05/29/2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• itself. Therefore, the current project and the future development on the adjacent 10 acres are neither phased actions nor connected actions. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None identified at this time. 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Plant Communities: The proposed project will primarily affect formerly cultivated old fields, a small stand of mixed forest with old field openings and one partially drained wetland. The project site encompasses no undisturbed plant communities. Wildlife: The proposed project will result in a reduction in habitat available for wildlife species common to suburban environments. Accordingly, wildlife populations on the project site will be reduced. None of the affected species will incur significant population -level impacts and none are in danger of becoming uncommon due to the proposed project. Threatened and Endangered Species: Not applicable. Wetlands: The project will entail the filling of 2.84 acres and excavation of 1.15 acres of partially drained wetland. These impacts are proposed to be offset through the off-site mitigation consisting of 3.91 acres of created wetland (NWC), 2.73 acres of upland buffer (PVC) and 0.84 acre of water quality treatment pond (PVC). The proposed mitigation is within the same subwatershed as the proposed impacts and exceeds federal, state and local mitigation requirements. Traffic: The increase in traffic is proposed to be accommodated with new traffic signals, stop signs, and the modification of existing traffic signals. The Indirect Source Permit Application for the project has been submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and includes these additions and modifications. Archaeology: The proposed project was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and was reviewed pursuant to responsibilities assigned them through the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act, and Minnesota rules 4410.1600. A previously- recorded prehistoric archaeological site is located in the project area. The SHPO recommended the site be evaluated in order to determine whether it meets National Register criteria. Loucks Associates completed this evaluation. The complete evaluation is provided in Exhibit I. The report recommended that the project proceed as planned. Exhibits attached are as follows: Page 27 of 28 Draft EAW Lino Lakes Marketplace May 11, 2001