage increase allowed
by FEMA within the preliminary flood plain.
2.DNR Comment Section 11.a. This section should also describe the geology of the site and
the glacial till (Grantsburg Lobe) that is present from the surface soils to the bedrock 141 feet
below grade.
o Response: The EAW focused on describing the surficial soils that are within the project
area that will be modified by the project because the project does not involve deep
excavation or foundations. Section 11.b. of the EAW details the soils information of the
site relevant to the project.
3.DNR Comment Section 12.ii. Stormwater. This section states that channel grading will
improve channel stability and bank health. However, the channel will be reshaped into a
trapezoidal cross section that is more akin to a drainage ditch than a natural stream. Side
slopes are to be covered in permanent turf reinforcement mat to maintain that cross
section and there is no discussion or plan to reconnect the stream to the floodplain. Woody
debris habitat is removed and there is no description of any cover (e.g. wood, large rocks,
overhanding vegetation) in the stream channel design.
o Response: The existing cross section geometry is not conducive to channel stability
and has frequent stretches of exposed soil held by tree roots. The City has
determined with the DNR Streams Division that the stream meanders should be
reduced to lessen the magnitude of cut banks as described above. Natural cover such
as wood and rocks can be incorporated into the project and these additions will be
reviewed as part of the Work in Public Waters permitting process.
4. DNR Comment Section 12.iv. Surface Waters.
o The EAW does not describe any delineated wetlands within the project area even
though the EAW states that the project will be applying for a no-loss under the Wetland
Conservation Act. This section should describe the size, type, and quality of the wetland
that exist within the project area as well as the proposed new wetlands that will be
created as a part of the project.
2
• Response: The presence of wetlands will be confirmed by specialists as part of
the project design. If no wetlands are determined to exist, the no-loss wetland
application will be omitted from the project. The City is currently working
through the Public Waters Permit to complete this process.
o There is no information included in the EAW that summarizes physical changes to the
stream channel. It would be useful to understand the City’s approach in designing the
new stream channel, such as new vs. existing channel cross section, slope, and radii of
curvature of the channel bends. The EAW mentions a reduction in sediment transport,
but does not describe how this conclusion was reached or provide context to know if
that will be beneficial or harmful to stream stability. The plans included in the EAW
include a longitudinal profile of elevations, but do not indicate existing vs. proposed
elevations, nor do they clarify what is the stream bottom vs. surrounding floodplain.
Without more information than what was included in the EAW, it is not possible to
effectively evaluate the stream channel design.
• Response: The City has worked with the DNR Streams Division in creating
the stream design and the DNR Streams Division has deemed the design
acceptable. See Attachment A of the EAW for profile and cross section views
of the project.
o The DNR does not consider this project to have the benefits of a stream restoration. As
currently designed, the stream loses channel length through the straightening of some
meanders, it does not hydrologically connect to the floodplain, it does not emphasize
the creation of habitat, and it proposes the addition of a culvert under a future
roadway. The DNR would appreciate the opportunity to coordinate on a stream
restoration design that is of ecological benefit and meets the drainage needs of the City
of Otsego. Please contact DNR Area Hydrologist, James Bedell
(james.bedell@state.mn.us; 320-223-7850) and Clean Water Legacy Specialist, Nick
Proulx (nick.proulx@state.mn.us; 651-259-5850) for further coordination.
• Response: Coordination will be conducted with the DNR Water Resources
Division as part of the work within the Work in Public Waters permitting process.
5. DNR Comment Section 14, Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological
resources.
o The EAW does not mention any aquatic organisms in this section, despite a stream
being the focus of this project. Are pools and riffles included in the design of the stream
channel to provide different habitats used by fish, or is the bed slope planned to be
uniform? Without better information, it is not possible to evaluate habitat impacts.
There is fish and aquatic invertebrate survey data available for this reach of Otsego
Creek from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on their water quality data access
website. The EAW should describe the state of the current habitat, and what organisms
are living in the stream, or what potentially could live in the stream with improved
habitat.
• Response: Minimal aquatic species are present given the lack of vegetation in
the streambed. Some aquatic invertebrates may live in the stream, and the
predominant fish species is Common Carp migrating downstream from
3
School Lake. The MPCA Water Quality Dashboard does not list any biological
or geomorphological assessment, instead stating there is insufficient data.
o The EAW mentions revegetating with turf mats, but does not describe the vegetation
that will be established upon completion of the project. Turf is usually comprised of
non-native species that offer little ecological benefit. We recommend using native seed
mixes and plantings to the greatest degree possible. Please refer to the Board of Soil
and Water Resources for a list of appropriate state seed mixes. Please also be aware
that native seed mixes do not require fertilizer, which can be a pollutant when applied
to streambanks.
• Response: Native seed mix will be incorporated into the project within the
drainage easement extents. The project will meet requirements specified in
the MPARS permitting process.
o The EAW indicates that there will be significant tree removal as a part of this project.
The timing of tree removal will be important to limit impacts to bird and bat species
Please be aware that the Northern Long-eared bat was recently up-listed to the status
of federally endangered. This follows precipitous declines of more than 90% since the
species federal listing as threatened in 2015. To ensure compliance with federal law,
please refer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) tool to better understand how this change in status could affect your
project.
• Response: Tree removal will occur as part of the channel grading, but only
in regards to access for grading the channel and the culvert crossing. The
culvert crossing area has already been cleared under DNR permit for utility
crossings. Tree clearing will be kept to a minimum but in order to complete
the remeandering required by the DNR Streams Division tree removal is
unavoidable.
o The EAW should describe the tree species being removed and the types or species that
will be planted upon completion of the project.
• Response: A tree inventory and replacement summary will be completed as
part of the project design in line with the MPARS permit requirements.