http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/cgi-bin/htsearch
I've include the full text of this one set of minutes, because it gives a good description of the project and arguments for it.
There is reference to an environmental impact statement, but I don't know how to access that statement.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/fl_damage_reduct/default.asp?pageid=814
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/ped/pc/2002/oct2502pcam.html
Mr. Allen Lovejoy showed a plan of the perimeter dike for 100-year flood-proofing of Holman Field. Mr. Lovejoy said that during the last flood the airport was closed for 78 days. The main rationale for the dike is to create an airport that is more reliable in serving its customers. He stated there are three different types of flood protection mechanisms that they are looking to employ in order to flood-proof the airport. The first one is a sheet pile wall which would be 4'-8' above where the berm is right now along the river's edge. The second type of protection is an earthen dike section that is smaller but similar in character to the one that is behind Harriet Island and that would be employed at the south end of the airport. They would prefer to use the earthen dike throughout but there just isn't room in the area where they are going to use the sheet pile protection. The third are temporary dikes like sandbags but maybe not sandbags. These would only be employed at the south ends of the three runways during 100-year or smaller floods. In the two most recent floods the water on the airport never became part of the river flow, it was really a backwater. If it is greater than a 100 year flood and the airport is going to flood anyway they may not be using the temporary dike sections. Mr. Lovejoy reported that the airport is also planning on doing some excavation along the bank to create more capacity for flood water in the immediate river area to make up for the amount that would be displaced during floods. Recent analyses show minimum flooding impacts on the surrounding areas. Finally, the project includes filling in less than one acre of wetland at the south end of the airport and a street reconstruction project.
Mr. Lovejoy reported that the Comprehensive Planning Committee did find some things lacking in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), primarily with respect to noise and air quality impacts. Because of the noise issue the City Council decided to hold a public hearing on Wednesday October 23rd. The fear is, if the airport becomes more reliable with flood protection, then the airport will attract more air traffic. There are two kinds of traffic that might come to Holman Field, commercial and general aviation. MAC thinks it is highly unlikely that a commercial carrier would want to come into Holman Field for three reasons: 1) there are no connecting flights and with the limited capacity of the airport it is unlikely to see more than one carrier being used here-- it would have to be a single point of destination; 2) in addition there would have to be some fairly significant buildings to house these planes while they were being repaired and there is not enough room left for major hanger buildings; and 3) MAC would have to get a special permit from the FAA and right now, that is probably unlikely given the change in security measures and the possible need for reconstruction of the terminal building. The other kind of traffic, general aviation, is a combination of corporate jets, corporate airplanes, and flight schools. The busiest airport for corporate airplanes is still MSP and they are very concerned about the safety issue of small planes mixing with the large planes. MAC and the Metropolitan Council have been trying for the last 15 years to get more of that general aviation off MSP and onto the reliever airport system. They have not been very successful in getting any of that traffic diverted. The Comprehensive Planning Committee is recommending that MAC do an operations study to evaluate what kind of additional air traffic might be attracted to Holman Field. There would be some incremental increase in traffic according to Mr. Lovejoy. He stated at the City Council hearing there were neighborhood people and others who were expressing concern. There are some other recommendations about screening the flood wall with vegetation because it will be easily visible from the river, and having the replacement of the wetland lost replaced within the city proper. Mr. Lovejoy stated that during the public hearing there were complaints that MAC has just not been very responsive in outreach to individual neighborhood groups concerning this project and generally about the impacts of air traffic over neighborhoods in Saint Paul.
Mr. Lovejoy stated there will be a public hearing on November 4th at the MAC and he indicated he would appear before the MAC to present the Commission's resolution as part of the testimony.
Commissioner Gordon stated the Comprehensive Planning Committee's conclusion was that the flooding impact is insignificant or negligible. The Committee also finds the MAC plan as consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The primary concern is that there would be more traffic, and therefore more noise and air quality issues. On page three of the EAW, it states "the Minnesota Legislature in its April 1996 decision to expand MSP instead of constructing a new replacement airport mandated that MAC divert the maximum feasible number of general aviation operations from MSP to the reliever airport because the runway capacity of MSP is constrained by the size of the site". Holman Field is the primary reliever of MSP and the only reliever in the metro area that can accommodate the large corporate aircraft requiring a runway length greater than 5,000 feet. Commissioner Gordon stated that it is reasonable to anticipate and certainly to plan for the possibility or eventuality that there will be an increase in the traffic at Holman Field. Commissioner Gordon reported that the EAW studied the noise and air quality impact of the construction process, but did not study the impact on noise or air quality once the construction is done and the operations begin. The Comprehensive Planning Committee's recommendation is that both of those need to be studied through an operations study with respect to impact, if any, on noise or air quality. He also stated some wetlands will be taken out and it is the recommendation of the committee that an equal or greater amount of wetlands be replaced. They also want the dike and wall material, colors, and plantings to be consistent with the River Corridor plans. He mentioned an outreach program by MAC to the community to help the public understand these issues.
Mr. Soderholm stated the City isn't responsible for the EAW. MAC is the governmental unit that's responsible, and so we are just making comments to them. The Planning Commission will become responsible later on. Assuming that the project proceeds, there will be an amendment to our Zoning Code that moves the boundary between the flood fringe and the flood way. The floodway is the part of the river corridor that must be kept clear and provides the capacity for flood water to move down the river. No filling is permitted in the floodway. Currently some of the airport land is in the floodway and so we will be moving the zoning boundary further out toward the river, putting more of the airport into the flood fringe, where filling is allowed. The zoning amendment will come before the Planning Commission, and after that there will be a special condition use permit to actually do the filling in the flood fringe to build the levee. Finally, there will be a site plan to review.
------------------------------------------------- -- Tim Erickson List Manager St. Paul Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ Hamline Midway Resident 651-643-0722 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. Paul Links - http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/links.html
"The St. Paul Issues Forum is a interactive e-mail discussion on important issues about St. Paul public policy. Participation is free and open to anyone. We currently have about 350 concerned citizens and community leaders subscribed to our discussion."
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
