HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2004 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
July 15, 2004
6:30 p.m.
This meeting not televised.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 28, 2004 and May 26, 2004
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. OPEN MIKE
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. EAW Review /Responses to Comments /Pheasant Hills Preserve 12
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Peltier Island /Heron Update
B. Information Kiosk
C. New Park/Open Space Plan
7. OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS
A. Forestry
B. Solid Waste /Introduce Mary Ayde and discuss Anoka County Master Plan
Project
C. Environmental /RCWD Comprehensive Wetland Management Planning
• Agenda Item 5A
Environmental Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004
Topic: EAW Review /Responses to Comments /Pheasant Hills Preserve 12
Background: The Lino Lakes Environmental Board reviewed PHP 12 EAW on
July 30, 2003. The EAW is included as Attachment 1. Environmental Board
comments from the meeting are included as Attachment 2. The City responses to
outside regulatory review comments were not available at the time of
Environmental Board review. In addition, the EAW was lacking relevant
information concerning the design, appearance, and construction concerns of the
bridge structure that is needed to access the island. The developer has
answered construction questions and submitted drawings of the proposed bridge.
Subsequent to these final issues addressed by the developer, City responses to
the PHP 12, EAW report were prepared and are included with this report as
Attachment 3.
The purpose of this agenda item is to review and comment on the City responses
to the regulatory comments, and make a declaration recommendation on the
EAW for Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition. A negative declaration means,
that there are no findings that would imply that this project would need to proceed
to an Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Board has previously
recommended that this project be denied because of inconsistency with
statewide standards for the management of shoreland areas, or the City of Lino
Lakes Shoreland Management Plan. This recommendation is separate and
distinct from the notion of the EAW decree.
Analysis: Staff Response is presented in Attachment 3.
Options: Positive or negative declaration.
Recommendation: It is very rare that a project of this scope would enter
an environmental impact statement phase. I can see no reason to make this a
recommendation at this time. I believe the developer has agreed to most all of
the concerns and suggestions of the Environmental Board. The infiltration ponds
and infiltration capacity may still need to be addressed. The degree of visual
impacts is difficult to weigh. With that, it is a staff recommendation that a
negative declaration be declared.
. Attachments:
1. EAW Pheasant Hills Preserve 12
2. Environmental Board Comments, EAW Review Pheasant Hills Preserve 12,
July 31, 2003.
3. Staff Response to EAW Comments
•
•
•
•
- F-i#ucdviineoI 2�
Environmental
Memo
To: Michael Grochalla
From: Marty Asleson
CC: Jeff Smyser
Date: July 31, 2003
Re: EAW Review /PHP12 /July 30 Environmental Board
The Environmental Board, on July 30, 2003, made the following comments about the
Pheasant Hills Preserve Environmental Assessment Worksheet:
• Page 2, Item 6. Somewhere in the Project Description section, a statement
should include language that states that the project is within a Shoreland
Management Area.
• Page 5, Item 9, second paragraph from the bottom, second sentence. The word
Project should be inserted between "The and is ".
• Page 6, Item 11, first paragraph, second sentence, should read "Any immediate
impact on wildlife populations would be due to activities associated with
construction such as tree cutting to be performed for the road alignment
and home placement and bridge construction ".
• Page 11, second paragraph, minimum lot area. The number 20,000 sf. should
be verified.
• Page 11, third paragraph. The paragraph should state "Although the proposed
project does meet lot and width requirements, it does not meet the
requirements for setbacks from the OHWL because the island is less than
300 feet wide."
• Page 13, item b. Wards Lake needs to be identified as in or out of the Rice
Creek Chain of Lakes Park.
• Page 1
• • Page 14, Item 19c, seventh sentence. Change adsorbent to absorbent.
•
• Page 15, Item 20b, Language should be added that addresses "fuel, and oil
handling of construction equipment on site."
• Page 16, item 24. Dewatering pump noise needs to be addressed as an
impact, effects assessed, and intentions for mitigation stated.
• Page 17, item 24, first paragraph. Construction traffic needs to be addressed
as an impact, effects assessed, and intentions for mitigation stated.
• Page 17, item 24, second paragraph. Dewatering noise should again be
addressed.
• Page 18, item 25. "Scenic views and vistas should be checked as `yes."
• Page 21, item 28. Construction traffic needs to be addressed as a possible
impact.
• Page 22, item 30. Migrating eagle populations need to be addressed.
•
• Page 2
� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(EAW)
•
for:
Pheasant Hills Preserve
12th Addition
Responsible Governmental Unit:
August 5, 2003
Information provided by:
Planning
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
Landscape Architecture
Environmental
Archaeology
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
•
•
Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in
Spring1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that
may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental
Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project
proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. If a
complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as
well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
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: PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12`h ADDITION
2. Proposer:
Contact person
Title
Address
City, state, zip
Phone
Fax
E -mail
Ed Vaughan
Ed Vaughan
Owner
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
651- 490 -0459
651- 426 -5053
4. Reason for EAW preparation: (check one)
❑ EIS scoping ❑ Mandatory EAW
❑ Proposer volunteered
3. RGU
Contact person
Title City
Address
City, state, zip
Phone
Fax
E -mail
City of Lino Lakes
Jeff Smyser
City Planner
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2425
(651) 982 -2499
jsmyser@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us
Q Citizen petition ❑ RGU discretion
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number:
5. Project location: County: Anoka City/Township: Lino Lakes
West 1/2 of NW 1/4 Section 27 Township 31 Range 22
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable);
• Site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
The following maps, plans, and exhibits are attached:
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Land Use Plan
Figure 3 USGS Topographical Map
Figure 4 Soils Map
Figure 5 Aerial Photograph
Figure 6. Flood Insurance Rate Map
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 1 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
Figure 7 MNDNR Protected Waters Map
Figure 8 National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 9 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System Map
Figure 10 Existing Conditions
Figure 11 Preliminary Plat
Figure 12 Preliminary Grading Plan
Exhibit A MNDNR Protected Waters Bridge Permit
Exhibit B Letters from MN DNR
Exhibit C Minnesota Natural Heritage Database Letter
Exhibit D Wetland Permit Application and Narrative, Peterson Environmental
Exhibit E Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Loucks Associates
Exhibit F Soils Report, STS Consultants
Exhibit G Noise and Vibration Monitoring/Plan Information
6. Description:
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor
The project includes eight single family lots. Much of the 30.7 -acre property is wetland
or below the ordinary high water level of Wards Lake. Seven lots would be on an island
that has 4.8 acres of upland. One lot, with one acre of upland, would be on the mainland.
The project would be served with municipal sewer and water and a private drive across a
bridge to the island.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures.
Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
The proposed project, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition, is a single family detached
residential development located in Lino Lakes, Minnesota . The project includes eight
lots and a bridge to access seven of them. The subject property includes 30.7 gross acres.
The entire property consists of 8.9 acres of upland and 21.8 acres of wetland. Seven lots
are proposed on an island that has 4.8 acres of upland. Another lot with one acre of
upland is on the mainland. A bridge is proposed to provide access to the lots on the
island. Another three acres of upland within the property boundary is separated by water
and is not proposed for development as part of this project. The site is in a shoreland
management overlay district (see Item 14).
Municipal sewer and water service is available to serve the project. The street and
utilities crossing the bridge and on the island would be privately owned and maintained.
Individual homes are expected to be developed within 2 -3 years as lots are sold. The
construction process for this site will be the same as for most single - family developments.
Erosion Control will be installed at the construction limit prior to starting work The
work would begin with selective removal of the vegetation in the area of the site grading
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 2 Pheasant Hills 12`h Addition
work through the use of chain saws, chippers, and bulldozers. Once the site has been
cleared the grading would occur. Once the site has been graded, the installation of the
sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm drainage would occur. Upon completion of the
utilities all disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched. A crane will be used in the
construction of the bridge and the hanging of utilities from the bridge. The last part of the
work involves the installation of bituminous pavement. The bridge would be
approximately 300 feet long with a paved driving surface 20 feet wide. All initial
construction is expected to take 2 -3 months. Custom home sites will be constructed as
each site is purchased by individual residents.
The bridge as proposed would be supported by 150 foot steel trusses that would be
assembled and placed on site. One pier is proposed in the center of the bridge to provide
center support for the four 150 foot trusses. All equipment and materials would be
brought in on trucks no longer than standard semi trailers (50 feet).
The sections of the bridge will be delivered with five semi - trailer trucks. The 150 feet
spans come in three pieces. They will be placed at the area where the new city cul -de -sac
is proposed to be constructed on the west end of the project (north end of existing Ruffed
Grouse Road). The spans will be bolted together in this area. The bridge will be
supported on driven piles. The piles will be driven at each end abutment and at the center
pier. The piles will be driven approximately 40 feet to 65 feet below present grade. The
pilings for the two end abutments and the center pier are expected to take three days for
construction. (Noise and vibration from the pile driving is addressed in Item 24.) The
concrete will then be poured and allowed to set for one week. The bridge will then be
constructed and is expected to take 10 days.
If bridge construction occurs in summer months, a cabled wooden plank pad system is
proposed to transport equipment across the wetland areas. These systems are typically
used in wetland areas to minimize impacts on the wetland without the use of fill. Only
tracked equipment and lighter weight equipment would be able to use this system.
Therefore, the bridge would need to be in place prior to heavy equipment accessing the
island property. The large 25' -30' planks are tied together with cables and large sections
can be placed with a backhoe. Tracked pile driving equipment would be used to install
the bridge piers. After the piers are in place the bridge would be installed from one end to
the other wit a crane from the upland area for the first section and from the first bridge
section to a second.
If bridge construction occurs in the frozen winter months, equipment would be brought
across on the ice. In either case, heavy trucks such as concrete trucks will not be able to
access the island until the bridge is built.
c. 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.
• This project is proposed to provide eight single - family executive lots surrounded by
natural wooded and wetland areas for the middle to higher range homebuyer market.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 3 Pheasant Hills 12`" Addition
• d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to
happen? ❑ Yes El No
•
•
There is a small upland area located along the southern portion of the property, but there
are no plans at this time to develop it. Because of the configuration of this additional
upland area, it is not clear that it could be developed.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
This project is the 12th Addition to the Pheasant Hills developments and is west of the
previous developments.
7. Project magnitude data:
Total project acreage 30.72 Acres
Number of residential units: unattached 8 attached 0 maximum units per building NA
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet 0
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office 0 Manufacturing 0
Retail 0 Other industrial 0
Warehouse 0 Institutional 0
Light industrial 0 Agricultural 0
Other commercial (specify) 0
Building height NA If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings.
The homes will be custom built and will most likely be 1 -2 stories, some with rear walkouts.
8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial
assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans
and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment
Financing and infrastructure.
Unit of government
City of Lino Lakes
Type of application Status
Rezoning Submitted
Planned Development/Preliminary Plat Submitted
MUSA Reserve Allocation Submitted
Final Plat To Be Submitted
Anoka County Final Plat Approval To Be Submitted
MN Dept. of Nat. Resources Bridge Permit Approved
Dewatering Permit f> 50 million gal.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 4 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
MN Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit
General Stormwater Const. Permit
NPDES Permit
MN Dept. of Health Water Supply Connection Permit
Rice Creek Watershed District Land Development Plan Permit
To Be Submitted
To Be Submitted
To Be Submitted
To Be Submitted
Preliminary approval
w /conditions
Expired, must be re- reviewed
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.
Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential
conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site
uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or
gas pipelines.
This site is undeveloped due to the water surrounding the majority of the upland area.
The site borders the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. North of the project
site is more wetland area and Wards Lake, all within the Park Reserve. To the west is the
Quail Ridge residential development. Immediately to the east of the subject property is 30+
acres of vacant land owned by the Centennial School District (ISD 12). East and north of that
is the existing Pheasant Hills Preserve residential development. On the south of the property
are three lots with residences on them. One also includes a contractor shop with a large metal
building. Further south, across Birch St. (CSAH 10), is the Brandywood Estates residential
development. Quail Ridge, the existing Pheasant Hills Preserve, and Brandywood are all
served with municipal sewer and water.
The comprehensive plan guides the island and the small piece of mainland for low density
sewered residential. The property is within the Stage 1 Growth Area (pre- 2010): municipal
sewer and water could be extended to serve the site. The proposed residential development is
compatible with the current surrounding uses and the land use and staged growth elements of
the City's comprehensive plan.
The site currently is zoned Rural and a rezoning is necessary for the project to proceed. The
comprehensive plan and zoning are further discussed in Item 27. The project is within a
shoreland overlay zone, within which the City's shoreland regulations apply. This is
discussed in Item 14.
The construction of 300 ft. bridge, which necessitates pile driving for three piers, is an
unusual aspect of a residential project. The potential noise and vibration has created concern
over impacts on existing nearby residences in the Quail Ridge neighborhood. The nearest
existing home is approximately 70 feet from the west end of the proposed bridge. This issue
is discussed in Item 24.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 5 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
The main part of the development would occur on the island, and include the construction of
a bridge over wetlands /lake to get to the island. Because of this, there is concern for impacts
on the wetlands and lake. This is addressed several items of this EAW.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Before After Before After
Types 1 -8 wetlands 21.85 21.85 Lawn/landscaping 0 0.23
Wooded/forest 8.87 7.05 Impervious surfaces 0 1.35
Brush/Grassland 0 0 Stormwater Ponds 0 0.24
Cropland 0 0 Park and Playground 0 0
TOTAL
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
30.72 30.72
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be
affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
Wildlife that would be typically found on this site are hardwood forest mammals,
songbirds, and wetland fauna populations such as small mammals, fish, reptiles, and
amphibians typically found in wetland and small wooded areas. Any immediate impact
on wildlife populations would be due to activities associated with construction such as
tree cutting to be performed for the road alignment, home placement, and bridge
construction.
This would include about 1.8 acres of tree clearing on the island and on the peninsula lot.
The island is about 7.4 acres gross with 4.8 acres of upland. The peninsula lot has about
0.9 acre of upland and 4.0 gross acres.
Item 16 of this EAW discusses erosion control during construction. Item 17 discusses
surface water management.
Several areas of the site are proposed for protection through the establishment of private
covenants and public easements, which would be included in the development agreement
with the City.
Some residents have raised a concern about the impact of the project on migrating eagle
populations. The project site includes 5.8 acres of upland. Because the site is small
compared to the adjacent 2600+ acres of regional park reserve, it is unlikely that the
project will affect eagle migration.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 6 Pheasant Hills 126 Addition
•
•
b. Are any state - listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or
other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies
or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? Q Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of
the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and
Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB
20020842 . Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
A search in the Minnesota Natural Heritage database revealed four documented
occurrences of " Blanding's Turtles ", a state threatened species. Although none of these
occurrences were within the project area, they were within a few miles, and it is likely
that Blanding's Turtles may use the site if habitat is suitable. The letter from the DNR
also outlines recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts on Blanding's
Turtles (See Exhibit C). Based on recommendations of the DNR, the following
mitigation techniques are proposed by the project proposer for avoiding and minimizing
impacts to Blanding's Turtle populations:
1. Flyers will be distributed and posted on site to inform the contractors and existing
homeowners of the possibility of Blanding's Turtles in the area.
2. Contractors and residents will be informed by flyer that turtles on roads or in areas
of imminent danger will be moved out of harms way.
3. In addition to protecting wetlands, silt fencing will be set up to keep turtles out of
harms way. Silt fencing will be removed after area has been re- vegetated.
4. No wetlands will be dredged, deepened, filled, nor will any culverts be used to
connect wetland areas. A bridge is proposed to connect the upland area, so north
south movements within the wetland area would not be a problem from a road
crossing standpoint.
5. An erosion control plan has been adopted and the use of certain fertilizers and
pesticides on lawn areas will be regulated through the homeowner covenants.
Due to the type of development proposed, and the custom grading of the homes,
most of the property is proposed to remain in its natural wooded state with little
area to be grass lawn.
6. Roads are proposed to be 20 feet in width, without curb and will allow for turtles
to cross safely if so inclined.
7. Terrain will be left with as much natural contour as possible. Minimal grading is
proposed with this development. The site has been engineered to minimize
grading to the site and preserve natural areas to the greatest extent possible.
8. If vegetation management is necessary in tall grassland areas, it shall be done after
October 1St and before June 1St and be done mechanically rather than chemically.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 7 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
•
•
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration —
dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such
as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? IEI Yes 0 No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the
water resources affected are on the PWI: #10P . Describe alternatives considered and proposed
mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
Protected water #10P is Wards Lake, defined by the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of
883.7. Wetlands with cattails and other wetland vegetation can be found along the edges of
the water. The wetland delineation shows that the wetland edge and the OHWL are nearly
identical, varying in some places by up to 15 feet horizontally. A wetland delineation and
wetland permit application narrative can be found in Exhibit D.
The proposed project includes a 300 foot bridge to span a wetland/lake area to connect to an
upland island. The bridge would consist of two bridge sections of 150 feet each. The
preliminary design has one pier in the center of the bridge, in the lake (below the ordinary
high water level). This central pier will have an approximate footprint of 100 square feet.
The plan is to construct the bridge abutments, on each end of the bridge, outside of delineated
wetlands. Fill for bridge approaches then would be entirely outside the wetland boundaries.
This would need to be examined as the design of the bridge progresses beyond a preliminary
stage.
Alternative accesses to the proposed bridge have been discussed. One alternative is creating
an earthen bridge by filling below the OHWL to provide access to the property. Although the
least expensive, this alternative was not considered a desired alternative because of impacts
to the lake and wetlands.
A second alternative is a "flatter" bridge design. Flat bridge designs require more piers. The
original design reviewed by the DNR for bridge permit approval showed five piers.
Although approved, the design was later revised to show one pier after finding a bridge
company that could design a bridge effectively with one pier. The location shown requires a
300 foot span bridge using one pier. Additional piers would require additional fill and
construction dewatering.
Regarding the location of the bridge access, the wetland /lake spans approximately 500 feet to
the west and to the south to the nearest high ground. A bridge from either of these directions
would require additional piers and corresponding fill and construction dewatering.
The stormwater management plan has been designed to minimize impacts of runoff. Proper
construction is extremely important in ensuring the successful operation of the stormwater
management plan. The following recommendations will be incorporated in the final plans
and specifications.
• A "preservation area" has been incorporated into the stormwater plan. This area is
located on the north side of the island. Because it is downhill from the building sites,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 8 Pheasant Hills 12`h Addition
flow control and water quality are enhanced by flow dispersion through duff, undisturbed
soils, and native vegetation. The preserved area will be clearly marked during clearing
and construction on the site. This area will be delineated by heavy -duty silt fence. Care
will be exercised to avoid damaging valuable trees and disturbing designated buffer
zones. This area will remain in a natural state. The developer has reviewed the site a few
times during the preliminary development stages and will continue to conduct tree
preservation efforts with the City Forester. Covenants or easements will be used so
property owners cannot clear vegetation in the preservation area. Monuments will be
posted delineating this area. Drainage from the rear of the homes will travel through this
area allowing infiltration and reducing runoff.
• Rock construction entrance pads will be installed for each individual lot at time of lot
grading. The purpose of the stone pads is to provide an area where mud can be removed
from tires before a vehicle leaves the site.
• One of the major pollutants associated with single - family home development is the use of
phosphorous fertilizer and its runoff into nearby waterways. This development will
require that no phosphorous be applied to the lawns and this requirement will be
administered through the homeowner covenants.
• On -lot infiltration systems will also be implemented. On -lot infiltration systems promote
infiltration at the individual lot level, controlling runoff at its source. On -lot infiltration
systems' primary function is to mitigate the normal impacts of urbanization on the natural
water balance. These systems include several elements:
• Each lot will be individually custom graded and tailored to preserve quality trees.
Recognizing the value of the tree stands, the location of the houses will be designed to
minimize impacts to the existing topography so that trees can be preserved between
the homes. The developer has utilized this approach in the previous Pheasant Hills
Preserve developments.
• Roof leaders will be directed away from impervious services. This will reduce the
volume of runoff from the site.
• Rainwater gardens will be constructed in individual lots as feasible. Rainwater
gardens are small, vegetated depressions used to promote infiltration of stormwater
runoff. Runoff enters the gardens via sheet flow. Rainwater gardens will be placed
along the front yard swale to capture runoff from streets and lawns and filter it before
it enters the wet pond.
• On the island, a wet /dry swale will be provided along the north side of the road in lieu of
storm sewer piping. The road will be constructed without curb and gutter and tipped so
runoff from the road will go to the swale. This swale will drain to the NURP ponds
located on the east and west side of the island. The swale will be constructed directly
within the existing soils. The swale will provide water quality treatment mechanisms
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 9 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
•
similar to stormwater wetlands and rainwater gardens, which rely primarily on settling of
suspended solids, adsorption, and microbial breakdown of pollutants. Swales reduce the
flow velocity of storm water runoff. The swale essentially acts as a very long and linear
shallow wetland treatment system.
• A wet/infiltration pond (NURP) will be provided. The pond will be over excavated by 2-
3 feet and granular material will be placed to allow infiltration. A wet pond is a
constructed stormwater pond that retains a permanent pool of water. Wet ponds have a
moderate to high capacity for removing most urban pollutants. Accumulated trash and
debris will be removed from the side slopes, embankment, emergency spillway and weir
trash gates as often as needed. Sediment will be removed from the pond as necessary.
Treated stormwater will discharge to the surrounding wetlands /lake.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or
changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including
dewatering)? ElYes ❑No
The project will be served by municipal water. The addition of eight lots will not
significantly effect the public water supply. The Metro average is 274 gallons per day per
household: 2192 gallons per day for eight households.
Dewatering will be necessary to create a dry area to construct the center pier of the bridge,
and possibly the abutments. The MnDNR requires a dewatering permit for any dewatering
greater than 50 million gallons. The DNR bridge permit includes special provisions
authorizing dewatering within specified parameters. A plan for the dewatering must be
submitted to the DNR for approval. The City will examine this and ensure all DNR
requirements are met prior to allowing bridge construction to commence.
14. Water - related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning
district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use
district? Q Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
Both a shoreland management overlay district and a 100 -year floodplain affect the design of
the proposed project.
Shoreland: The project is located within a shoreland management overlay district that
includes land within 1000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Wards Lake. In
fact the project would be exempt from the EAW process because of its small size if it were
not in a shoreland overlay district or a floodplain.
Wards Lake is a DNR protected waterbody #10P. The Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources
(DNR) establishes the OHWL for water bodies designated as protected waters. The OHWL
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 10 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
•
•
for Wards Lake is 883.7. The overlay zone and the shoreland setbacks within it are measured
from this elevation. The entire project area is within the shoreland district.
City ordinance regulates uses in the overlay district to protect and conserve the natural values
of land adjacent to surface waters and related land resources. The shoreland ordinance
classifies Wards Lake as a "natural environment" lake.
A shoreland overlay allows the uses allowed by the underlying zoning. The project proposal
includes rezoning the site for a single family planned development, which would allow single
family dwellings.
The following requirements of the shoreland ordinance are of particular interest for the
proposed project:
minimum lot area
minimum lot width
minimum OHWL setback
20,000 sf
80 feet (measured at both street and OHWL setbacks)
150 feet
Section 1102.09, Subd. 3.B. of the ordinance states: "Roads, driveways, and parking
areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within shore impact zones
when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist,
they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse
impacts." (The shore impact zone is one -half the setback, or 75 feet.)
Although the proposed project does meet the lot area and width requirements, it does not
meet the requirements for setbacks because the island is less than 300 feet wide. Because of
this and other normal zoning and development requirements that cannot be met, a planned
unit development (PUD) has been proposed. A PUD is not simply a way to avoid
development ordinance standards. A PUD offers the opportunity to deviate from strict
application of ordinance requirements to achieve goals —such as more efficient use of land
and preservation of desirable site characteristics that would not be possible when adhering
to normal ordinance requirements.
The proposed eight lot subdivision would be located only on the upland area with homes
setback to the greatest extent possible from the ordinary high water level. Stormwater runoff
from the homes and street will be diverted into swales and ponds, providing for infiltration,
overland filtration, or treatment in the ponds (see Items 12, 16 and 17). The developer
proposes custom grading of lots to maximize tree preservation and minimize site disturbance.
Item 27 includes additional discussion of zoning ordinance requirements and the PUD.
Floodplain: The city has a floodplain management ordinance. Around Wards Lake,
the 100 -year flood elevation, which defines the floodplain, is 887.6. This includes the edges
of the island and the peninsula. The City's surface water plan requires that the lowest floor
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 11 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
• elevations of structures must be at least two feet above this elevation, or 889.6. Standard plat
review by the City includes compliance with lowest floor elevation requirements.
•
Proposed floodplain fill is 800 cubic yards. An area southeast of the island and north of
Birch St. is proposed for compensatory storage to match the volume of floodplain fill. The
City will ensure that the Rice Creek Watershed District receives fill information for its
review. The Watershed review of the plat/PUD application includes the need for
compensatory storage. The Watershed requires a floor elevation at least two feet above the
100 year flood.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
❑ Yes L1 No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other uses.
Wards Lake is not conducive to motorized watercraft use because of shallow water, extensive
wetlands, and related vegetation. It is possible that residents of the eight homes would use
canoes if the water level is high enough. This would not be a noteworthy number of
watercraft.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be
moved: acres 1_9 : cubic yards 10,000 .
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion
and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction.
The proposed development site consists of Hayden fine sandy loam with 12 to 24 percent
slopes. Erosion control measures will be developed and implemented during construction in
accordance with the Best Management Practices contained in the MPCA Stormwater
Construction Permit program to minimize impact to areas susceptible to erosion. These
measures will include the use of silt fences, temporary sediment basins, cut off swales, rock
construction entrances, cleaning of adjacent streets as needed, rip rap at storm outfalls, silt
fence around storm inlets during construction, and timely revegetation of all disturbed areas.
The site will be monitored by the contractor, the owner's representative, Rice Creek
Watershed and the City engineer for erosion and defective erosion control measures.
Of the estimated 10,000 cubic yards of earth moving, approximately 6,000 cubic yards will
be imported to the site.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
• Site runoff will be increased by the construction of new impervious surfaces, such as
roadways, driveways, and residential structures. In the existing condition it would be
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 12 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
•
estimated that approximately 0.75 acre -feet of water would run off this site during a 100 -
year storm event (6 inches in 24 hours). The site will increase in impervious cover from
0 acres to 1.35 acres after full development. Through the use of the ponds and outlet
structures the runoff volume after development will be approximately 0.82 acre -feet of
water during a 100 year storm event.
Though the overall volume may increase, the post - development runoff rate must not
exceed the pre - development rate. A standard element of all development project reviews
is the review of stormwater calculations to ensure that the rate does not increase.
Proper construction is extremely important in ensuring the successful operation of the
stormwater management plan. The overall objective for this plan is to design and
implement stormwater management methods that are both effective and site - appropriate.
The recommendations as outlined in Section 12 of this EAW will be incorporated in the
final plans and specifications.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water
bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving
waters.
Treated stormwater will discharge to the surrounding wetlands and Wards Lake, a
receiving water body that flows into George Watch Lake and Rice Creek. Impact from the
runoff will be mitigated from the described stormwater management methods.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater
produced or treated at the site.
Wastewater will be typical household sanitary sewer flow. No other wastewater
generation or treatment will occur on site. The Metro sewer access charge (SAC) is based
on 274 gallons per day per household: 2192 gallons per day for eight households.
a. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition
after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate
the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on -site sewage
systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
No on -site waste treatment is proposed. Sewage will be discharged into pipes then a lift
station will pump the sewage through a force main hung from the bridge then discharged
into a sanitary sewer lateral in Ruffed Grouse Road. Sewage ultimately will be treated at
the Metro Wastewater Treatment Facility in St. Paul, as is all sewage from Lino Lakes.
The sanitary sewer pipes within the project boundaries and the lift station will be
privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The lateral in Ruffed
Grouse Rd. is a City facility.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 13 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
•
•
•
b. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any
pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of
wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.
The wastewater requires no pretreatment and will be conveyed by a system of gravity
sewer mains, lift stations and force mains to the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) interceptor. Eventually, all effluent from this interceptor reaches the
Metro Treatment Facility. The addition of eight lots will not overburden the system in
this area.
c. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and
discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements
necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems.
Not applicable.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 0 feet minimum : 10 -15 feet range for the area
avg. to bedrock: minimum 200 feet average 250 feet
b. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site
map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or
minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
Geological site hazards, sinkholes, or abandoned unused wells are not known or
suspected to exist on this property.
c. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
The soil types evident on the site are Hayden fine sandy loam (Hd) on the upland area,
Dundas loam (Du) and Rifle mucky peat (Rf) in the wetland area. The Hayden soils on
the upland area have a moderate moisture permeability rate. Spills will infiltrate to the
water table in a short period of time. The Dundas loam and Rifle mucky peat have low
permeability, are poorly drained with high moisture storage capacity. The relatively low
hydraulic conductivity typically associated with soils of this grain size distribution
restricts the potential for the migration of surface contaminants to the groundwater.
Mitigation of spills will generally be surface clean up. In case of spilled liquids, booms
or absorbent will be used. The description is for general characteristics of these soil
types. More specific information regarding soil conditions can be found in the subsurface
exploration report in Exhibit F.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location
of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 14 Pheasant Hills 12`" Addition
•
•
plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated,
indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction
assessments.
The project will only generate municipal solid waste and household hazardous wastes.
The Seven - county Solid Waste Coordinating Board estimates municipal solid waste
generation at approximately 1.8 pounds per capita per day. At the 2000 census, median
household size in Lino Lakes was 3.2 persons. With eight households, this would result
in roughly 8.4 tons per year.
The City of Lino Lakes participates in recycling programs and encourages waste
reduction efforts in the community. Residents and businesses contract individually for
recycling and solid waste services. The proposed project will not create any impacts on
the current methods of solid waste management.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be
used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials
will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize
or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
Only household hazardous materials may result from the proposed development. The
City of Lino Lakes and Anoka County participate in programs regarding household
hazardous waste education and collection programs. Fuel and oil for vehicles and
equipment will be present during construction.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.
No storage tanks are proposed to be located on this site.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added 0 . Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 .
Estimated total average daily traffic generated 95 trips (approx 12 per household).
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence 5 inbound trips
and 13 outbound trips (a.m. hours); 7 inbound trips and 4 outbound trips (p.m. hours).
Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on
the regional transportation system.
The proposed development Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition will have 8 single - family
residential dwelling units. The number of trips generated by these homes can be estimated
using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers report titled Trip
Generation, 1991. Using the trip rates for single family residential development, the
estimated traffic volumes for Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition are provided above.
Traffic from Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition will continue on Ruffed Grouse Road in
the Quail Ridge Development and onto Birch Street. The traffic increase will not
significantly impact the regional transportation system.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 15 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
•
•
•
22. Vehicle - related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures
on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines
about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.
The project will not generate a significant increase in carbon monoxide levels, associated
with the vehicle trips for the eight additional single - family homes proposed. No baseline air
quality monitoring or modeling is proposed and no mitigative measures for the increase in
vehicle- related emissions related to the eight additional lots is being considered.
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions
from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include
any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone- depleting chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution
prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality.
No significant stationary source air emissions will result from the proposed residential
development. The homes will most likely be heated by new individual natural gas burning
furnace systems that meet current efficiency standards. No impact is expected on air quality.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? Q Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
The project will generate dust and noise associated with the construction activities on this
site. The nearest receptors of dust and noise are the residents to the south and west of the
proposed eight lot development. The hours of work will be limited by the City. The standard
inclusion in development agreements required for all projects restricts work to 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, no work on Sundays or federal
holidays.
The contractor will be required to control dust through the use of water trucks as necessary on
dry, windy days. The developer may need to hire a street sweeper if weather conditions
necessitate it.
Noise: Minnesota rules Chapter 7030 provide the Minnesota Standards for noise. These
standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge
for the preservation of health and welfare. These standards are designed to be consistent with
sleep, speech, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas
grouped according to land use activities. The Minnesota standards are as follows:
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 16 Pheasant Hills 12`h Addition
•
•
7:00a.m. to 10:OOp.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
L10 L50 L10 L50
NAC -1 (Residential) 65 60 55 50
NAC — 2 (Commercial) 70 65 70 65
NAC — 3 (Industrial) 80 75 80 75
L10 represents the sound level that is exceeded for 10 percent of the time during a one -hour
period. L50 represents the sound level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time during a one -
hour period. Sound levels are expressed in dBA. A dBA is a unit of sound level expressed in
decibels and weighted for the purpose of determining human response to sound.
Individual home construction is not anticipated to cause any unusual or substantial impacts.
Construction noise is an important issue for this project because of the need for a pile driver
for construction of the bridge. The bridge will be supported on driven piles. The piles will
driven at each end abutment and at the center pier. The piles will be driven approximately 40
feet to 65 feet below present grade. The pilings for the two end abutments and the center pier
are expected to take three days for construction.
Because of the depths of compressible organic soils at the bridge site, the proposer's
geotechnical engineer, STS Consultants, has recommended the use of driven piles to support
the bridge. For this project, they recommend steel pipe piles. The recommendation is that
these piles should be driven with a relatively small hammer, to reduce noise and vibration
effects. The pile driving hammer should have a rated energy no more than 30,000 foot
pounds per blow. Typically, such a hammer operates a frequency of about 50 to 60 blows per
minute, which relatively speaking is considered to be a low frequency. The hammer creates
impulsive noise (series of repeated sounds) which would slightly exceed the noise standards
for a Noise 1 classification area, namely 60 to 65 decibels. Thus the recommendation that
pile driving should be restricted to no earlier than 8 a.m., and no later than 4:00 p.m., with no
pile driving on Saturdays and Sundays.
Typical construction vehicles generate noise. It is unlikely the vehicles will exceed state
noise standards, and the restriction on working hours described above will reduce the impact.
Nonetheless, it is likely that nearby residents will find the noise and activity unpleasant.
Dewatering pumps typically run all day and night, and dewatering will be necessary for
bridge construction. Though these pumps would not exceed state noise standards, they may
be irritating when running all night. On another project in Lino Lakes, the contractor
constructed a noise barrier: a three sided plywood wall with one -inch styrofoam on the
inside. The top and side away from the residents was open for access and to allow the pump
to still function. The use of such a temporary wall can reduce noise from dewatering pumps.
Vibration: The other aspect of the pile driving activity is the potential for impacts
from vibration. STS reviewed actual seismograph data taken adjacent to pile driving
operations. The seismograph tests indicate that the frequency of the vibrations is less than
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 17 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
•
two cycles per second and the maximum particle velocity recorded, even as close as 15 to 20
feet from the pile driver, is generally less than one inch per second. On this basis, there
should be no damage to the nearest house, which is 70 feet from one end of the bridge. It
should be noted that the human body is quite sensitive, and thus occupants of the house might
feel some small vibrations, or some crockery may rattle during the pile driving, but the effects
on the structure should be none or negligible. A figure showing safe vibration levels for
residential structures is attached as Exhibit G.
If the project proceeds, the City will require a pre - construction survey and monitoring
program based on specifications used by MnDOT. This could involve:
1. a pre - construction building survey within 100' of the project to document the existing
exterior and interior conditions
2. crack displacement monitoring gauges to help verify distress if any should develop
3. continuously recording seismographs
4. submittal of a plan identifying schedule, vibration, equipment, and monitoring log
5. records of construction location, hours worked, depth, and equipment generating the
vibrations
6. submittal of construction logs weekly including complaints
7. a test program prior to beginning activities to demonstrate the requirements can be
met
8. sound levels should not exceed 90 decibels measured at 50 feet
Maximum vibration levels could be established. If these limits are exceeded, the contractor
would have to cease the activity exceeding the limit and design corrective action.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? ❑ Yes El No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? ❑ Yes El No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? 0 Yes ❑ No
Scenic views and vistas? Q Yes ❑ No
Other unique resources? ❑ Yes El No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project - related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
• A background review of records, literature and archaeological research relevant to the
history and prehistory of the area was carried out. No previously recorded archaeological
or historical/architectural properties have been recorded in the area. However, there are
numerous archaeological sites in the area of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes, mostly
located along lakeshores. Based upon this, the project area was determined to have
potential for archaeology.
A Phase I archaeological survey was carried out in November of 2000 (see Exhibit E).
No historic or prehistoric remains were found in the project area. The report of these
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 18 Pheasant Hills 12`h Addition
•
•
findings has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for their
comment. The SHPO review number for the project is 2001 -3540.
• The soils of the site are not prime farmlands for the region. Most of the land surrounding
the eight proposed lots is wetland. This land would only be suitable for rice or other
wetland suitable crops. The majority of the upland is wooded and sloped and would need
to be cleared and leveled for agricultural purposes.
• The property to the north of the proposed development is within the Rice Creek Chain of
Lakes Regional Park Preserve. There are no trails present or planned within the park
reserve near the proposed project site. The only access to the park reserve from the
proposed project would be by water. The residential development would not generate
activity that would impact the park.
The wetland area surrounding the Quail Ridge development was dedicated to the City
with the Quail Ridge plat for parkland purposes. Part of this dedicated area is located
between the proposed development and the Quail Ridge development.
• In regard to "scenic views and vistas ", the EAW Guidelines states:
These may include spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs; virgin
timber tracts; prairie remnants; geological features; waterfalls; specimen trees; or
plots of wildflowers. Many are not officially designated or marked, but because of
their local or statewide interest should be considered by the RGU. Impacts on the
visual quality or integrity of these resources should be addressed as well as the
physical impacts.
A view of undeveloped wetland and woods may well be considered scenic. "Spectacular
view" is probably an exaggeration in this case, since the views of wetlands and woods in
the project area are common in many areas of Lino Lakes and surrounding communities.
If the project proceeds, the view for existing nearby residents will include houses that were
not there before, and a bridge. The appearance of new homes is a common change in any
outer suburb in a metropolitan area. However, a bridge is an unusual sight in residential
developments, and a bridge 300 feet long would be a significant change to the view of
several residents.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation such as
glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or
exhaust stacks? 0 Yes Q No If yes, explain.
No construction will occur beyond daylight hours. No glare or intense lights are proposed
during construction or after completion of this residential project. The project is not part of
any state designated wilderness area.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 19 Pheasant Hills 121" Addition
•
As new development will alter the appearance of an area, the proposed bridge will change the
visual appearance of the area for several residents of the existing Quail Ridge development.
A 300 ft. bridge is not a common aspect of new development, and those residents might
consider the bridge an adverse visual impact.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? El Yes ❑ No.
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be
resolved. If no, explain.
Comprehensive Plan: The City of Lino Lakes' comprehensive plan guides the island and
the tip of the peninsula —i.e., the parts of the property proposed for development —for Low
Density Sewered Residential land use. The rest of the property, which is mostly wetland, is
guided for Rural land use.
The site is not currently within the Metropolitan Urban Reserve Area (MUSA). Lino Lakes
has a reserve of MUSA acres that can be allocated to approved development projects
according to policies in the comprehensive plan and the requirements of a growth
management ordinance. The property is within a Stage 1 Growth Area (pre- 2010):
municipal sewer and water could potentially be extended to serve the site.
410 The proposed residential use is compatible with the land use and staged growth elements of
the comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan also establishes conceptual greenways on the land use map.
Greenways are corridors of protected open space managed for conservation and recreational
purposes. Greenway locations are generalized on the map. The city has no ownership or
other rights to greenways simply because they appear on the conceptual map. They are to be
further defined as individual development projects arise, in cooperation with the site
developer. A conceptual greenway overlaps much of the project site because of the extensive
wetlands. This greenway area could be preserved with a drainage and utility easement over
the wetland areas. This is a standard requirement for platting property with wetlands.
The transportation element of the comprehensive plan does not address a level of detail that
includes specific locations of new local streets. Residents in the Quail Ridge neighborhood
would see an increase in the number of vehicles. However, the addition of eight residential
units is unlikely to create significant traffic impacts.
The City's comprehensive park plan envisions a mini -park on this site, with a boardwalk trail
connection to other areas. However, this particular vision in the park plan is not feasible as
the City does not have plans to assemble the financial resources to construct a boardwalk or
purchase the island property.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 20 Pheasant Hills 12`h Addition
•
•
Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances: Lino Lakes recently adopted new zoning and
subdivision ordinances. The requirements of the new ordinances will apply to any new
development. The site currently is zoned R -X Rural Executive. As such, 10 -acre lot size
minimums apply. The project proposal includes a rezoning to a single - family residential
zone that would include municipal sewer and water service. The proposed R -1X Single
Family Executive zoning district has a lot minimum of 12,825 sf.
The project is located within a shoreland management overlay district that includes land
within 1000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Wards Lake. Item 14 includes a
discussion of the shoreland overlay requirements.
The proposed project includes the platting of individual lots. The subdivision ordinance
governs platting. The maximum cul de sac length is 500 feet. The existing cul de sac, Wild
Turkey Trail and Ruffed Grouse Rd., is over 1000 feet. The proposed project would extend
this nonconforming situation.
The project includes numerous unusual physical aspects. The zoning and subdivision
requirements of the City's ordinances would not allow the project as proposed. Shoreland
setbacks cannot be met, private roads are not normally allowed, the private road is in the
shore impact area, and the road will extend a cul de sac that already exceeds the maximum
length of 500 feet.
Because of these and potentially other inconsistencies with ordinance requirements, the
proposal includes the use of a planned unit development (PUD). Under the newly amended
zoning ordinance, this project would require the use of a PUD rezoning. A PUD is not
intended simply to be a way to avoid development ordinance standards. A PUD offers the
opportunity to deviate from strict application of ordinance requirements to achieve goals —
such as more efficient use of land and preservation of desirable site characteristics that
would not be possible when adhering to normal ordinance requirements. Several elements,
such as a preservation area buffer along one side of the island and the swales, would promote
environmental goals.
An important question for the proposed project is whether the proposed design meets enough
of such goals to justify the many deviations from normal requirements. The decision to
approve or deny the application for a PUD rezoning and preliminary plat is separate from the
EAW process. Information gathered for this EAW will help in making that decision, but it is
not the purpose of the EAW to definitively answer the question of whether to approve or
deny the project.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 21 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
•
•
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure
or public services be required to serve the project? El Yes ❑ No. If yes, describe the new or additional
infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the
project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.)
A private drive and bridge is proposed as a part of this project to provide access to the seven
lots on the island. The bridge would be approximately 300 feet long. The bridge as proposed
would be supported by 150 foot steel trusses. The 150 feet spans come in three pieces. One
pier is proposed in the center of the bridge to provide center support for the four 150 foot
trusses. The bridge will be supported on driven piles. The piles will driven at each end
abutment and at the center pier. The piles will be driven approximately 40 feet to 65 feet
below present grade.
The private drive will cross the bridge and continue along the south side of the island. On the
island, the proposed pavement width is 20 feet, with no curb and gutter. This reduces
impervious surface. Stormwater will be handled through swales, infiltration, and ultimately
ponding.
Sewer and water facilities will also be extended and installed to City specification to serve
this project. A lift station will be required for sanitary sewer service. The specific location of
the lift station on the island has yet to be determined.
The bridge, drive, and utilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners'
association. The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the
City to step in and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the infrastructure, and
assess the cost to the property owners.
This development is not expected to significantly impact the existing public infrastructure.
City standard cul -de -sac radii are proposed to serve as adequate turn around area for
emergency vehicles and snow removal equipment. The proposed bridge will have a 9 -ton
weight capacity. The addition of eight homes will not overburden the delivery of public
services such as police and emergency services. The bridge and road will be built to
accommodate fire trucks and other vehicles.
Any damage to existing streets caused by construction traffic must be repaired at the
developer's cost.
Though the site does not experience a great number of watercraft, some people do use canoes
in the area. If the bridge is high enough above the water surface, canoe use will not be
prevented.
29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider
the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for
an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects
that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts.
Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 22 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
• determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or
discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form).
•
There are no current plans for future developments in this area. There are a few rural
residential lots to the south of the proposed development along Birch Street with upland
areas. It is possible that these could be divided into a few additional lots, maybe 10, if
rezoned and connected to public services. Any such development would have access from
Birch St. and/or the existing Ruffed Grouse Rd., so no wetland impacts would occur from
new roads.
It is likely that land east of the subject property, approximately 600 -1000 feet from the island,
will develop in the foreseeable future. It currently is owned by the Centennial School
District. The District has stated there is not enough upland on the site to support a new
school. In fact, the District just constructed a new elementary school elsewhere because the
Birch St. site was unsatisfactory. Any development of this District site will have access from
Birch St. or other existing roads.
The proposed Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition project is not connected to potential
development of those sites.
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.
Environmental impacts, other than those previously addressed in this EAW, are not
anticipated.
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.
Potential impacts or issues identified related to developing the property involve shore land
management, storm water runoff, wetland and lake impacts from fill and dewatering, and
impacts of bridge construction such as noise and vibration. These issues are discussed in this
EAW under the appropriate headings. The following issues will need to be examined further
or will require future attention or enforcement:
1. The City will require a specific and extensive tree preservation plan for the plat and
individual plans for custom graded lots. These are required in the City's newly adopted
subdivision and zoning ordinances.
2. Erosion control and tree protection measures must be installed before grading begins on
• the project. The City has begun strict enforcement of this requirement.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 23 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
• 3. Individual custom grading of each will be examined to minimize impacts to the existing
topography and minimize other impacts to the environment.
•
4. The construction of rainwater gardens in individual lots may be possible, increasing
infiltration of stormwater runoff.
5. A delineated preservation area on the north side of the island will be clearly marked
during clearing and construction on the site. Care will be exercised to not damage
valuable trees or disturb designated buffer zones. This area will remain in a natural state.
Covenants will be used so property owners cannot remove vegetation in this area.
Monuments will be posted delineating this area. Drainage from the rear of the homes will
travel through this area allowing infiltration and reducing runoff.
6. Using roof leaders to direct runoff away from impervious services will reduce the volume
of runoff from the site.
7. Covenants can be included in homeowners' association by laws to prohibit the use of
phosphorous on the lawns.
8. The posting of signs and other aspects of a protection plan, as recommended by MN
DNR, can help protect Blanding's Turtles.
9. A specific bridge design will be reviewed for any wetland/lake fill or dewatering. The
clearance under the bridge will be examined for canoe access.
10. The City will require utility and roadway specifications of greater detail than have been
submitted to date. Comments on the EAW may provide information that will aid in
adjusting in finalizing plans to reduce environmental impacts.
11. The City would require a pre - construction survey and monitoring program for noise and
vibration.
12. The City would require posting of Blanding's Turtle information and the use of
mechanical vegetation management rather than chemical.
13. Damage to existing streets should be considered in the establishment of financial
securities for a development agreement for the project.
14. A small, temporary noise wall should be constructed around any dewatering pump that
will run after daytime working hours.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 24 Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment
Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those
described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at
Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature Date
Title Jeff Smyser, City Planner
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota
Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658
Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651- 296 -8253, or www.mnplan.state mn us
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 25 Pheasant Hills 12'" Addition
•
® — Lindstror
hclartin Lapse
art L
y o,1 "5 :1 rite n
s
t Bet el . +Wyorttftn` ! -‘,5 ,A,
Caan Lake Beach
1 • st Lake ..<
oMaplse Island
PYA. Po
' PORE 4 P.� is 14 1 '
1
00 °=� ,�
2002 MaDOuest.com. Inc.: 02002 GDT. Inc.
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
LOCATION MAP
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 1
Low Density Sewered Residential
•
DETAIL OF PROPOSED LAND USE MAP, LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Note: The island is intended to be Low Density Sewered Residential. A mapping glitch
superimposed the Rural area over the island.
LAND USE PLAN
PROPOSED LAND USE
ENLARGED SITE AREA
Legend
Loa Density. Uns2: +: r d Residential Industrial
Low Density. Se•aered Residential - Pudic :Semi- Public
&TS Medium Density ReskJentlai Faanuactured Home. Park
High Density Residential :• • Performance Lana Use Area
IAN Commercial Rural Land Use
INE /Axed Use ® Private Airfield
Grrn;M Sta It 7 Gr: h Area x998 -2070
9 2 Growrh Area 2070.2020
- tilISA
Lakes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
LAND USE PLAN
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
LINO LAKES
FIGURE 2
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Reference: Centerville 7.5 Minute Quadrangles
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 3
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
SOILS MAP
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 4
•
•
•
'AA qiis,
O 2002 G1olaeXplorer, AirPhotoLISAY
ORATES
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 5
•
ZONE C
ZONE B
ZONE C
ZONE C
LAN C r
CAPTAIN
PLACE
PHEASANT
RUN
ZONE C
MAL ft019 N15NUD& IAOCAAN
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
cry 4?
LINO) LAKES.
MINNESOTA
ANOW. A COUNTY
PANEL ID OF 10
COMMU111714ANEL NUMBER
270015 0010 0
EFFECTIVE 110,7E:
MAT 17, 11112
/Ova *Mara »ha* Dl..n
• ....ua.Nw WA "-4
:wow
1[mw Mp. .MU
- w4LwwiY.W
Wawa* la* atl W6a.wa .
.fl%M:A WTI OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
plllt C{I%ANATM.1
Asa... law* cataluraaara
NYawn nM..M •R.M Mem foam
' '.m4iu�M040.x/
M p e.taul
On
ein
M
Mw
M��w1 -4 Nn..m WH AtW
AWTII tMY 1 t. 04W:M.YW NW.I..al... wtl
'Mt ANr w.M..r. fYW'.aa.m'Wtii aai{
..
ZONE 1C
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Community -Panel Number 2700150010 B
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 6
•
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
DNR PROTECTED WATERS
AND WETLANDS MAP
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
:or. rr
FIGURE 7
•
Mc
lMfd
ttUSC
PEW
Rsski
tvar
>_iuB>i Pit
ert ille Lake
gin., PF01
22 mow.
,� f/j��#
P=R //�y•
VEM
EMM+C,a 'r
NoI
e5 litk/
/ —PFOIC
70L-TEMC
1- -PfOIC Liu
SR
PCM$
_ P$1
Udc
?EM
tasty sica'us
SYMBOLOGY EXAMPLE
SYSTEM
SUBSYSTEM
,.CLASS
L2EM2F
SUBCLASS, WATER REGIME
UPLAND )NON WETLAND)
R2OW H
)LINEAR DEEPWATER HABITAT)
-- Primarily represents upland areas. but. may Include
unclassified wetlands such as man - modified areas, non
photo identifiable areas and/or unintentional omissions.
Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
NATIONAL WETLAND
INVENTORY MAP
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FIGURE 8
Minnesota Land Cover
• Classification System
� Project Area
MLCCS Types
Aspen forest (1)
Aspen forest temporally flooded (2)
Boxelder - green ash disturbed native forest (3)
Cattail marsh (4)
Oak forest mesic subtype (5)
Palustrine open water (6)
Seasonally flooded non - native dominated emergent vegetation (7)
Short grasses and mixed trees with 26 -50% impervious cover (8)
Wet meadow shrub subtype (9)
WIN Willow swamp (10)
N
FIGURE 9
EX0EIPT10M
AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF
— PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
LOUCKS
ASSOCIATES
Planning • Civil Engineering .Lana Surveying
Landscape Architecture • Environmental • AMmedmgy
EDGE OF WOODS & CATTAILS
•
7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55369.5592
Telepin . (7631424-5505
Far. 763(4245622
eee.lwcksmclagantmn
l2003
1 Project Name:
PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE
12TH ADDITION
S. Line Of N. 1100 Ft. Of Outlot 0, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE—....
N89°42'31"E 1306.53
CO „I• UN T Y C O N D E M N A T I O N
S89 °22'45 'W 72
u� 9..,-.11
S. Line Of N. 1100 Ft. Of Outlot D, PHE
8'; WETLAND
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Owner /Developer Name:
Edge Of Wetlb
ED VAUGHAN
- -- --Edge Of Wetland
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
—__ t._t --3 - --
1 CADD Qualification:
uoo • V.* 0/ Ma Consultr. e+ dwn.�b w.M.eape.* Foliet PA«l.in •eAmn•
nalm —lss esawb .f aq Mdo xwi al
w ea..rra apand. Man
maybe pernelea at. es{..10.h0011nring
eY HaimYSi N .eim awry. A. Y.iwne pwaewn
.e.... add.. a v i.. w. ie w» CAW . r e r. n..
or pony a 1 x.1.11 X....,. ®. �. •
a..a.eMe1P.v. 11MP Mamba w.1. 6 w
1 Submittal:
(
",4n CM Moroni
1 Professional Signature:
Edge Of • etland
I i.eaa9ad05 ON die Pia, epecikiea or reportr..
vowed W m.>Under my door e..M+en and RN
t ern a°ey Liviva Pm6sbS e,ea..rue.w keg
ass Meat( Wooer.
Jeffrey A. Shapek- PE
19624
License No.
Quality Control:
DAS
ORDINARY HIGH WAT - LINE
1 Sheet Index:
CO-1 TIRE SHEET
CTd EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2 -1 SDTE LAYOUT
C3.1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
C4-1 UTIITYPlAN
OM DETAIL PLAN
EDGE OF TREES AT
TALL GRASSES
NORTH
60 120
1 Sheet Title:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SCALE IN FEET
WETLAND
Project No.:
911331
1 Sheet No.:
FIGURE 10
C1 -1
S89'42'31V 1.71L75 - - - --
--M LM 0f Outlet 0. PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
169.12..45.E
M L81. Of Outlet
T /666.3 PRESERVE--''
P T I O N
APPROXIMATE LINE
AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF
"PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
T
8 6.h. Oft 6100 Pt Of Outlet A PHEASANT HILLS P1K,E RIE
N89'42'3I'E 130&53
S Len. 0/ M 1100 Ft Of Outlet M PHEASANT /66.13 PRESERVE --.,
589'22'45'6 727.06
1
WETLAND
PARK 1
--M Line Of S 400 Pt Of N. 1500 FL Of
Outlet 0. PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
Pinning • 0.H E1N,..6 • Landaesyh4
Land•ap ,Mitscan • En•tonn.,..l • AdnuoIOEr
•
7200 Nemisk lane - SuN4 300
Minneapolis. Minnows T4.phon. C76314244305
Fie 0631424.4822
.1wwL =.da ndaw.me
1 Project. Name:
-------- - - -_ -- ao a --1
•
ust
�aM
ata
Cy
E X C E P T I O N
Live Of M 1500 FL Of Outlet A
PHEASANT 1d1LS PRESERVE
589'22'454W 600101
Edge Of W.eend
NORTH
Edg,. Of Wetland --'��
100 200
S89 '22'4911 58&47
PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE
12TH ADDITION
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
1 Owner/Developer Name:
SCALE IN FEET
OT ARFAQ•
Lot 1, Block 1: Gross Area
Lot 1, Block 2: Gross Area
Lot 2, Block 2: Gross Area
Lot 3, Blodc 2: Gross Area
Lot 4, Block 2: Gross Area
Lot 5, Book 2: Gross Area
Lot 6, Block 2: Gross Area
Lot 7, Blodt 2: Gross Area
Oudot A: Gross Area =
Outlot B: Gross Area =
Total Gross Area =
=172,721 SF or 3.96 Ac / Upland Area = 39,358 SF or 0.90 Ac
= 44,566 SF or 1.02 Ac / Upland Area = 41,625 SF or 0.95 Ac
= 38,037 SF or 0.87 Ac / Upland Area = 28,193 SF or 0.60 Ac
= 46,059 SF or 1.05 Ac / Upland Area = 26,380 SF or 0.60 Ac
= 30,494 SF or 0.70 Ac / Upland Area = 21,897 SF or 0.49 Ac
= 37,361 SF or 0.85 Ac / Upland Area = 24,319 SF or 0.55 Ac
= 54,387 SF or 1.24 Ac / Upland Area = 32,894 SF or 0.75 Ac
= 69,919 SF or 1.60Ac / Upland Area = 34,097 SF or0.78Ac
87,358 SF or 2.00 Ac / Upland Area = 7,288 SF or 0.16 Ac
757,248 SF or 17.38 Ac /Upland Area =132,832 SF or 3.04 Ac
1,338 129 SF or 30.71 Ac / Upland Area = 386 483 SF or 8 87 Ac
c •
•r
ED VAUGHAN
1432 Pheasant Hips Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
r6MMIllt"---""'"""7
0100 ear {..TermM.•Cwm.nitaa.pew
A rm.r.w nwmwaa.peOs.tt.000es
e,.1mb,W w..s.ynKbwsY..e.wpC
wYw..s..aab..I.pN
4.=wtb*..I mowwhr.o ..eb.lw is,Wr
•.
a.r..w4Y,p or ambeb,wwea dloYmiat•
Car. elfam. rra.rur,r,.,.,.rr
1 Submittal:
4611613 Obwlne Wed
•
EXCEPTION
a
N
Is.444.Wrealw.pr,, wwit lonIre tar.
Armed by wow unit erg Owl supwlelon Ind
OM. &Meal teaps...
Wch.d L. Licht - LS
26724
LW,. No.
Quality C.onWOl:
RLL
SLF
Description of PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE Island Property"
Aprt 8, 2001
Oudot D, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE, Anoka County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT that part of Oudot D, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE being in the West one he of the
Northwest one - quarter, Section 27, Township 31, Range 22 Anoka County, Minnesota described as
follows:
S89'22491W 30&80
a
0
( Vicinity:
S119 '49'W'�•4HI�.
Parallel With S. Lew Of NW I/4;
Ala. A Sty Lk. 'O' Oatrat 0 -'
Commencing at the Southeast comer of the West one -half of said Northwest one-quarter,
Section 27; thence North 01 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds West along the East Tine of said
West one-half, Northwest one quarter, Section 27 a distance of 57.73 feet to the Southeast
comer of said Oudot 0 for a point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North 01
degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds West, along the East line of said Oudot D a distance of 910.02
feet thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 580.47 feet thence
South 01 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds East parallel with the East line of said Oudot D, a
distance of 548,90 feet thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds East, parallel with the
South line of said Northwest one quarter, Section 27, a dstance of 416.00 feet thence South 01
degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds East, parallel with the East Tine of said Oudot 0 a distance of
370.14 feet to the Northerly right- of-way line of C.S.A.H. No. 10. (Anoka County Right - of-Way
Plat No 11); thence North 85 degrees 24 minutes 38 seconds East along said right - of-way fine
a distance of 28.88 feet thence continuing along said right - of-way line along a curve concave to
the North (which has a radius of 3879.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 00 minutes 31
seconds, and an arc length of 136.02 feet) a chord bearing and distance of North 88 degrees 24
minutes 53 seconds East, 138.01 feet to the point of beginning.
And EXCEPT the North 1100 feet of Outlot D, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
And EXCEPT the South 400 feet of the North 1500 feet of the East 600 feet of Oudot D, PHEASANT
HILLS PRESERVE, Anoka County, Minnesota
jNNE-NE
1 SEC 26
Ji
SEC 27 1
/ / / /////r.%///////
4
1 Sheet Title:
CONTOUR
SPOT ELEV.
CURRENT ZONING R -X (RURAL EXECUTIVE)
PROPOSED ZONING RI -X (SINGLE FAMILY)
PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS:
FRONT w30 FEET
SIDE - IO FEET
REAR w. 30 FEET
Ch&v=N89 02.08.E
pr12&31
12..5669.58
Preliminary
Plat
!FIGURE 11
1 Project No.:
N89'41'l8'E 302.40
South LA. Of NW l/+ Sae 27- 6. "Cl:a County ` HiC3tS:VCy �_()_� �:at t:o. �•
eet (C.. S.A.H. INC. 10)
SE Car. Of W 1/Z NW I /4,
See 27. rap 24 RAS 22--'�
91 -1331
1 Sheet No.:
Sheet 1 of 1
Cal 1'II . ...,....4...
(
1 Submittal:
(
ORAINTILE
C'OUN T Y
CONDEMNATION
S89 °22 445 "W 727.06
N89 042 13/ 1 E 1306.53
ARY HIGH WATER LIN
LoUCKS
ASSOCIATES
Planning • GNI Engineering • Land Surveying
LaWkcepeAlcN1MWe • Environmental • ArChaeda8r
7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 308
Minneapolis, MiNnesob ST369 0392
Telephone: 17431424 -9940
Fax 176314243822
wewwJaudontclagancom
$21X3
1 Project Name:
Outlot A
WETLAI'1
PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE
12TH ADDITION
VY DUTY SLT
BE INSTALLED
ASS GRADING
NCE
AFTER
RETAINING WALL
,/'"'. MEA1%Y"Dl{TY SILT
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
1 Owner /Developer Name:
ED VAUGHAN
•
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
SILT FENCE
NORTH
RETAINING WALL
1 CADD Qualification:
rum e. P.eea Mm. Ce mww40 1001.
burs 4delra�ab NY g... c.o.
r mtl Nn .3..r P.Iw.. r roles . ar PielPa
dbe.n.*1... ats onem PNn.n Aal..wP...pwa
6 ea ewe. a.am wPl.sdscvo'"'nr+D
On n kr Won*n*at DOD Whl0w.wr..s.rd
r.ar...dlena.eaalw. Mee , 0O11.6armob
bnetlw.A0M4tln,pnsrS4.4 . AYale
RETAINING
PEI'mEMry@OApplowi
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
GRADING /EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. WHERE SOIL CORRECTIONS AND /OR FILLING OCCUR WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT -O' -WAY, THE
BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 952 OF THE STANDARD MOISTURE DENSITY
RELATIONSHIP OF SOILS EASTN 0- 698 -70) EXCEPT THE TOP THREE FEET (39 of THE DAM-
FILL WHICH SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 1002 DENSITY. AN INDEPENDENT TESTING FIRM SHALL
TEST THE STREET SECTION IN FILL AREAS AND PROVIDE THE RESULTS Or THESE TESTS TO
THE CITY, ENGINEER AND THE CLIENT.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING ACTIVITIES
AND SHALL MAINTAIN SAID FENCE FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL LIMIT )412 ACTIVITIES TO THE GRADING UNITS SHOWN ON THE
GRADING PLAN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL ORDINANCE.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SNOW FENCE, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, TO PROTECT
TREE ROOTS
5. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL SCHEDULE 1415 OPERATIONS TO 141011412E THE DISTURBED AREA AT
ANY GIVEN TD€.
6. ALL DISTURBED NON - STREET AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4' TOP SOIL
AND SEED OR SOD. AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, WITHIN 72 HORS OF COMPLETION OF
THE GRADING ACTIVITY IN THAT PERTICULAR AREA.
A. ALL SEED. 50D. MULCH AND FERTILIZER SHALL CONFORM VITM THE FOLLOWING
114 /DOT SPECIFICATIONS, AS MODIFIED BELEM
ITEM SPECIFICATION NUMBER
50D
SEED
MULCHETYPE 1,0155 ANCHORED)
FERTILIZER
GENERAL PLACEMENT
3878
3876
3882
3881
2575
B. S00 SHALL DE PLACED BEHIND CURB OMEAOIATELY FOLLOWING THE BACKFILLING
UNDER CITY STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT.
C. THE SEED MIXTURE SHALL CONSIST OF A 1414/007. TYPE 500 UNLESS NOTED ELSE-
WHERE ON THE PLAN.
7. FOLLOWING STREET CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CLEAN THE STREETS ON AN ON-
GOING BASIS AS REOUIRED BY THE 2111.
8. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE SLTATION PONDS ARE TEMPORARY, AND SHALL BE REMOVED
AND RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL CONTOUR BY THE DEVELOPER FOLLOWING THE PERMANENT
ESTABLISHMENT OF TURF ON 755 OF THE DRAINAGE AREA THE PONDS AND POND OUTLETS
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER T146 GRADING CONTRACT.
9. RIP -RAP SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL S(O211 SEVER OUTLETS UNDER THE UTILITY CONTRACT
AND SHALL CONFORM 141TH APPLICABLE CITY AND WATERSHED DISTRICT STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
10. VERTICAL GRADING TOLERANCE SMALL BE WITHIN 22 FEET or THE CITY APPROVED
GRADING PLAN
11. ROCK ENTRANCE PADS CONSTRUCTED AS PART CV EACH.H1311E CONSTRUCTION
ID. 3. OF SELECT GRANULAR UNDER NURP /INFLTRATION POND
13. DOWN SPOT GUTTERS WILL BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM DRIVEWAYS AND TO PERVIOUS AREAS
TO ALLOY INFILTRATION
14. DEPRESSIONAL RAIN GARDENS CONSTRUCTED AS NEEDED FOR EACH LOT.
FIELD STONE RIP RAP MOM 3001 CLAYS •
1014 -SITE MATERIAL IS ACCiPTAI D
TYPICAL
5LOPE
B
OVERFLOW
ELEV. 1700A
GEOTE0(110 FABRIC 101JD3T 3733 TIPS 3
RIP RAP SUPPORT
BURIED BOULDERS 40' 4410.
DIAl1ETER. BURY WM 30'
SECTION AA
MELD STONE RP RAP /MOOT 3601 CLASS •
WN -SITE MATERIAL 1S ACCEPTABLE,
2. STAPLE VIRE mom 10
104 POSTS
1 Professional Signature:
I
LOWEST BASEMENT OPENING =889.6
LOWEST BASEMENT=888.6
Mr. mt. Mel dWplan. apeoRlolke wpeer=
mewed I ebAy Wowed P�wfad n 07440 under 0.03
of MASER* OM0 10.
Hord surlaz•
DNR PROTECTED ELEV = 883.7
100 YR ELEV =887.6
LOWEST BASEMENT OPENING =889.6
LOWEST BASEMENT =888.6
public road.
License No.
Dab
1 Quality Control
DAS
Rwaw Oa.
DAS
1 Sheetlndem
0. ATTAIN THE 111110 1011114C
10 TM 01410 1(420 MNN
Ca1EX0 IT 010 THE TRENOL
ELEV. 3890
5(0104TAE FABRIC 141007 3733 TSIE 3
SECTION BB
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
N. 1AI61LL me =MGT
TM SOIL.
SILT FENCE
51111°4
CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE
SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1' to 2' Washed rock
-
Rock size should be 1' to 2' in sice
sucl as MnOOT CA-I or CA -2 tours. aggregate.
A g:ate.tile fabric boy be used under the rock
to eeeee 1 migration of the underlying soil
into the atone..
ON TOLE SHEET
G -1 ETGIINGCONO0IONS
C2.1 SIRE LAYOUT
C3•1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EIORON CONTROL
C41 UTILITY NAN
0-1 DETALNAN
L WSPCC1131 - SILT 1CREES SMALL r RESPECTED 1I0E0141CL1 KICK CAW 104x04.
RE0 AT LEAST DAILY DR.103.34[0 RAIMPN ROMEO wo EO ROWS SMALL
Nu0 '.1[00010.1.
a *00140EN011 - rkiC Sx414. DE REPLMCO PROMPTLY 1004 IT ICEMPOSES 02 8CI113
MOTECTIVE WOE TIE WI DR 0 M LONGER MESS..
3 SEDDER1 REMOVAL - SDOENT "MOTS SNQILD RE RIVED AMR EACH SICEb E000T.
THEY OUST BE REMOVED MON DEPOSITS MA APPROXIMATELY 0x4100 M
5 E NOME Er
T CK HE WIMP.
ROCK ENTRANCE TO CONSTRUCTION SITE
PLYCS ITE.
1 Sheet Title:
STPDP
GRADING, DRAINAGE &
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
rProject No.:
PDT* Pa7.1.1. 0011 miasma mime GPM
CATCH BASIN SILT PROTFCTION RAI FG
911331
I Sheet No.:
C3 -1
EXHIBIT A
MNDNR PROTECTED WATERS BRIDGE PERMIT
Sep 21 01 01:15p Ed Vaughan
651- 426 -5053
PROTECTED WATERS
PERMIT
p.1
Permit Number
2001 -6109
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103G, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit
application, letters, maps, and plans submitted by the applicant and other supporting data, all of which are made a part hereof
by reference. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant to perform the work as authorized below:
Protected Water
Wards Lake (2 -10P)
County
Anoka (2)
Name of Permittee
Ed Vaughan
Telephone Number (Include Area Code)
(651) 490 -0459
Address (No. & Street, RFD, Box No., City, State, Zip Code)
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038
Authorized Work:
Construct an approximately 300 foot long bridge to island and construct 2 stormwater outfalls; all as
shown and described in permit application and materials received May 4, August 6, and August 15,
2001.
Purpose of Permit:
'Bridge and stormwater outfalls
Expiration Date of Permit
November 30, 2002
Property Described As:
li SE% NE% NE% Section 28, T31 N, R22W
This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The permittee is not released from any rules, regulations. requirements, or standards of any applicable federal, state or local agencies:
including, but not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Englneers, Board of Water and Soil Resources, MN Pollution Control Agency,
watershed districts, water management organizations, county, city and township zoning. This permit does not release the permittee of any
permit requirement of the St. Paul district, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul,
MN 55101 -1638.
2. This permit is not assignable by the permittee except with the written consent of the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
3. The permittee shall notify the Area Hydrologist at least five days in advance of the commencement of the work authorized hereunder and
notify him/her of its completion within five days. The Notice of Permit issued by the Commissioner shall be kept securely posted in a
conspicuous place at the site of operations.
4. The permittee shall make no changes, without written permission previously obtained from the Commissioner of Natural Resources, in the
dimensions, capacity or location of any items of work authorized hereunder.
5. The permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the
Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the work authorized hereunder.
6. This permit may be terminated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources at any time deemed necessary for the conservation of water
resources of the state, or in the interest of public health and welfare, or for violation of any of the provisions or applicable law of this permit,
unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions.
Construction work authorized under this permit shall be completed on or before the date specified above. The permittee may request an
extension of time to complete the project, stating the reason thereof, upon written request to the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
In all cases where the permittee by performing the work authorized by this permit shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any
property rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the
permittee, before proceeding, shall obtain the written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all
property, rights, and interests needed for the work.
•
Sep 21 01 01:15p
•
Ed Vaughan
651- 426 -5053 P.3
9. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed by the State of Minnesota or any of its officers, agents or employees, officially
or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission
of the permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal
claims or right of action of any person other than the state against the permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors, for any damage or
injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the state against the
permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law.
10. Any extension of the surface of protected waters from work authorized by this permit shall become protected waters and left open and
unobstructed for use by the public.
11. Where the work authorized by this permit involves the draining or filling of wetlands not subject to DNR regulations, the permittee shall not
initiate any work under this permit until the permittee has obtained official approval from the responsible local government unit as required
by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. Erosion control measures shall be adequately designed for the site characteristics. They may include staked haybales,
diversion channels, sediment ponds, or sediment fences. They shall be installed in accordance with "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" MPCA, March 1, 2000 (and as revised in the future), prior to commencement and maintained
throughout the project. All exposed soil shall be stabilized as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after the
completion of the project. Topsoil should be used to re -dress disturbed soil areas and indigenous plant species should be
used to revegetate disturbed areas whenever possible.
2. The Permittee is authorized to maintain the approved work to the dimensions herein described. Prior to commencing any
maintenance work, the Permittee shall advise the Department of Natural Resources of the extent and method of
maintenance. Maintenance work shall not be commenced until permittee receives written approval from the Department.
3. No activity affecting the bed of the protected water may be conducted between April 1 and June 30, to minimize impacts on
fish spawning and migration. If work during this time is essential, it shall be done only upon written approval of the Area
Fisheries Manager, at 651 - 772 -7950.
41
Upon completion of the authorized work, the permittee shall submit representative photographs and any as -built surveys, as
appropriate, of the project area to DNR Metro Region Waters (1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106).
5. Temporary dewatering for construction, in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, is authorized by
this permit provided the following conditions are met:
a. A plan for the dewatering shall be submitted to the Area Hydrologist for written prior approval.
b. All necessary erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be taken to prevent transportation of sediment.
6. The structure shall not be constructed with materials that would have a detrimental impact on aquatic organisms or water
quality.
c: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., Ron Peterson
Loucks Associates, Paul Wallick
Anoka Conservation District, Chris Lord
Rice Creek Watershed District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tim Fell
DNR Conservation Officer, Lisa Kruse
DNR Fisheries, Dave Zappetillo
DNR Wildlife, Bob Welsh
DNR Central Office Permits Unit, Ron Anderson
Wards Lake (2 -10P) File
Authorized Signature
Thomas E. Hovey
Title
Area Hydrologist
Date
I/470/
This information is available in an alternative format upon request
•
•
REC'D NOV 14 2002
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Central Region Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977
November 12, 2002
Mr. Jared D. Andrews, AICP
Loucks Associates
7200 Hemlock Lane
Suite 300
- Minneapolis, MN 55369
RE: Permit Extension, Permit No. 2001 -6109, Bridge and Stormwater Outfalls, Wards Lake
(2 -10P), Anoka County
Dear Mr. Andrews:
As requested in your November 1, 2002 letter, acting as agent for Ed Vaughan, the expiration date of
Permit No. 2001 -6109 is hereby extended to November 30, 2004. All other terms and conditions of
the permit shall remain in full force and effect.
The project involves constructing a bridge that spans approximately 300 feet of wetland fringe to an
island, and constructing two stormwater outfalls. The site is located in the SE1 /4, NE1 /4, NE1 /4 of
Section 28, T31N -R22W, Anoka County. Every attempt should be made to complete this project
within the timeframe authorized under this permit. Please contact me at 651- 772 -7910 if you have
any questions about this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Hovey
Area Hydrologist
c: Ed Vaughan
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., Ron Peterson
Anoka Conservation District, Chris Lord
Rice Creek Watershed District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tim Fell
DNR Conservation Officer, Lisa Kruse
DNR Fisheries, Dave Zappetillo
DNR Wildlife, Bob Welsh
DNR Central Waters, Ron Anderson
Wards Lake (2 -10P) File
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1- 800 - 657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
art Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
V Minimum of 20% Post - Consumer Waste
•
EXHIBIT B
LETTERS FROM MNDNR
February 25, 2002
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters -1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977
Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS FOR PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION,
WARDS LAKE (2 -10P), CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA CO.
Dear Mr. Smyser:
I have received on February 4, a document titled "Construction, Monitoring, Operation and
Maintenance Plan for Grading and Storm Water Management in the Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th
Addition Development, Lino Lakes ", a typical cross - section of the south part of the island showing the
roadway and retaining wall detail, and a request for a new comment letter to the City based on the
revised design. I offer the following comments in addition to those in my September 18, 2001 letter:
1. The above referenced "Construction, Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance Plan for Grading
and Storm Water Management in the Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition Development, Lino
Lakes" (the Plan) mentions a preservation area on the north side of the island. This is a great
concept and the more land covered by it, the better the project will be. I did discuss this with
Messrs. Vaughan and Wallick at a January 24th meeting at the Loucks' offices, but cannot recall
how much area is covered.
2. The Plan also covers rock construction entrance pads and covenants prohibiting phosphorus
applications to lawns. Water quality should benefit from these measures.
3. Runoff from the site will be reduced by the use of wet swales, rainwater gardens, and other
measures mentioned in the plan. These are all techniques promoted by the DNR and others
interested in low impact development..
4. If the City allows the road encroachment into the Shore Impact Zone, the proposed typical
cross - section will go a long way toward protecting the water quality of Ward Lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to call me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Hovey.
Area Hydrologist
c: Loucks Associates, Paul Wallick, P.E.
DNR Information: 651 -296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1- 800 -657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
��A' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 20% Post - Consumer Waste
•
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters -1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977
September 18, 2001
Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182
REC
SEP 2 0 2L _ i
CiTY OF LINO L[.
RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDO, COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT, PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION, WARDS LAKE (2 -10P), CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA
CO.
Dear Mr. Smyser:
We have reviewed the site plans for the above - referenced proposal (NW 1/4 section 27, T31N-
R22W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. The island is in Wards Lake, a public water. DNR permit No. 2001 -6109 has been issued for
the bridge crossing and stormwater outfalls. Please do not interpret the issuance of a bridge
permit for support of the proposed development. Other wetlands on the site may be under
local or federal regulatory jurisdiction.
2 The site is within the shoreland district of Wards Lake and is subject to City shoreland
ordinances and regulations. It is listed in the City's shoreland controls as a Natural
Environment basin and has a structure setback requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Impact
Zone of 75 feet. It appears that the entire island will be graded to some extent, leaving no
original vegetation. Due to the width of the island, no structure will be able to meet the
required setbacks. The variances needed to proceed with this project are considerable.
3. The development of the island will increase the percentage of impervious surface. We
recommend that the runoff volumes and rates be held to their pre - development levels through
appropriate landscaping, minimizing impervious surface, and adequate ponding.
During the review process of DNR permit No. 2001 -6109, there was considerable concern
over the development of the island, specifically the additional work in the wetland that often
follows when houses are built adjacent to wetland. We anticipate that landowners will want
to excavate in the wetland to have open water close to their houses, and avoid planting
vegetation that will block the view of the lake. If approved, we ask that covenants or
easements be put in place that would restrict landowner activity in the Shore Impact Zone
and Lake.
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 -646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1 -800- 657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer I!' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity NV Minimum of 20% Post - Consumer Waste
•
•
Jeff Smyser
September 18, 2001
Page 2
5. Considering the proposed grading of the entire island, the loss of virtually all vegetation on
the island during grading, the disturbance of the entire Shore Impact Zone, the location of the
proposed road entirely in the Shore Impact Zone, the failure of all structures to meet the 150
foot required setback, it is hard to see how the proposal is consistent with the intent of the
City's Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance, or the Statewide Standards for
Management of Shoreland Areas. We do not support the granting of a variance for decreased
setbacks as proposed.
6. It appears that the island may be unbuildable considering current zoning. If th.e City decides
somehow that the island can be built on, it may be beneficial to reduce the number of units,
"custom" grade the individual building sites to reduce soil disturbance and vegetation loss,
minimize the length and width of the road, and minimize impact to the Shore Impact Zone.
. Thank you for the opportunity to.comment. Please feel free to call me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
�G
Tom Hovey
Area Hydrologist
•
EXHIBIT C
MINNESOTA NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE LETTER
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
April 2, 2002
REC'D APR 0 3 2002
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -40
Fax: (651) 296 -1811 E -mail: sarah.hoffmann @dnr.state.mn.us
Phone: (651) 296 -7863
Jared Andrews
Loucks & Associates, Inc.
7200 Hemlock Lane
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Pheasant Hills 12`s Addition, T31N
R22W Sections 27 & 28, Anoka County
NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20020842
Dear Mr. Andrews,
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile
radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there
are 4 known occurrences of a rare species in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout
and explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for that species.
• The project area is within a "known concentration" area of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea
blandingii), a state threatened species. There are 13 such areas in the state. These areas have
been determined by the DNR to be locations of highest priority for research and management
activities, and are relied upon to maintain the species' .security in the state. Although no turtle
records have been reported directly from the project site, it is highly likely Blanding' s Turtles
use the site, if habitat is suitable.
Blanding' s Turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1 -3 feet deep), but they nest in
open, sandy uplands up to 1 mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September,
at which time young turtles enter deep wetlands where they over - winter in soft sediments. Factors
believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation,
development on upland nesting areas, and possibly collection for the pet trade. In addition,
because of the tendency for Blanding' s Turtles to travel long distances over land, they are often
forced to cross roads in developed areas. Many of the records we have of Blanding' s Turtles are
from turtles killed crossing roads.
For your information, I have attached a fact sheet and a flyer about the Blanding's Turtle. The
fact sheet is intended to provide you with background information regarding habitat use, life
history, and reasons for the specie's decline, as well as recommendations for avoiding and
minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. As you will note, there are two lists of
recommendations. The first list contains recommendations to prevent harm to turtles during
construction work, and is relative to all areas inhabited by. Blanding's Turtles. The second
column expands on the first column, and contains greater protective measures to be considered
for areas known to be of state -wide importance to Blanding's Turtles. Because your project is
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1 -800- 657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
0 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post - Consumer Waste
within one of these priority areas, please refer to both lists of recommendations. The flyer,
which should be given to all contractors working in the area, contains an illustration and
description of the Blanding's Turtle, as well as a summary of the recommendations provided in
the fact sheet.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is
continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on
Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its
purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features.
Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or
otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county -by-
county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Anoka County. Our
information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because
survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on -site survey
of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the
project area.
The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: index and full record. To
control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare
element, both printout formats are copyrighted.
The index provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted,
unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report
compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other
purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include
the following disclaimer:
"Copyright (year) State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This index
may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal
natural resource plans, and internal reports. For any other use, written permission is
required."
The full- record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use
only. If you wish to reprint the full- record printouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written
permission.
Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only
on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources
as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other wildlife -
related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Wayne Barstad, at
(651) 772 - 7940.
An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search
and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. Thank you
for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources.
Sincerely,
Sarah D. Hoffmann
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator
encl: Database search results
Rare Feature Database Print -Outs: An Explanation of Fields
Fact sheets: Blanding's Turtle
Invoice
•
•
1
8
0
H
a
u
Z ro sa
a it 4t H *r U
Q
�Pj� ypPPP co rn co to
7-g
00. I-1 ty
CP GP PI CO
-,-▪ i ▪ I nu.
1. 2 Z H H H H
N
0000
r1 0 Ub H H H Ell
Hz 0
AA AQ
N H H H
W ill
• W
1 ▪ J il 0000
0
01 ,to
ro w H w
u O r. m
•.- U
H 0
M 0) CO
v
,., 1F., mg
• H
H
asmm
Nrq rnrn
lic O • 0 N N N N a
22222
q L zz W to
W p 0 H el H 0
H
a w
b .1 ..
L O 41
O to 0
GI Ht
0 0 `O 0 111 a
o 14 al
N O 4 O
tv
N i01 a 0 0 °
1 gcil to M 744 44
o N .0 •
0
0 N 0) Fj
W to .i 0 a
r• 44 Ot L
N a m a U
sr
U 4 41 I00 44
IN E'E >F
3�
e O W
V. x 44
en 4 m
-4
w 3 N >4
0, 0 F
0, 0 0 w
1:1 -.4 u u0
N .4 a >°
006 2.
Qua
■ a
N N ',0
wro
r 0
F4 et
:IT))
y M
f2 m
f'1z m
M 0
F
z
1 r 0
r4 0
ft 4.4
a fn
E 0
E
H 0
N
0f-0 H 0 o)
0 to
to o S4 0
1 0 0
0 • W N
1:1 al
N 0 fli! ro H Li u o DI
4-1 U 0 Q c'r 0 44 » fC
0 • 0) £ F
0 4). 0O q fe{ �a
z u N ro 1U1 .0.C{4 A'i '4w a
,N O N 0 CO N 0 01 W G/ 0)
4/0 2E1"lvlaia"iI NN
C. N C1 0)0) w 003JOZtO.i
V W N
Intended Status:
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF CO.
H .,
H H H
IN V/ to
., •• .. 4-1 ••
tO C t0 .0 to U
•I
N 0) 0 4) W 0 4) N 0
Q N 0 A i~ A H
u O W O W 1
Q% 0 44 0 Q 3 w 0 Q 3 w
0 x x
4.1
En M
'0 0 '0 W O N
6) 0)
a•.1 O N 0 0 0
m 0 U m 0 U m N-0 Itl 0
0 U
Last Observed Date: 1992
r b1 v bf 0 7 01 d v w
O B > o a 0 E > h c q 8 > 0)
NC .4 1 N N wj N W[s7
1-4
N 6) Q O a c
> a 0 > Ill > 1-4 441
a
0
A x •
I`
- � b r r u W
In 3 t>v an 3 -0 In 3 F
rya H a ua
'0 •.I 0 0 1J .0 44 U 0 u to •••1 U 044
to L w 0 0 0 .0 6) 0 0) 0 l/ 0 0 0
& a >° a 0 ) 0 a a 8 a >
w
En
O
M
2
0 Q
a
z a
0 N ro H
1+ 1J z
ro ro g
ro '0
Z
0 G w
o u �' f:
14 ,..� H w
g
z 1
z
N 0 N 01
0
al .1 Ot co .o to JJ H
F
ft 4..) .•I g 1%/ � u fL
Wa fn m
F 0
w a4
F
0
44
En T1 co En 0 fn TI o
H C1 7 H •
0 O H 0
0 — U/
14 jJ 1A ,lQN� 0 0 0 0 £ P9 ,�lCgy O F:.,, ,'{x7�
H O Q H �. W 0 D4 . H F5 0 fail O
w 0 fQ� 6 °w 4) H °w 1)
0~ Q q W `ri Q 0 N u E ~ �Q z
0 E a 0a
O MI a 0 w° 0 Mi W o ° ,y° 0 In I o Q
m y 0 F W N I LIo 0 4- w FC W m 7 0. wQ •a > 0 00 0 g "Cf a 1.0 4-1 w v >
et m + w 0 t7 r . 0 N %F vi 0 W
"�z w u ° •• 440)0
0)•4J•.Ha`� H ;; �Ga{a� ..i..Ha w
N J.1 CO 0 a N N W N M CO N .0 tl/ 0 4.1 W H N 11 fq N '. Sri '0
a� v •.I •• N rn 0 ` a a/ •• 14 0) u 2 0 0' u. *4 m 0 0
g 44 ro w u 41 al 0 H 0 0 y 4 i7{
•� 1J 0 •.i O .� .-I 11 0 •.1 .Zi r�1 ° o •.�i 3 qC o
m W CO w CO CO rn ri m w fA w fn m W m w fn w fq O S fA .a
F 0
F
F
Intended Status:
Rare Features Database Print -outs: An Explanation of Fields
The Rare Features database is part of the Natural Heritage information System.
and is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program.
a unit within the Section of Ecological Services.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
* *Please note that the print -outs are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission **
Field Name: [Full (non- abreviated) field name, if different]. Further explanation of field.
-c-
CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with I.
CLASS: A code which classifies features by broad taxonomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP =
special plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibernacula):
qty: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1 (Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine).
CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0 (owner is not aware of record) to 9 (dedicated as a Scientific and
Natural Area).
- D-
DNR Region: 1 =NW, 2 =NE, 3 =E Central, 4=SW, 5 -SE, 6= Mirmeafiol:sWSt. Paul 'Mc :o. •
DNR Ouad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR - assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare
feature occurs.
- E-
ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)"
Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the
scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements (such as plant communities, which have
no scientific name) it is solely the element name. •
EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank] An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A (highest)
to D (lowest).
EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated) of natural communities.
- F-
FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Status of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LEandangered,
LT= threatened, C= species which have been proposed for federal listing.
Federal Status: See "FED STATUS"
Forestry District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number.
GLOBAL RANI(: The abundance of an element globally, from GI (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world -wide
basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by the Conservation
Science Division of The Nature Conservancy.
-I-
INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection status. See also "CURRENT STATUS." If a complete list of protection status
codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program
-L-
LAST OBSERVED, otlagabggnapalg or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the location.
Latitude: The locaticifieWhich the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various
levels of precision in talk cgiginal information, but this is not reflected in the latitude/longitude data. For some of the data,
particularly historicairecords, it was not possible to determine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. "Fort
Snelling "; or "the south shore of Lake Owasso "). Thus the latitude /longitude reflect the mapped location, and not necessarily
the observation location.
Legal: Township, range and section numbers.
Long: [Longitude]. See NOTE under "Latitude"
- M-
MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(s): Name of the federally, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve,
etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY
BOUNDARY)" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory
boundary of a state forest or park.
Mao Svm: [Map Symbol].
MN STATUS: [Minnesota Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law:
•
•
•
END - endangered. THR= threatened, SPC=special concern. NON= no legal status. but rare and may become listed if declines
continue. This field is blank for natural communities and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no legal status in
Minnesota, but are tracked by the database.
.N.
NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank]
-0-
Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each
record.
OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #"
# OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the area searched.
Ownership: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management
responsibility is listed.
-P-
Precisiop: Precision of locational information of occurrence: C (confirmed) = known within 1/4 mile radius, U (unconfirmed)
= known within 1/2 mile, N (non- specific) = known within 1 mile, G (general) = occurs within the general region, X
( unmappable)= location is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (often known only to the nearest county), 0
(obscure/gone)element no longer exists at the location.
Ea: [Primary Section]. The section containing all or the greatest part of the occurrence.
-Q.
Ouad Man: See "DNR Quad" -
-R-
Rec #: [Record number].
QQ1Q or Mg: [Range number].
.S.
SECTION or Section: [Section number(s)]. Some records are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to-the
nearest quarter- section or quarter - quarter - section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SW1 /4 of the NW 1/4 of section 32). A "0" is
used as a place holder when a half- section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the north 1/2 of section 3). When a occurrence
crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE1 /4 of section 19 and NW 1/4 of section
20 is displayed as "NE19NW20 ").
Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurrence lies. If no name for the area exists (a locally
used-name, for example), one is assigned by the County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program.
Source: The collector or observer of the rare feature occurrence.
S RANK: [State Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known extent and condition of that
community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1 (in greatest need of conservation action in the state) to 5 (secure under present
conditions). A " ?" following a rank indicates little information is available to rank the community. Communities for which
information is especially scarce are given a "U ", for "rank undetermined ". The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are
used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning.
The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available.
State Status: See "MN STATUS"
-T-
TWP or Tw,p: [Township number].
-V-
Verification: A reflection: of the reliability of the information on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is
"verified," which usualtyindicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records
based on collections made- before 1970 are unverified.
Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository.
In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding area number.
-W-
Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number.
Data Security
Locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to
the rare features. For example, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valuable plants such as ginseng are vulnerable to exploitation by collect9rs: other
species, such as bald eagles, are sensitive to disturbance by observers. For this reason. we prefer that publications not identify the precise locations of
vulnerable species. We suggest describing the location only to the nearest section. If this is not acceptable for your purposes, please call and discuss this issue
with the Environmental Review Specialist for the Heritage and Nongame Research Program at 651/296 -7863.
Revised 11 /2000
Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series
Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of Minnesota
Blanding's Turtle
(Emydoidea blandingiO
Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank': S2
Federal Status: none Global Rank': G4
HABITAT USE
Blanding's turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used
include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow- moving water. In Minnesota,
Blanding's turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants, Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1 -3 wetlands)
with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (cattails, water lilies, etc.) are preferred, and extensive
marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late
summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate
breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding's turtles. Also, the warmer water of
these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open
(grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in
traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding's turtles have also been known to nest successfully on
residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm
fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding's turtles may
travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade
trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the
winter. Blanding's turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies
where they are protected from freezing.
LIFE HISTORY
Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days.
The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the
female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon
and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy
area and 6 -15 eggs are laid. The female turtle retums to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a
development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid - August through early -
October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands
and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between
wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and
October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding's turtles
bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter.
IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE
• loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes)
• loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture
• human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements
• increase in predator populations (skunks, racoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young
*It is illegal to possess this threatened species.
Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding's Turtle.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS
These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding's turtle
habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid
detrimental impacts to Blanding's turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend
to prevent harm to Blanding's turtles during construction or other work within Blanding's turtle habitat. List 2
contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding's turtles populations; this list should
be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state -wide importance to Blanding's turtles
(contact the DNR's Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or
home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding's turtles is desired.
List 1. Reconunendations for all areas inhabited by
Blanding's turtles.
List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known
to be of state -wide importance to Blanding's turtles.
GENERAL
A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding's turtle should
be given to all contractors working in the area.
Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of
-Blanding's turtles in the area.
Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road -
crossing areas used by Blanding's turtles to increase
public awareness and reduce road kills.
Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved,
by hand, out of harm's way. Turtles which are not in
imminent danger should be left undisturbed.
Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding's
turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be
advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen.
If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the
nest.
If you would like to provide more protection for a
Blanding' s turtle nest on your property, see "Protecting
Blanding's Turtle Nests" on page 3 of this fact sheet.
Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of
construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be
removed after the area has been revegetated.
Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited
to the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the
time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland
areas is at a minimum).
WETLANDS
Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3)
should not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to
storm water retention basins (these wetlands provide
important habitat during spring and summer).
Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed
during prime basking time (mid morning to mid-
afternoon in May and June). A wide buffer should be left
along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands
(basking Blanding' s turtles are more easily disturbed than
other turtle species).
Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of
fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run -off
from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion
should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching
wetlands and lakes.
Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other
chemical run -off by a vegetatedbuffer ship at least 50' `
wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural
condition.
ROADS
Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths
and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and
reducing the distance turtles need to cross).
Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations
of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100
meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level
of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for
turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist
for further information on wildlife tunnels.
Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If
curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are
preferred (Blanding's turtles have great difficulty
climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads
trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills).
Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade.
Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Bianding's Turtle.
3
ROADS cont.
Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas
and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in
diameter, and elliptical or flat - bottomed.
Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from
adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be
fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them
(contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details).
Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised
roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in
diameter and flat - bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways
discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on
roads).
Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these
roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting
to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for
details). This is especially important for roads with more
than 2 lanes.
Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized
(at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water)
and flat - bottomed or elliptical.
Roads crossing streams should be bridged.
UTILITIES
Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a
minimum (this reduces road -kill potential).
Below- ground utility construction sites should be returned
to original grade (trenches can trap turtles).
LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as
possible.
As much natural landscape as possible should be
preserved (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and
planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that
habitat unusable to nesting Blanding's turtles).
Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses
and forbs (some non - natives form dense patches through
which it is difficult for turtles to travel).
Open space should include some areas at higher elevations
for nesting. These areas should be retained in native
vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide
corridor of native vegetation.
Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas --
such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under
power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals
should not be used). Work should occur fall through
spring (after October 1" and before June 1' ).
Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or
managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation
management is required, it should be done mechanically,
as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring
(mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and
makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing
roads).
ProtectingBlanding's Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are
laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests
more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable
spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other
disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with
stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh
(openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August it so
the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch!
REFERENCES
'Association for Biodiversity Information. "Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation
Status Ranks." NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). http: / /www.natureserve.org /ranking.htm (15 April
2001).
Coffin, B., and L. Pfanmueller. 1988. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, 473 pp.
•
Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding's Turtle.
4
REFERENCES cont.
Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding's turtle habitat.
Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp.
Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp.
Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blanding's turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 3(4):626 -636.
Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, September, 2001
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651- 296 -7863
CAUTION
BLANDING'S TURTLES
MAY BE ENCOUNTERED
IN THIS AREA
The unique and rare. Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State
Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and
Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional
information on turtles, or to report a Blanding's turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist
nearest you: Bemidji (218- 755 - 2976); Brainerd (218 - 828 - 2228); New Ulm (507- 359 - 6033); Rochester
(507- 280 - 5070); or St. Paul (651- 297 - 2277).
DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue,
dome - shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third,
enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional
protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue -gray with small dots of light brown
or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck.
Illustration by Don Luce, from Turtles in Minnesota, Natural History Leaflet No. 9, June 1989, James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History
•
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS
TO BLANDING'S TURTLE POPULATIONS
(see Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series for full recommendations)
• A flyer with an illustration of an adult Blanding's turtle should be given to all
contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the
presence of Blanding's turtles in the area.
• Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm's way.
Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their
travel among wetlands and/or nest sites.
• If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest, and do not allow pets
near the nest.
• Blanding's turtles do not make good pets. It is illegal to keep this threatened species
in captivity.
• Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical
that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated.
• Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled.
• All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides
should be avoided, and run -off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion
should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes.
• Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes.
• Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high
curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred.
• Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between
wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat - bottomed or
elliptical.
• Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as
the normal .width of open water) and flat - bottomed or elliptical.
• Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum.
• Below- ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade.
• Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible.
• Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs.
• Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along
utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals
should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and
before June 1St).
Compiled by the Minnesota Department of'Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongarne Research Program, August, 2001
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 /651 -296 -7863
•
EXHIBIT D
WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE,
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL
Wetland Permit Application and
Narrative
Pheasant Hills Island
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Mr. Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Project No. 2000 -087
[]26202
1
PART 1:
BASIC APPLICATION
"See HELP' directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, page 1.
1-11. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See HELP 11:
• t i
Name: Ed Vauahan
Complete mailing address:
1
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
1
1
0 Lino Lakes, MN 55038
1 Residential phone: (651 ) 490 -0459
Business phone: ( )
tFax (if available): (651 ) 426 -5053
email (if available):
•
1. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (if applicable):
Pheasant Hills Island
113. NAME OR I.D. # OF WATER BODY/BODIES IMPACTED*
(if applicable; if known):
1OP (Wards Lake)
4a. ANY WETLANDS IMPACTED? (check one)
NO
4b. If YES, what
type (if known; check all that apply):
11
4
e
!unknown 1
1A. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See HELP 1A.1
(only if applicable; an agent is not requi)d)
Name: Ron Peterson
Title: Peterson Envtl. Consulting
Mailing address: 1355 Mendota Hts. Rd, Suite 100
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Residential phone: ( )
Business phone: (651 ) 905 -6123
Fax (if available): ( 651 ) 686 -0369
email (if available): rpeterson @petesonenv.com
I hereby authorize Ronald P. Peterson
to act in my behalf as an age . in the processing of
this • .. 'cation and to fu . 4, upon request, supple -
, 6 t ,, ' in su • . rt of this application.
e S - /,oy
Applicant si: natur: Date
4c. If YES, indicate size of entire wetland (check one):
O Less than 10 acres (indicate size: )
D 10 to 40 acres
0 Greater than 40 acres
5. PROJECT LOCATION ** (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance
1/4 section: NW:NE Section: 27:28 Township: 31 N Range: 22W
County: Anoka Lot #: Block: Subdivision:
6. ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS ** (if applicable; if known): Parcel ID # /Geocode•
M coordinates: easterly 493,495 northerly 4,999,618
= roject street address: Fire #•
For multiple water bodies or locations, attach additional sheets labeled ADDITIONAL WATER BODIES IMPACTED,
ADDITIONAL PROJECT LOCATIONS, or ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS.
.1
G
7. HOW TO GET TO THE SITE Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site
from a known location or landmark. Include highway and street names and numbers. Also provide distances from known
locations and. any other information that would assist in locating the site. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP.
See Narrative
8. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: What do you propose to do, and why is it needed? Please be brief. (See HELP 8before
completing Ski section,)
t See Narrative
L` 9. PROPOSED TIMELINE: Approximate project start date: June 1, 2001
Projected end date: June 1, 2002
r 10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. This is the most important
1 pad of your application. See HELP 10 before completing this section; see also What To Include on Plans (Instructions,
page 2). If space below is not adequate, attach separate sheet labeled PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
See Narrative
11. FOOTPRINT OF IMPACT (if applicable): Indicate total amount (in acres or square feet) of wetland(s) or water body
area(s) to be filled, drained, inundated or excavated; and/or indicate length of stream or river affected (in linear feet).
0.07 acres or 3240 square feet and/or linear feet
Wetland will be bridged. Five piers will support the bridge, a total footprint of 3240 square feet.
12. TYPE AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MATERIAL(S) TO BE PLACED /NT00R EXC4VATED FROMTHE WETLAND
OR WATER BODY (if applicable): List each type of material (such as rock, sand, clay, concrete) to be filled or excavated,
and estimate amount in cubic yards.
0 FILLING 0 EXCAVATING
LiType(s) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards
concrete bridge N/A
iers
Type(s) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards
13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $620,000
ri
(for determination of DNR fees only, which are based on total project cost)
14. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have
avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? List at least two alternatives (one of which may be "no build"
r "do nothing "), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives.
See Narrative
1
El 15. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? No If yes,
describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 15
before compieffngthis section.)
16. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list
r below complete names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland
L- : or water body where the work is being proposed. (See HELP 16. If necessary, attach a separate sheet labeled ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNERS.)
=3 Complete name(s)
Q
N/A
Complete mailing address (including street address, city, state, zip code)
Project will affect less than 10,000 sq. feet
t t:
07. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project
hat are either pending or have already been approved or denied. See HELP 17.
1
if already applied for
i
nAgency ' Type of approval
Rice Creek WD Wetland Alteration
Permit
City of Lino Lakes Local Approvals
-r
ID number
Date applied for Date approved Date denied
To be applied for
To be applied for
18. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar
with the information contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 1
is true, complete and accur . - . I possess the authority to undertake the work de • - d, or I am acting as the duly
rzze•�: • - t a f the , wx cant_
au
Signature of appl • t Date OR !� agent — Date
nature o
This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (the applicant in Section 1)
orby the applicant's duly authorized agent (if the boxed Section lA has been filled out and signed by the applicant).
Federal authorization: Generally, in addition to state authorization, projects in wetland or water areas also require
Federal authorization from the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To apply to the Corps
using this application package, the applicant/agent must complete the modified one -page Federal application form
on page 4 and mail it to the Corps (address on Instructions, page 4) with a copy of the state application. Applicants
may, if they wish, apply only for Corps authorization by using the unmodified Federal application form that is
available from Corps offices or via the Internet at www.mvp.usace.army.mil
, J APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO. (RENEWAL PENDING)
It The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less.
1 This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
en, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,
lington, VA 22202 -4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 - 0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be
tware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not
1 display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the
T District engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
l •; PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit.
Routine uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state and local government agencies. Submission of requested
L information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided. the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
i
ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS.
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
YOU DONOTNEED TO COMPLETE THE SHADED AREAS.
A//_applicants need to complete non- shadeditems 5 and 26. If an agent is to be used, also complete items 8 and 11.
Thus optional Federal form is valid for use onfrrwhen included as a part of this entire state application packet.
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
Ed Vaughan
4-1
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Ron Peterson
. 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (if applicable; complete only if authorizing an agent)
- thereby authorize Ron Peterson to act in my b alf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish,
I '' upon request, supplemental information in supp e • . s • ermit ap lication.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: - DATE: 5-1/-0
1
.ft
_( 26. Application is hereby made
-�
appli • omP to and
,z • the ap
r a permit or permits to authorize the work described i • •plication. I certify that the information in this
ate. I further certify that I possess the authority to ertake or' d herein or am acting as the duly
t.
ti
ignature of appli
Date Signature of agent (if any)
/zy1
Date
FThe application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement
in Block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the
United States knowingly and willfully falsities, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be
fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97
EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE.
(Proponent: CECW -OR)
f
I
3
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
WETLAND PERMIT NARRATIVE
Pheasant Hills Island
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
April 24, 2001
PEC Project No, 2000 -087
This narrative includes a description of the following items: (1) project location and
description, (2 ) existing wetlands on the site, (3) the proposed wetland impacts, and (4)
documentation regarding compliance with DNR permitting requirements for placement
of structures in public waters.
1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Location
The Pheasant Hills Island site is generally located south of Wards Lake and northeast of
the terminal cul -de -sac of Ruffed Grouse Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 27 and the NE 1/4
of Section 28, T31N, R22W, Anoka County, Minnesota (Figure 1). The land is currently
an undeveloped upland island surrounded by DNR Public Water # 10P (Wards Lake).
Description
The proposed project would involve constructing a bridge to the upland island to serve
seven single - family residential lots. The project would involve only the placement of five
bridge piers within the wetland.
2. EXISTING WETLAND RESOURCES:
Delineation Methodology
Wetlands were delineated on November 15, 2000 in accordance with the routine
methodology set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987
Manual). Jurisdictional wetlands were classified according to the methodologies set forth
in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS /OBS Publication 79/31;
Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and
Fredine 1971). Throughout this narrative, "Cowardin" wetland types are given first
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 c Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 -1112 e 651- 686 -0151 c Fax 651- 686 -0369 c E -mail: Peclnc @PETERSONENV.corn
i•
1
Pheasant Hills Island Wetland Narrative
April 24, 2001
Page 2
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
followed by Cowardin abbreviations and "Circular 39" types given in parentheses. A
copy of the delineation report is supplied as Appendix A. Wetland boundaries were
marked with sequentially numbered surveyor pin flags and were located by Loucks and
Associates.
Wetlands Delineated
Two areas of wetland boundary were delineated on the site (Figure 2). The closed
polygon designated as Basin A represents non jurisdictional upland on the island. The
line designated as Basin B represents the boundary between upland (west) and wetland
(east) in the proposed island road access location. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Protected Waters and Wetlands Inventory Map is shown in Figure 3.
Wards Lake and its fringing emergent wetlands are classified as Public Water 10P. The
ordinary high water level (OHWL) of 10P has been established as elevation 883.7. The
entire wetland area consists of a combination of Circular 39 wetland types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6. The bridge would traverse mainly PEMC wetland (Circular 39 Types 3 shallow
marsh).
3. PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS
The proposed project would involve the placement of five piers that would support the
proposed bridge. These piers would have a cumulative footprint of 3240 square feet. Fill
for bridge approaches will lie entirely outside the wetland boundary and above the
OHWL. The location and magnitude of the proposed impacts are found in Appendix B.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH DNR PERMITTING STANDARDS
The applicant submits that the proposed project meets all applicable permitting
standards set forth in Minn. Rules 6115.0210:
The placement of the structure is permitted because the structure:
A. Will not obstruct navigation or create a water safety hazard.
B. Will not be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat, or protected
vegetation. The site is not a posted fish spawning area.
C. Is not designed or intended to be used for human habitation or as a boathouse.
D. Is not designed to include walls, a roof, or sewage facilities.
n
"1
Pheasant Hills Island Wetland Narrative
April 24, 2001
Page 3
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
The proposed project requires a DNR permit and meets the following criteria:
A. The proposed project represents the minimal impact solution to a specific need with
respect to all other reasonable alternatives. The proposed bridge location represents
the shortest route to the island and use of structure will result in much less impact
than the use of fill.
B. The project involves a minimum of encroachment, change, or damage to the
environment, including but not limited to fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, water
supply, and storm water retention. The area crossed by the bridge is non - navigable.
C... The proposed structure is consistent with the applicable floodplain, shoreland, and
wild and scenic rivers management standards and ordinances for the waters involved.
D. Adverse effects on the physical or biological character of the waters have been
through the use of structure to obtain necessary access.
E. The proposed structure is consistent with water and related land management plans
and programs of local and regional governments.
F. The proposed structure will remain in the ownership of the applicant who accepts
responsibility for future maintenance or removal.
Figures
Site Location (Boundaries
Approximate)
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
Site Location
Pheasant Hills Island Site
City of Lino Lakes
NW 1/4 Sec 27, NE 1/4 Sec 28, T31N R22W
Anoka County, Minnesota
FIGURE 1
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
Figure 2. Pheasant Hills Island Wetland Delineation,
Lino Lakes, MN.
500
500
1000 Feet
Legal Description: NW 114 Sec 27, N E 114 Sec 28,
T31 N R22W,Anoka C ounty, Minnesota
W atershed: Mississippi River (DN R #20)
r W atershed: Rice Creek (DNR 20071)
NWI Quadrangle: Centerville
• USGS Orthophoto: Centerville SW
Soil Survey: Anoka C ounty, M.S. 04, 65
-I LOU: Rice Creek W ate rshed District
Figure 2
= PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
=77.1 CONSULTING.
INC
:1
_i
• 1
. 1
ff
ciIIL cs.AIi
• • d
Lake
Site
(Approximate
Boundaries)
••
••
• • •
••
••
.••.
• • • •
••..
•••••
•.••
•••••
•••
. • • • •
•..•
.... •
••••
•••••
.•••
• . • •
••
•
•• •
<
T
• •
• •
•
MnDNR Protected Water Inventory: Pheasant Hills IslandSite
Centerville Quadrangle
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
A
N
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
FIGURE 3
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
•
1
•
Appendix A
(Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report)
J
i1
►
3
II
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
December 13, 2000
Mr. Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038
Subject: Wetland Delineation Report, Pheasant Ridge Island Site
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
Dear Ed:
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) has completed the delineation of jurisdictional
wetlands on Pheasant Hills Island Site in Lino Lakes, Minnesota. The site is generally located
south of Wards Lake and northeast of the terminal cul -de -sac of Ruffed Grouse Road in the NW
1/4 Sec 27, NE 1/4 Sec 28, T31N R22W, Anoka County, Minnesota (Figure 1). We delineated
two wetlands on the site (Figure 2). The closed polygon designated as Basin A represents non-
jurisdictional upland on the island. The line designated Basin B represents the boundary
between upland (west) and wetland (east) in the proposed island road - access location. The
delineation is preliminary because it was conducted outside the normal growing season. We will
need to verify the boundary in the spring after the start of the growing season (generally after
April 28), however, we do not expect the boundary to change substantially.
METHODOLOGY
Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the methodology set forth in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). It should be noted that the impact of
on- or off -site hydrologic alterations are not be fully accounted for when routine delineation
methods are used. The boundary between the upland and wetland was determined through a
routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hydrology. Plant species within the wetland/upland
ecotone were catalogued as to their percent cover and wetland indicator status according to the
Daubenmire Cover Scale (Northwest Scientist 33:43 -64; 1959) and the National List of Plant
Species that Occur in Wetlands; North Central Region 3 (USFWS Biological Report
88(26.3); May 1988), respectively. When a plant has not been identified to its specific epithet, a
plant indicator status has not been assigned. Hydrophytic plants are considered predominant
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 e Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 -1112 s 651- 686 -0151 ■ Fax 651- 686 -036.9 E -mail: Pec1nc@PETERSONENV.com
Mr. Ed Vaughan
December 13, 2000
Page 2
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
when 50 percent or more of the dominant species within each vegetative stratum are assigned an
obligate (OBL)l, facultative wet (FACW), and /or facultative (FAC) status.
The break between hydric and non -hydric soils was determined by excavating random soil pits
within the wetland/upland ecotone and evaluating the soil colors, texture and presence or absence
of hydric soil indicators (i.e. redoximorphic features, gley, oxidized rhizospheres, Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, USDA - NRCS, Version 4.0, March 1998).
The presence of current wetland hydrology was determined through direct observation of free
water in excavated soil pits, saturated soil conditions and /or soil redoximorphic features. The
delineated wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered pin flags.
The jurisdictional wetlands were classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS /OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al.
1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971).
DELINEATION RESULTS
Two jurisdictional wetlands were delineated. They are designated as Basins A and B. (Figure 2).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters and Wetlands
Inventory Map (Figure 3) Wards Lake and its fringing emergent wetlands (including wetlands in
the Site) as protected water 10P. Wetlands identified by the National Wetland Inventory in area
of the delineation are illustrated in Figure 4. Site soils identified in the Anoka County Soil
Survey are in Figure 5. A detailed description of the two wetland areas is provided in the
attached data sheets (Appendix A). Representative photos of the wetlands and wetland soils are
in Figure 6 through Figure 10.
We hope the foregoing information is of assistance in your project planning activities. At your
direction, we will transmit copies of this report to the Rice Creek Watershed District (Local
Governmental Unit (LGU) under the Wetland Conservation Act [WCA]) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for review and concurrence.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance on this project. Should you have any questions
about this report please feel free to contact our office. PEC staff are available to assist with
permitting issues should the need arise during the project planning process.
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
s L. Arndt, Ph.D.
e President
icensed Prof. Soil Scientist No. 30684
1 OBL = Obligate Wetland, occurs an estimated 99% in wetlands. FACW = Facultative Wetland, has an estimated 67%-99% probability of
occurrence in wetlands. FAC = Facultative, is equally likely to occur in wetlands and non - wetlands 34%-66% probability. FACU = Facultative
Upland, occurs in wetlands only occasionally 1%-23% probability. UPL = Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands <1% probability. NI = No
Indicator, insufficient information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative signs indicate a frequency toward higher ( +) or
lower ( -) frequency of occurrence within a category.
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
Site Location
Pheasant Hills Island Site
City of Lino Lakes
NW 1/4 Sec 27, NE 1/4 Sec 28, T31N R22W
Anoka County, Minnesota
FIGURE 1
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
Figure 2. Pheasant Hills Island Wetland Delineation,
Lino Lakes, MN.
Wetland
'1.3
1.2
1.1
500
500
1000 Feet
dLe aI Description: NW 1/4 Seo27, NE 1/4 Sec 28,
T31 N R22101 , Anoka C o u nty, Minnesota
• Watershed: Mississippi River (DN R #20)
i. r W atershed: R ice Creek (DNR 20071)
NWI Quadrangle: C enterville
USGS Orthophoto: Centerville SW
Soil Survey: Anoka County, M.S.04,85
LOU: Rice Creek Watershed District
L0,11end
Soil �.oatidih.`Rprexieia#fj,
,We ioo ,Igjhdi!, (Appox- 4tej
.
= PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
sib = CONSULTING.
INC
Site (Boundaries
Approximate)
Legend
HdD = Hayden fine sandy loam, 12-25 % slopes (Fine - loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Glossic Hapludalfs)
Rf = Rifle mucky peat (Euic, frigid Typic Medihemist)
Du = Dundas loam (Fine - loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Mollic Endoaqualfs)
Location and Soils: Pheasant Hills Island Site
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Anoka County Soil Survey, Map Sheets 64, 65
1977, based on 1961 -71 field work
N
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
FIGURE 3
PEC Project No. 200 -087
'1
f
)2)Gx
Site (Boundaries
Approximate)
"fel t. At It
National Wetlands Inventory: Pheasant Hills IslandSite
Centerville Quadrangle
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
A
N
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
FIGURE 4
PEC Project No. 2000-087
:1
cLIEGA VAI•
• •% •
rog
Lake
Ivh
Site
(Approximate
Boundaries)
. •
••
. •
•
•• •
•.••
•••
••
••
••
• •
•..•
•.•.
••••
•••••
•.••
▪ . • • •
•.••
•••.•
••••
• .• •
•.••
• . . • •
• . • •
••• •
•
•
••
1 •
• • •
•
•
••
�'
•
• • •
•••
• • •
•. •
•
•
• . I • • • •
MnDNR Protected Water Inventory: Pheasant Hills IslandSite
Centerville Quadrangle
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
FIGURE 5
PEC Project No. 2000 -087
1
t)
Figure 6. Transect 1 showing wetland soil pit location looking upslope at the transitional and upland positions. Flag
indicates the wetland boundary at this location.
Figure 7. Detail of the transitional soil profile (left) and the wetland soil profile (right). The wetland soil consisted
of thin hemic /sapric peat over loamy sands. The transitional soil profile was transitional from Dundas/lsanti to
Markey soils with reddish, coarse - loamy subsoil.
•
4 11
Figure 8. Wetland (left) and upland/wetland (right) landscape views in Basin B.
Figure 9. Wetland (left) and upland (right) soils.
Figure 10. Disturbed profile collected in wetland area of Basin B. Note disturbed/mixed horizons below
the auger.
Appendix A
.10
i
:
A4Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Data Form
Routine Wetland Determination
Project/Site: Pheasant Hills Island
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Ed Vaughan
Investigator: RA
Legal Description: NW 1/4 and NE 1/4 Sec. 27 and 28 T31N R22W
Date of Survey: 11/15/2000
County: Anoka
State: Minnesota
ID: Basin A
Cowardin Classification: PEMA
Circular 39 Classification: Type 3/4
NRCS Ident fier? NA
mu PSS1/EMCd
DNR PWI:
City/Watershed Identifier:
Hydrologic Unit.l
Watershed District:
10P
NA
Mississippi River, Rice Creek 20
Rice Creek
Scientific Name
Common Name
Stratum Cover Class 3 Indicator 4
Phalaris anou&nacea
reed canarygrass
H
4
FACW+
Urtica claim
stinging nettle
H
1
FAC+
Cornus stolonifera
red osier dogwood
S
2
FACW
Acer negundo
boxelder
T
2
FACW-
Acer rubrwn
red maple
T _ -
2
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
T
2
FACW
Quercus alba
white oak
T
2
FACU
Quercus rnacrocarpa
bur oak
T
2
FAG
Scientific Name
Common Name
3 4
Stratum Cover Class Indicator
CarexPennrylvanica
Pennsylvania Sedge
H
2
UPL
Galium aparine
stickywilly
H
2
FACU
Phalaris arunchnacea
reed canarygrass
H
2
FACW+
Poa pratensis
Kentucky bluegrass
H
2
FAG
Rhamnus cathartica
common buckthorn
H
2
FACU
Rhamnus cathanica
common buckthorn
S
3
FACU
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
T
3
FACU
Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Basin ID: Basin A
Page 2 of 4
MUID
Description
Rf
Rifle mucky peat
5
Inclusion Series Name Classification
Drainage Class
Hydric
Criteria 6
No
RIFLE
EUIC TYPIC BOROHEMISTS VERY POOR 1
Indicator Short Name
Description of the Field Indicator
Al
Histosol
Classifies as a Histosol, except Folists.
Hydrology
Primary Indicators:
Secondary Indicators:
VISUAL OBSERVATION OF SOIL SATURATION
FAC NEUTRAL
MUID
Description
HdD
Hayden fine sandy loam, 12 to 24 percent slopes
Series Name Classification S Drainage Class
HAYDEN FINE- LOAMY, MIXED, MESIC WELL DRAINED
TYPIC HAPLUDALFS
Hydrology
Primary Indicators:
Secondary Indicators:
NONE
NONE
Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
• ID:
1
Basin A
Page 3 of 4
- Hydrology Indicators —
Pit 7 Water y to FAC Jurisdictional
Transact Location Hydric Soil Depths Primary Secondary Neutral Test 11 Wetland?
1
1
2
2
3
•
No + >12 inches NA NA No No
No + >12inches NA 10 Yes No
Yes 6 -12 Inches 2 10 Yes Yes
No + >12 Inches NA NA No No
Yes + >12 inches NA NA No No
Yes + >12 inches NA 10 Yes Yes
1 From USGS Hydrologic Unit Map. See also Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subpart 10 (Figure 2).
2 From NRCS Detemuzration under the Food Security Act of 1985 (if applicable). FW Famed Wetland; PC -Prior Converted Cropland; NW =Non - Wetland; W- Wetland; NI= Not inventoried
3 Daubenmire scale: 6 = 95.100% cover, 5 - 75.95% cover, 4 = 50-75% cover, 3 — 25-50% cover, 2 = 525% cover, I = 0.5% cover.
4 OBL = Obligate Wetland, occurs an estimated 99% in wetlands FACW - Facultative Wetl and, has an estimated 67-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands; FAC = Facultative, is equally likely to
occur in wetlands and non wetlands (34-66% probability); FACU — Facultative Upland has an estimated 1 -33% probability of occurrence; and NI = No Indicator, denotes insufficient information
available to determine an indicator status Positive or negative signs indicate a frequency towards higher ( +) or lower ( -) frequency of occurrence in wetland within a category. Blanks in this colunm
ere due to genus level identification only.
5 Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Sixth Edition. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 1994.
6 US Department of Agriculture, Soil Cauervation Service. Hydric Soils of the United States, Third Edition. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Lincoln, NE. 1991.
7 US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. O.W Hutt, P.M. Whited., and R.F. Pringle, (eds.). US Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX 1996.
8 Positive Number indicates depth of inundation; Negative Number indicates depth to free water.
9
Primary Hydrology Indioatom Per 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Mama( I= Visual observation of inundation; 2= Visual observation of soil saturation; 3= Watermarks; 4= Drift lines; 5= Sediment
Deposits; Cr. Drainage Patters in Wetland
10 Secondary Hydrology Indicators Per 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (two or more are required in absence of a primary indicator): 7= oxidized rhizospheres in upper 12 inches; 8= water-
stained leaves; 9= Local Soil Survey hydrology data for hydric soils, 10= FAC Neutral test. Note: Local soil survey hydrology data for hydric soils are not a valid secondary indicator of wetland
hydrology "...if the site being delineated has been subject to substantial hydrologic alteration ". See Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and
Local Units of Government in the State of Minnesota, USACE Public Notice 96- 01078 -SDE, April 17, 1996, Page 25. Also see Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, HQUSACE
Memorandum, March 6, 1992, Page MI-14.
11 FAC - Neutral Test per 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Pert III, Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation
Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc,
• Basin ID: Basin A
Page 4 of 4
Disturbance Factors
Some evidence of ATV use along access paths to island. Solis In northeast side of Island may have been disturbed in the past
for access. However, given Its location, the Island Itself is essentially undisturbed. Relatively new residences associated with
the Quail Ridge development are peripheral to the wetland acroos from and due west of the island.
Floristic Features
Buckthorn In herb and shrub layers is heavy In places. Budcthom appears to be a fair vegetation indicator consistent with a
sharp transition from hydric to non - hydric soils In several places. Transition areas are also characterized by sparse, fine reed
canary grass that is likely stunted by shading and lack of water.
Soil Factors
The transition zone between wetland and upland is characterized by variants of several soils. Hayden soils characterized the
uplands, with Dundas and mucky Isanti -like soils in the transition grading to Markey and Rifle soils in the wetland proper.
Hydrology Factors
Though the summer and early fall were dry, the latter half of October and November have been qulte wet. Surface water was
apparent in the intervening cattail /reed canary grass zone that separates the island from the mainland. Actually, the water
seemed a bit high, possibly due to hydrologic connections of Ward Lake and its associated peripheral wetlands with the Rice
Creek chain of lakes, which had high water at the time of the delineation.
Other Comments
The closed polygon delineated represents the upland Island, surrounded by wetland. Note that the surrounding wetlands are
part of DNR protected water 10P.
0 Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
i
A4Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Data Form
Routine Wetland Determination
Project/Site: Pheasant Hills Island
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Ed Vaughan
Investigator: JLA
Legal Description: NW 1/4 and NE 1/4 Sec. 27 and 28 T3 1N R22W
Date of Survey: 11/15/2000
County: Anoka
State: Minnesota
ID: Basin B
Cowardin Classification: PEMA
Circular 39 Classification: Type 3/4
NRCSIdentifier? NA
NWI Classification: PSS 1/EMCd
DNR PWI 101)
City/Watershed Identifier: NA
Hydrologic Unit/ Mississippi River, Rice Creek 20
Watershed District: Rice CCCek
Scientific Name
Common Name
3 4
Stratum Cover Class Indicator
Phalaris aruncffnacea
reed canarygrass
H
6
FACW+
Urtica a oica
stinging nettle
H
3
FAC+
Corpus stolonijera
red osier dogwood
S
2
FACW
Acer negundo
boxelder
T
2
FACW-
Litmus americana
American elm
T _. -
2
FACW-
Scientific Name
Common Name
3 4
Stratum Cover Class Indicator
Rhamnus cathartica
common buckthorn
H
3
FACU
Galium aparine
stickywilly
H
2
FACU
Rhamnus cathartica
common buckthom
S
4
FACU
Acer negundo
boxelder
T
3
FACW-
® Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Basin ID: Basin B
MUID
Description
Page 2 of 4
Rf
Rifle mucky peat
Inclusion Series Name Classification
5
Drainage Class
Hydric
Criteria 6
Yes
MARKEY
SANDY OR SANDY - SKELETAL, VERY POOR
MIXED, EUIC TERRIC
BOROSAPRISTS
Indicator 7 Short Name Description of the Field Indicator
Al
Histosol Classifies as a Histosol, except Folists.
Hydrology
Primary Indicators:
Secondary Indicators:
NONE
MUID
Description
FAC NEUTRAL
Du
Series Name
Dundas loam
Classifications Drainage Class
DUNDAS
FINE- LOAMY, MIXED, MESIC POOR
MOLLIC ENDOAQUALFS
Hydrology
Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators:
NONE NONE
0 Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
ID: Basin B
Page 3 of 4
- Hydrology Indicators --
Pit Water 9 to FAC Jurisdictional
Transect Location Hydric Soil Depth 8 Primary Secondary Neutral Test tt Wetland?
1
2
Yes + >12 Inches NA
No + >12 inches NA
9,10 Yes Yes
NA
No No
1 From USGS Hydrologic Unit Map. See also Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subpart 10 gore 2).
2 From NRCS Determination under the Food Security At of 1985 (if applicable). FW- Farmed Wetland; PC -Prior Converted Cropland; NW=Non - Wetland; W- Wetland; M- Not inventoried
3 Daubenmire scale: 6 - 95.100% cover, 5 =75-95% cover, 4 - 50-75% cover, 3 - 25-50% cover, 2 - 5-25% cover, 1- 0.5% cover.
4 OBL - Obligate Wetl and, occurs an estimated 99% in wetlands. FACW - Facultative Wetland, bas an estimated 67-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands; FAC = Facultative, is equally likely to
occw in wetlands and non wetlands (34-65% probability); FACU - Facultative Upland has an estimated 1-33% probability of occurrence; and NI - No Indicator, denotes insufficient information
available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative signs indicate a frequency towards higher (+) or lower (.) frequency of occurrence in wetland within a category. B1anks in this column
are due to gents level identification only.
5 Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Sixth Edition. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resmaces Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 1994.
6 US Depertrnent of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Hydric Soils of the United Staten, Third Edition. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Lincoln, NE. 1991.
7 US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W Hurt, P.M. Whited., and R.F. Pringle, (ads.). US Department of
Agrioulhaa, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX 1996.
8 Positive Number indicates depth of i nrdation Negative Number indicates depth to free water.
9 Primary Hydrology Indicators Per 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual: 1= Visual observation of inundation; 2- Visual observation of soil saturation; 3= Watermarks; 4- Drift lines; 5- Sednnerd
Deposits; 6= Drainage Patterns in Wetland
10 Secondary Hydrology Indicators Per 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (two or more are required in absence of a primary indicator): 7- oxidized rhizospheres in upper 12 inches; 8= water-
stained leaves; 9= Local Soil Survey hydrology data for hydric soils, 10- FAC Neutral test Note: Local sail survey hydrology data for hydria soils are not a valid secondary indicator of wetland
hydrology "...if the site being delineated has been subject to substantial hydrologic alteration ". See Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations to the St Paul District Corps of Engineers and
Local Units of Government in the State of Minnesota, USACE Public Notice 96- 01078 -SDE, April 17, 1996, Page 25. Also see Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, HQUSACE
Memorandum, March 6, 1992, Page MI-14.
11 FAC - Neutral Test per 1987 Cops Wetland Delineation Manual Pat III, Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation
Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc
• Basin ID: Basin B
Page 4 of 4
Disturbance Factors
Apparently a staging area for access to the Island. Fill/disturbance is evident along the upland access trail and as an apparent
pad in the transition to the undisturbed wetland. The surface Is hummocky with obvious peat/mineral fill piles. Extreme
evidence of subsidence in the area of the transition from disturbed upland to wetland. Occasional large voids (holes several
inches in diameter) were observed when augering soli. Boxelder in obvious upland positions have exposed roots several
inches above the current soil surface probably exposed by subsidence /consolidation /oxidation. Subsoils powdery-dry when
examined.
Floristic Features
Disturbed area dominated by reed canary grass/stinging nettle. Reed camary grass/nettle area delineated as wetland.
Transition zone contains large quantities of bucicthon both in the shrub and herb layers.
Soil Factors
Entire area near the access is probably filled /disturbed; however, some profiles looked native, others consisted of obvious fill.
Soils were generally transitional variants between upland hayden /Dundas/Markey that have been scalped /filled. Much
evidence of subsidence, including elevated tree roots in areas that have no evidence of inundation, and observed cavaties in
the subsoils. Anomalous redox concentrations indicative of a water table at approximately 30 -40 inches were observed deep
in one soil profile near the wetland boundary.
Hydrology Factors
No water to 40 inches In all profiles examined.
Other Comments
Portions of the staging area (Basin B) that were delineated as wetland may be filled to the extent that wetland hydrology is
missing.
Copyright Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION,
LOUCKS ASSOCIATES
1%I
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
April 21, 2003
Mr. Ed Vaughan
1432 Pleasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
Re: Bridge construction to Pheasant Island within Wards Lake
Anoka County
SHPO Number: 2001 -3540
RECD APP P 9 2003
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
We wrote you on 15 January 2002 regarding the above referenced project, requesting a
copy of the report of the archaeological survey of the project area.
We have now received a copy of the report from Loucks Associates. The survey
determined that there were no cultural resources in the project area.
Thank you for providing this report for inclusion in our inventory files. Contact us at 651-
296 -5462 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs & Compliance Officer
cc: Teresa Halloran, Loucks
345 Kellogg Boulevard West /Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 -1906 /Telephone 651 -296 -6126
•
Phase I Archaeological Investigation
of the
Proposed Quail Ridge Project Area
SW 1/ of the NW 1 of the NW 'A of Section 27, T31N R22W
Centerville, Minnesota
Prepared for
Mr. Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038
Prepared by
LOUCKS ASSOCIATES
7200 Hemlock Lane
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
Teresa Halloran, Principal Investigator
April, 2001
Planning
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
Landscape Architecture
Environmental
Archaeology
1
i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Mr. Ed Vaughan, a local land developer, is exploring a plan to build residential housing on a 10 -acre parcel near the
City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota. It is located in the SW '/ of the NW % of the NW '/, of Section 27,
T3 IN R22W (Figures 1 and 2). The property is a small island, surrounded by marsh, located approximately 700 feet
south of Wards Lake and 500 feet east of a peninsula of land which has already been developed with single family
housing. It is privately owned but in anticipation of federal permitting requirements, Mr. Vaughan contracted with
Loucks Associates to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of the property. Loucks archaeologists Teresa
Halloran and David Mather carried out the survey in November 2000.
No known or previously unrecorded archaeological sites were located within the APE. Loucks Associates therefore
recommends that the proposed development of this property be allowed to proceed as planned with the following
qualifications:
1) Archaeological field testing was performed only in those areas defined by the APE. If it becomes
necessary to expand beyond these limits, additional archaeological testing may be required.
2) Although no evidence of archaeological sites were identified during the survey, archaeological sites
have been identified in the greater vicinity of the project area. There remains some potential for sites without
surface evidence to be present within the project area. If it is suspected that human remains or a burial area is
encountered during construction operations, activity in the immediate area must cease and the Anoka County
Sheriffs Office, the State Archaeologist and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council should be contacted for further
assistance. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 307.08 prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials.
i
1
1
1
i
CONTENTS
Management Summary
Table of Contents
ii
INTRODUCTION
Survey Objectives and Area of Potential Effect 1
1
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
1
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Historic and Thematic Contexts 1
Environmental Setting 1
Generalized Regional Cultural History 2
Previous Investigations and known Cultural Resources 4
4
-Field Reconnaissance Results
4
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY 5
Bibliography
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Project Vicinity
Project Area
View east from the west side of the island.
View west from the east side of the island.
Appendix A SHPO File Search Results
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Ed Vaughan, a local land developer, is exploring a plan to build residential housing on a 10 -acre parcel near the
City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota. It is located in the SW '/ of the NW '/ of the NW '/, of Section 27,
T31N R22W (Figures 1 and 2). The property is a small island, surrounded by marsh, located approximately 700
feet south of Wards Lake and 500 feet east of a peninsula of land which has already been developed with single
family housing. It is privately owned but in anticipation of federal permitting requirements, Mr. Vaughan
contracted with Loucks Associates to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of the property. Loucks
archaeologists Teresa Halloran and David Mather carried out the survey in November 2000.
Survey Objectives and Area of Potential Effect
Phase I survey objectives address the following: 1) defming the Area of Potential Effect (APE), 2) identifying
archaeological sites within the APE, 3) assessing the impact of development activities on those sites and if
necessary, 4) and providing site management strategies to minimize the projects impact on all identified cultural
resources. The APE was defined as the entire island, which is approximately 10 acres in size.
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
The project area was surveyed through a combination of documentary archival research, surface reconnaissance,
and subsurface testing. A background review of records, literature and archaeological research relevant to the
prehistory and early history of the project area was conducted prior to fieldwork. Field reconnaissance was then
initiated to locate known cultural resources and any as yet unidentified cultural resources within the APE. The
fieldwork component included pedestrian surface reconnaissance and sub - surface shovel testing. Pedestrian visual
reconnaissance was conducted in all locations that exhibited sufficient surface visibility although snow cover
obscured most of the ground.
Shovel tests were typically 35 -40 centimeters (cm) in diameter, and were excavated to culturally sterile subsoil.
Sterile subsoil is defined as subsolum or C horizon and ranged in depth from 40cm to 80cm. All material removed
from shovel tests was screened through 1/4 inch hardware cloth. Soil descriptions were recorded for each test, and
the test pit holes were immediately back - filled. Shovel tests were not placed in areas with excessively steep slopes
( >15 %), in mud or areas covered with standing water, or in areas that had obviously been totally altered by previous
ground - disturbing activities.
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Historic and Thematic Contexts
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 mandates each State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to provide
frameworks for cultural resource studies. These frameworks establish connections between patterns of state history
and resources encountered. They are organized by historic and thematic contexts. Historic contexts are generally
defined through temporal and geographic boundaries while thematic contexts refer to general property types. Such
contexts are intended to incorporate new data resulting from ongoing cultural resource investigations; they are
essentially works in progress.
The Minnesota Precontact Period contexts considered most relevant to the project area are the Paleoindian (9500BC
- 6000BC), Archaic (6000BC - 500BC), and Woodland (500BC - AD1650) Traditions. For the Contact Period
(1650 - 1837), the most relevant contexts include the Native American Eastern Dakota and Ojibwe and the Euro-
American French, British, and Initial United States Presence. Post Contact Period contexts Early Agriculture and
River Settlement (1840 - 1870) and Railroads and Agricultural Development (1870 — 1940).
•
1
•
Environmental Setting
The landscape of the project region is dominated by features associated with the advance of the Superior ice lobe
and the later Des Moines lobe during the Late Wisconsinian glaciation (ca. 35,000 to 10,000 years ago). As a result
of the area's glacial history, lithic raw materials suitable for the manufacture of stone tools would be available
locally from sources within the glacial till, or nearby glacial outwash sediments. The southernmost extent of the
Superior lobe, which originated in the Lake Superior basin, is marked by the eastern St. Croix moraine complex.
The complex, including the project area, is a broad band of hilly topography stretching northeastward from St. Paul
into Wisconsin (Wright 1972). The glacier's legacy in the project vicinity is a reddish, gravely till that when
reworked forms coarse, droughty and relatively unfertile soils (Wovcha et al. 1995:6). The reddish till in vicinity of
the project is mantled by a thick deposit of newer till material, left by the most recent glacial episode.
The last major glacial episode to affect the region was the advance of the Des Moines lobe from the region of
Manitoba. An extension of this coverage known as the Grantsburg lobe spread out along the interior margin of the
St. Croix moraine, covering the project area and leaving a deposit of light olive -brown loamy till commonly known
as "gray till" (Chamberlain 1977:87; Wright 1972b: 534). Soil developed from the grey till tend to be loamy and in
contrast to the red till left by the earlier Superior advance, retain moisture very well (Wovcha et al. 1995:7). The
Grantsburg sublobe retreated ca. 16,000 to 13,000 years ago-providing the sandy outwash material from which the
Anoka Sand Plain is formed. The Centerville chain of lakes in southeastern Anoka County, in which the project
area is located, demarcate drainageways left by the Superior lobe. These lakes form the approximate boundary
between the eastern St. Croix moraine and the Anoka Sand Plain. As noted above, the topography of the St. Croix
moraine is hilly with differences in relief most marked toward the northeastern limit of the complex in Wisconsin.
Scattered within the rugged morainic topography are numerous wetlands and lakes formed by ice blocks that broke
off from the retreating glacial ice and were subsequently covered by till.
Dramatic changes in the regional environment have occurred during the course of its postglacial history. A
periglacial parkland of spruce and larch closely followed the retreat of the Wisconsinian ice sheets and their
periphery of tundra vegetation. By 11,500 years ago, rapid climatic change had caused the spruce forest to
disappear from the state. It was succeeded by pine forest by 10,000 years ago and then by a deciduous forest
comprised primarily of oak and elm. The warming and drying trend of the early to middle Holocene peaked at
7,000 to 6,000 years ago, at which time the prairie and its border strip of deciduous woodland had expanded to 75
miles north and east of their historic limits. Linked with these climatic and vegetational trends were an increase in
the frequency of prairie fires and a dramatic decline of the water table, causing many small lakes to dry up
completely. A return of more moist and cool environmental conditions approximately 5,500 years ago resulted in
the establishment of the prairie- forest border near its present limits (Anfinson and Wright 1990; Grimm 1981;
Wright 1974).
Environmental data are available for the larger vicinity of the project area from the Middle Holocene to the present,
through pollen analyses at Wolsfield Lake and Wosfield Marsh in Hennepin County (Grimm 1981, 1983). Those
investigations suggest that woodland existed throughout the Holocene in the northeastern Big Woods (including the
project area). It is perhaps best accounted for through the local infrequency of fire due to the rolling topography
and numerous deep lakes which would have retained water even in the dry middle Holocene. Local vegetation
consisted of woodland and prairie in approximately equal parts from 6,330 to 3,810 years ago, and was succeeded
by oak - dominated woodland from 3,810 to 280 years go. The onset of cooler and wetter climatic conditions aided
the development of the true Big Woods forest dominated by elm, maple, and basswood, from 280 to 95 years ago.
The effects of Euro - American clearance and settlement are then seen, extending to present day (Grimm 1981,
1983).
Oak woodland- brushland dominated the vegetation of the St. Croix moraine at the time of Euro - American
settlement in the mid - nineteenth century. Species represented included northern pin oak, bur oak, white oak, and
aspen trees, with an understory of young oak and aspen, hazelnut, and prickly ash (Wovcha et. al 1995:26). More
detailed information from the General Land Office survey records indicate a pattern of larger trees and less fire -
resistant Big Woods species (e.g., ash, elm, maple) north and east of lakes in this region, while smaller and more fire
resistant species (oaks and aspen) predominated to the south and west of the lakes. This pattern resulted from fires
frequently sweeping across the region from southwest to northeast (Wovcha et. al. 1995:24).
Generalized Regional Cultural History
The following summary of the regional archaeological sequence is derived from a variety of sources, including
Anfinson's (1990) description of archaeological regions in Minnesota, the files and records of the State Historic
Preservation Office, and the Office of the State Archaeologist.
The first inhabitants of the southeastern Plains were mobile hunters and gatherers of the Paleoindian Tradition (ca.
12000 to 8500 B.P.) and the Early Archaic Period (ca. 8500 to 6500 B.P.) based on dates from the Cherokee Sewer
Site in northern Iowa (see Anderson et al. 1978). Paleoindian peoples began entering the area as glacial ice was
retreating from the Upper Midwest and people apparently began to occupy the area's open woodlands and
succeeding grasslands. The settlement patterns of these people is poorly understood because most sites related to
that era consist of scattered surface fords of distinctive lanceolate projectile points and large bifacially flaked knives,
choppers and scrapers (Anfinson 1987). These people are best known for hunting big game animals such as now
extinct mammoths and giant bison, but they undoubtedly exploited small game animals and plant resources too.
Throughout much of the Late Paleo and Early Archaic time period, the climate became increasingly warmer and
drier. By the end of the Early Archaic period, available fresh water resources had been substantially reduced.
Paleoindian tool -kits included distinctive fluted lanceolate spearpoints, such as the Clovis and Folsom types that are
among the oldest securely dated artifacts in North America. Late Paleoindian point types such as Browns Valley
and Agate Basin are more commonly found, but they lack the distinctive flute of the earlier styles. Dalton points are
thought to bridge the transformation from the Late Paleoindian to the Early Archaic Tradition, supporting
Anfmson's (1997) definition of the Early Prehistoric Period.
The Middle and Late Archaic Periods (ca. 6500 to 2300 B.P.) reflect environmental conditions that were becoming
cooler and wetter. Though people continued to hunt bison, as is documented at the Cherokee Sewer Site, overall
subsistence strategies adapted to the changing environmental trends and increasingly diversified technologies
associated with hunting, fishing, foraging, woodworking, and plant processing became widespread. The Archaic
tool -kit is dominated by smaller stemmed and notched projectile points that could be placed on the tip of an atl atl
dart and/or harpoons. Chipped stone tools include adzes for felling trees and constructing dugout canoes, while
pecked and ground stone tools were used for processing plant foods. In addition to chipped and ground stone tools,
Archaic peoples occasionally fashioned tools from native copper.
The Woodland Tradition (ca. 2300 to historic contact) is the best represented archaeological tradition in Minnesota.
Its primary diagnostic traits include the acquisition of ceramic technology, the use of burial mounds for cemeteries,
and the adoption of horticulture. Late in the period as maize and wild rice became a dietary staple, settlement
patterns focused on the occupation of fertile agricultural floodplains and wild ricing areas near lake inlets and
outlets ( Anfinson 1990).
The presumed introduction of bow and arrow weaponry was another significant technological development. The
Woodland Tradition is divided into the Early, Middle, and Late stages in much of the Upper Midwest, but most of
the oldest Woodland sites in Minnesota are more appropriately placed in the Middle Woodland Stage, and their
associated cultural assemblages are similar to those of the Late Archaic.
At the time of European contact (ca. 1650), the Central Lakes Deciduous East region was home to the Dakota
peoples whose subsistence practices focused on bison hunting. From the middle 1600s through the early 1700s,
French explorers and fur traders began moving into southeastern and central Minnesota establishing the earliest
known direct contact between Europeans and the Dakota. By the late 1700s, English and then American traders
were well established throughout the region. Trade and missionary activities introduced the local Dakota to a large
variety of European produced goods, substantially influencing traditional Dakota economic and subsistence
activities. Dakota dependence on European trade goods was high when local fur resources drastically declined
during the early 1800s. Throughout the 1800s the Dakota ceded large tracts of land to the United States
Government in exchange for food and cash annuities. As traditional Dakota land holdings were ceded, widespread
European settlement and intensive agricultural economies began to dominate the region by the late 1800s.
Previous Investigations and Known Cultural Resources
There are a plethora of recorded sites in this area of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes, most located along the
lakeshores. They range in size from one acre to 80 acres and primarily date to the Woodland period. Based simply
upon this, the current project area was considered to have high potential to contain cultural resources.
Field Reconnaissance Results
Eleven shovel tests were excavated in the project area. They were placed along the gently undulating ridge of the
island every 15 meters when possible. The slope from the upper ridge to the marsh below was quite steep, reducing
the testable area to less than 4 acres (Figures 3 and 4). No cultural materials were found in the shovel tests.
Shovel Tests
ST #1
0 -25cm Very dark brown silt loam
23 -35 Transition
35 -40 Tan silt and gravel
NCM
ST #2
0 -20cm Dark brown silt loam
20 -48 Tan silt with some gravel
48 -54 Tan sand
NCM
ST #3
0 -20cm
20 -40
NCM
Dark brown silt loam
Tan silt with some gravel
ST #4
0 -25cm Dark brown silt loam
25 -48 Tan silt with some gravel
48 -60 Tan sand
NCM
ST #5
0 -25cm Dark brown silt loam
25 -48 Tan silt with some gravel
48 -60 Tan sand
NCM
ST #6
0 -20cm Dark brown silt loam
20 -48 Tan silt with some gravel
48 -54 Tan sand
NCM
1
{
ST #7
0 -15cm Very dark brown sandy loam
15 -40 Dark brown sandy loam
40 -70 Brown sand
70 -80 Tan sand
NCM
ST #8
0 -10cm Dark brown silt loam
10 -43 Tan silt with some gravel
43 -65 Tan sand
NCM
ST #9
0 -1Ocm Dark brown silt loam
10 -43 Tan silt with some gravel
43 -65 - Tan sand
NCM
ST#10
0 -10cm Dark brown silt loam
10 -45 Tan silt with some gravel
45 -53 Tan sand
NCM
• ST #11
Wetland soils /muck
NCM
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY
No historic or prehistoric archaeological sites were located within the APE of the proposed project area. Loucks
Associates therefore recommends that the project proceed as planned with the following qualifications:
Archaeological field testing was performed only within the Area of Potential Effect. If it becomes
necessary to expand the APE beyond these limits, additional archaeological testing may be required.
If it is suspected that archaeological materials are encountered during construction operations, the State
Historic Preservation Officer should be contacted for further assistance.
3) If it is suspected that human remains or a burial area is encountered during construction or quarry
operations, activity in the immediate area must cease and the Anoka County Sheriffs Office, the State
Archaeologist and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council should be contacted for further assistance.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 307.08 prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials.
Quail Ridge Project Area
Vicinity Map
Centerville, Minn Quadrangle
(1967 Revised 1993)
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
•
Figure 2. Project Area
IView west from the east side of the island.
•
1
1
•
IFigure 3.
View east from the west side of the island.
IFigure 4.
•
1
1
REFERENCES CITED
Anfinson, S. F.
1987 Minnesota Municipal and County Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Study — 1986 Annual Report.
Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.
1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the
Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. Gibbon, pp. 135 -166. University
of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis.
Anfinson, S. F. and H.E. Wright, Jr.
1990 Climatic Change in Prehistoric Minnesota. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers
Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. Gibbon, pp. 135 -166. University of Minnesota Publications in
Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis.
Fridley, Russel, Director
1981 Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Survey Summary: 1977 -1980. Submitted to the Minnesota
Legislature ny the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN.
Grimm, E
1981 An Ecological and Paleoecological Study of the Vegetation of the Big Woods Region of Minnesota.
Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
1983 Chronology and Dynamics of Vegetation Change in the Prairie- Woodland Region of Southern Minnesota, .
U.S.A. New Phytologist 93:311 -350.
Wright, H.E. Jr.
1972 Physiography of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota. A Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and
G.B. Morey. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul.
1974 The Environment of Early Man in the Great Lakes Region. ,- In Aspects of Upper Great Lakes
Anthropology: Papers in Honor of Lloyd A. Wilford, edited by E. Johnson. Minnesota Prehistoric
Archaeology Series Number 11. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.
•
Appendix A
1
i
1
1
1
N N
•
i
Site Locations
a
s
t
tu
bq
D O E ❑ E E D E D E D D D 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
z
W -
4
z �� w 9
z t c5 '9 z z 0 z c vii zz l zz
N N N
N N g- r �N N M r
(V
CSI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M M M M M M t) M
M M M M M M M M r
J
g
O 8
zd
N
8
N
'E
x
of cO co m .-. -
rn
m Ne
ZZa 8S 2ZZ5 zz�i o Q 5z2 §)(3'
ZZb d c� '� c�
Q Q Q Q z z Q Q z z Z m a
Z Z ZZ ZZ ZZ0 ZZ0 0 Z
O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q <
N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
Friday, October 27, 2000
EXHIBIT F
SOILS REPORT,
STS CONSULTANTS
N 1
/77Z/7/77 / /j/
1
APPENDIX
1. STS Changed Condition Clause
2. Boring Location Diagram
3. Boring Logs
4. STS General Boring Log Notes
5. STS Soil Classification System
6. STS Field and Laboratory Procedures
Subsurface Exploration Procedures
Sampling Procedures
Laboratory Index Test Procedures
7. STS Standard Boring Log Procedures
8. ASTM Specification D -1586
9. STS Subgrade Protection Guideline
10. STS Subgrade Stabilization Guideline
11. STS Earthwork Guideline
THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE
��
7 STS CONSULTANTS
R6623001.doc
9
i
STS Changed Conditions Clause
DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS
The following is a suggested standard clause for unanticipated subsurface
conditions:
The owner had a subsurface exploration and testing program performed by a
geotechnical consultant. The results of this program are contained in the consultant's
report. The consultant's report presents conclusions on the subsurface conditions
based on their interpretation of the data obtained in the exploration. The contractor
acknowledges that they have reviewed the consultant's report and any addenda
thereto, and that their bid for earthwork operations is based on the subsurface
conditions, as described in that report. The contract parties recognize that a
subsurface exploration does not disclose all conditions as they actually exist and
further, conditions may change, particularly groundwater conditions, between the time
of subsurface exploration and the time of subsurface construction operations. In
recognition of these facts, this clause is made part of the contract and provides a
means of equitable additional compensation to the contractor if adverse unanticipated
conditions are encountered and found to be materially different than reasonably
expected as represented in the contract documents.
If at any time during earthwork, paving, foundation, and underground construction
operations, the contractor encounters conditions that they consider to be materially
different than those anticipated by the geotechnical consultant's report, contractor shall
promptly and before such conditions are disturbed notify the owner's representative in
writing of the condition and shall explain: (1) how subsurface or latent physical
conditions at the site differ materially from those indicated in the contract, or, (2) what
unknown physical conditions were encountered that are of an unusual nature and differ
materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in
work of the character provided for in this contract. The owner's representative will
promptly initiate an investigation of the alleged differing site conditions. The contractor
will provide access to the conditions and fully cooperate with the investigation. Upon
completion, the owner's representative will issue a . findings report with a
recommendation on merit. Conversely, if owner's representative observes subsurface
conditions which are different than those anticipated by the foundation consultant's
report, he will also promptly notify the contractor. If a differing site condition claim has
been found to have merit, negotiations will commence between the owner and the
contractor to arrive at an equitable change in contract price for the necessary additional
dwork or for reduction in work because of the unanticipated conditions. The contractor
agrees that unit prices listed in the bid are applicable in computing equitable
adjustments for additional or reduced work under the contract. For changed conditions
for which unit prices are not listed, the additional work will be paid for on a time and
material basis.
•
•
i to
3003 ONV113M
\ •
1
\ t
� t
� t
•••.t
N
0
m
z
zz
rn9
N 9
o
O
o�
g
SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
BRIDGE AND ROADWAY
PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12th ADDITION
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
FOR: MR. ED VAUGHAN
MM
TM 3/, /e
MOM
z
0
0
PRESERVATION AREA EASEMENT
Dart
mr
M am
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
LOG OF BORING NUMBER 370
STS Consultants Ltd.
PROJECT NAME
Bridge&Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Add.
ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
Loucks & Associates, Inc.
SITE LOCATION
East of Ruffed Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
y
rc r
z "
.n' UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
ToNS/FT.2 3 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %
— — — - • — — — — -p
10 20 30 40 50
OEPTH(FT)
ELEVATION(FT)
IPLE NO.
SAMPLE TYPE
1 SAMPLE DISTANCE
RECOVERY
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
i i
STANDARD
0 PENETRATION BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50
e /
SURFACE ELEVATION +884.4 NGVD
HS
Sapric peat - black - moist - soft - (Pt)
3.5
sss�ss�
t
6S
metyypinseeme.
I.
Sandy clay, trace roots - brown - firm - (CL)
1_6.0
2
Silty very fine sand - red -brown - saturated - loose - (SM -ML)
9.3
SS
_1
on 3
SS
1
Fine to medium sand, silt traces - brown to red -brown -
saturated - loose - (SP)
25.0
4
HS
SS
5
HS
SS
I
1
6
HS
Kam
SS
I
1
Silty fine to medium sand, trace gravel - brown to red -brown =
saturated - medium dense - (SM)
38.5
2
I
7
III
HS
-
SS
8
■
HS
IMO
mum
SS
i
_ 9
I IS
Fine to medium sand, silt traces - brown saturated - loose -
(SP)
42.0
NIL
____
SS
IMPIPINIIE 10
End of boring at 42.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with high solids bentonite grout.
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.
5.3 ft. WS
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area - 06
BORING COMPLETED
ENTERED B
SHEET NO. 1 OF
RIG /FOREMAN
CME- 750 /GD
APP'D BY
MM
STS JOB NO.
98623
ra
l
10
STS Consultants Ltd.
SITE LOCATION
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
LOG OF BORING NUMBER 371
PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
Bridge&Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Add. Loucks & Associates, Inc.
East of Ruffed Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
r.UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TONS /FT.'
2 3 4 5
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT 16 CONTENT 1G LIMIT %
10 20 30 40 50
SURFACE ELEVATION +882.6 NGVD
STANDARD
® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50
Sapric to fibric peat - black - saturated - very soft - (Pt)
1
Organic silt, mollusk shell fragments - gray - very 'soft - (OH)
23.5
Silty clay - gray - very soft - (CH)
27.5
Sandy clay, trace gravel - brown to gray -brown - firm to stiff -
(CL)
38.0
39 8 Sandy and clayey silt, trace gravel - red -brown - very stiff -
(ML -CL)
Silty fine to medium sand - brown to red -brown - saturated -
loose to medium dense - (SM)
O
1
1
ffi
O
CD
J
z_
0
55.0
End of boring at 55.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with high solids bentonite grout.
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types:
* Cal brated
\15
Penetrometer
WL
Surface WS
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area - 06
WL
BORING COMPLETED D /6/02
ENTERED BY
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
WI
RIG/FOREMAN -
CME- 750/GD
APP'D BY
MM
STS JOB NO.
98623
1
{ o
.1
11
US Consultants Ltd.
SITE LOCATION
East of Ruffed Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
PROJECT NAME
LOG OF BORING NUMBER
372
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
Bridge&Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Add.
0
7d
u,
0
w
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION +884.1 NGVD
HS
1
SS
H.
2
SS
1
H1
3
SS
1
4
Hti
SS
1
MR
5
SS
1
MR
6
SS
1
2.5
Fibric peat - black - very soft - (Pt)
0
Loucks & Associates, Inc.
.Q, UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TQNS/FT.'
2 3 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT CONTENT % LIMIT %
*----- • - - - --
10 20 30 40 50
Sandy clay, trace roots, sand seams - brown - firm to loose -
5.0 (CL, seams SM)
20.0
MR
7
ss
1
8
MR
SS
30.5
3
MR
9
SS
RB
10
SS
RB
11
47.0
11
SS
1_
47.0
Fine to coarse sand with layers of peat and organic silt -
gray -black - saturated - loose to very loose to very soft -
(SW-Pt-OH)
Sandy clay, trace gravel - gray - firm to stiff - (CL)
STANDARD
® PENETRATION BLOWS /FT.
10 20 30 40 50
Sandy and clayey silt, little gravel - red -brown - very stiff -
(ML-CL)
End of boring at 47.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with high solids bentonite grout.
:1
* CaI brated Penetrometer
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradu
WL
3.2 ft. WS
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area - 06
WL
BORING COMPLETED
3/6/02
ENTERED B
DN
SHEET NO.
1 OF
1
WI.
RIG/FOREMAN
CME- 750 /GD
APP'D BY
MM
STS JOB NO.
98623
1
ILl.-
STS Consultants Ltd.
SITE LOCATION
East of Ruffed Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
LOG OF BORING NUMBER
373
PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
Bridge &Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Add. Loucks & Associates, Inc.
1
SS
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
2.5
HS
SURFACE ELEVATION +886.9 NGVD
3.0
Organic sandy clay, trace gravel and roots - black - firm - (OL)
5
0
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TANS /FT.'
1 2 3 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %
X-- -- -•- - - --t)
t0 20 30 40 50
STANDARD
0 PENETRATION BLOWS /FT.
10 20 30 40 50
2
SS
5.0
HS
5.0
Fine to coarse sand, trace roots - gray - wet - loose - (SW)
3
SS
7.5
HS
10.0
Sandy clay, trace gravel - gray - firm to stiff - (CL)
9.0
,7
10.0
Fine to coarse sand, little gravel - red -brown - saturated - loose
- (SW)
•
0
J
* CaI brated Penetr ometer
End of boring at 10.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: n situ, the transition may be gradual.
WL
5.5 ft. WS
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area - 06
WL
BORING COMPLETED
3/6/02
ENTERED DN
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
RIG /FOREMAN •
CME- 750 /GD
APP'D BY
MM
STS JOB NO.
98623
^consultants Ltd.
•OCATION
ast of Ru
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
PROJECT NAME
Bridge &Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th A
LOG OF BORING NUMBER
374
ffe
d
Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
dd. Loucks & Associates, Inc.
!1!
el
zz
S5�
SAMPLE DISTANCE
RECOVERY
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION +891.0 NGVD
0.6
1
SS
2
HS
SS
HS
— SS
IS
7.5
4
SS
10.0
Organic sandy silt, trace roots - black - (OL)
c,, •
z
� m
.a UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TONS /FT.'
1 2 3 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %
---- •- - - --t1
10 20 30 40 50
Silty fine to medium sand, trace roots to 4 ft. depth - dark
brown to brown - moist - loose to medium dense - (SM)
STANDARD
® PENETRATION BLOWS /FT.
10 20 30 40 50
Sandy clay, trace gravel - gray, rust leaching - stiff to very stiff -
12
*Cal
End of boring at 10.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
brated
Penetrometer
tetra ification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.
ry
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area - 06
BORING COMPLETED
3/6/02
ENTERED DB
SHEET NO.
1 OF
1
RIG/FOREMAN
CME- 750 /GD
APP'D BY
MM
STS JOB NO.
98623
1
$TS Consultants Ltd.
SITE LOCATION
OWNER
Mr. Ed Vaughan
PROJECT NAME
Bridge &Rdwy, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th
LOG OF BORING NUMBER
369
East of Ruffed Grouse Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
dd. Loucks & Associates, Inc.
E O
g a
O
O
Z
a
f/)
U
F G
J
0.
N
cc
0
w
cc
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION +886.3 NGVD
1
SS
1.5
2.5
HS
2
SS
5.0
HS
5.5
Peaty organic silt, trace roots - black - (OH -Pt)
rt
0
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Ti/NS/FT,'
2 3 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %
10 20 30 40 50
Silt and organic silt - whitish -gray - moist to wet - loose to firm -
(ML-OL)
3
SS
7.5
HS
8.0
10.0
4
SS
10.0
Silty clay - gray - firm - (CH)
STANDARD
O PENETRATION BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50
Sandy clay, trace gravel - gray- brown, rust leaching - stiff - (CL)
*Cal
End of boring at 10.0 ft.
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
brated Penet
meter
BORING LOG
WL
WL
WL
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.
4.5 ft. WS
BORING STARTED
3/6/02
STS OFFICE
Minneapolis Area • 06
Dry ACR
BORING COMPLETED
3/6/02
RIG /FOREMAN
CME- 750 /GD
ENTERED DN
APP'D BY
MM
SHEET NO. OF
1 1
STS .108 NO.
• 98623
'
•STS General Boring Log Notes
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS : Split Spoon- 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D.
Unless otherwise noted
ST : Shelby Tube -2" O.D.,
Unless otherwise noted
AS: Auger Sample
WS : Wash Sample
OS : Osterberg Sampler - 3" Shelby Tube
BS : Bulk Sample from Exposed Material
CS : Continuous Sample Tube
PA:
HS:
RB:
FT :
DB:
VS:
PM :
HA:
Power Auger - 4 1/4" unless otherwise noted
Hollow Stem Auger
Tri -Cone Rotary Bit
Fish Tail Bit
Diamond Coring Bit
Vane Shear
Pressuremeter Test, In -Situ
Hand Auger
Standard Penetration Test N- value: Total blows for last foot of penetration of a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler
driven by a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches, except where otherwise noted.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL:
WS:
WD:
AB:
Water Level
While Sampling
While Drilling
After Boring
WCI : Wet Cave In
DCI : Dry Cave In
BCR : Before Casing Removal
ACR : After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring Togs are the levels measured in the boreholes at the time indicated. In
relatively pervious soils (e.g. sands and gravels), the indicated groundwater levels are considered reliable. In
- relatively impervious soils (e.g. silts and clays), the indicated groundwater levels may not be reliable. For
boreholes or wells in low permeability soils, relatively long periods of time are usually required for the
groundwater to obtain an equilibrium position. Generally, a more accurate determination of water levels can be
Aftmade from monitoring wells or piezometers sensing aquifers of interest with readings over a period of weeks to
II/months.
GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY:
Coarse grained or granular soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are
generally described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine grained soils have less than 50% of their dry
weights retained on a No. 200 sieve; they are generally described as: clays, silty clays, or clayey silts if they are
cohesive and silts if they are non - cohesive. Granular soils are also described on the basis of their relative in-
place density and fine grained soils are described on the basis of their strength, consistency and plasticity.
Major Description Of
Component Components Also Percent of Dry
of Sample Size Range Present in Sample Weight
Boulders Over 12 in. (200 mm) Trace 1 -9
Cobbles 12 inches to 3 inches Little 10 -19
(200 mm to 75 mm)
Gravel 3 inches to #4 sieve Some 20 -34
(75 mm to 4.76 mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve And 35 -50
(4.76 mm to 0.074 mm)
Silt Passing #200 sieve
(0.074 mm to 0.002 mm)
Clay Passing #200 sieve
Smaller than 0.002 mm
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength, Qu (tsf)
0.25
0.25 -0.49
0.50 -0.99
1.00 -1.99
2.00 -3.99
4.00 -8.00
-U AA
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Medium (Firm)
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS:
SPT N -Value
(blows /ft)
0 -3
4 -9
10 -29
30-49
50 -80
>80
Relative
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely
i
STS Soil Classification System
k7
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Ma or Divisions
Group
Symbols
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
H!
a
a
c
d
U
0
0
0
1
l0
0
0
0
0
0
v Z
E
8
0
0
r
0
0
No. 4 sieve size)
Clean sands (
GW
Well graded gravels, gravel-
sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP
GM
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel- sand -clay
mixtures
GC
SW
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-
clay mixtures
Well graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, traces or no fines
SM
Silty sands, sand and silt
mixtures
SC
Clayey sands, sand and clay
mixtures
0
0
c
c
8
8
N
0
C = 1- grealerlhan4;C — (D"') benseen latd3
An L'10.4144
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
Atterberg limits below
"A" line or P.I. less than
4
Atterberg limits above
"A" line with P.I.
greater than 7
Above "A" line with
P.I. between 4 and 7
are borderline cases
requiring use of dual
symbols
2
C = &greaterthan6;C — (D.) benseenland3
Dm
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
Atterberg limits below
"A" line or P.I. less than
4
Atterberg limits above
"A" tine with P.I.
greater than 7
Limits plotting in
hatched zone with
P.I. between 4 and 7
are borderline cases
requiring use of dual
symbols
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silts
with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly Gays, sandy
clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL
Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
MH
Inorganic slits, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine silty soils,
elastic silts of high placsticity
g
C0
ccv E m
in 8
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH
Organic clays, slits or silt and
clay mixtures of medium to high
plasticity
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
soils
60
50
40
k 30
20
10
7
4
0
Liquid Limit Plastic ty Chart
CL
uti
A "Ur
OH or MH
CL -ML ` \\
rnc and a.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Liquid Limit, %
80 90 100
For classification of fine- grained soils and fine fraction of coarse -
grained soils.
Atterberg Limits plotting in hatched area are borderline
classifications requiring use of dual symbols.
STS Subsurface Exploration Procedures
Hand Auger Drilling (HA)
In this procedure, a split - barrel sampler or Shelby tube is driven into the soil by
repeated blows of a sledge hammer or a guided drop hammer. After the sampler is
driven to the desired sample depth, a soil sample is retrieved. The hole is then
advanced by manually turning and withdrawing a hand auger until the next sampling
depth increment is reached. This hand auger drilling between sampling intervals helps
to clean and enlarge the bore hole in preparation for obtaining the next sample. Casing
is not utilized to maintain an open bore hole.
Power Auger Drilling (PA)
In this type of drilling procedure, solid -stem, continuous flight helical augers are used to
advance the bore holes. Normally 4 1/4 -inch diameter augers are utilized. They are
turned and hydraulically advanced and withdrawn by an engine powered drill rig
mounted on a skid, truck or all- terrain vehicle. In auger drilling, casing and drilling mud
are not utilized to maintain open bore hole.
• Hollow Stem Auger Drilling (HS)
•
In this drilling procedure, continuous flight augers having open stems are used to
advance the bore holes. Typically, the hollow stem auger has a 6 to 8 -inch outside
diameter and a 2 1/4 to 4 1/4 -inch inside diameter. The open stem allows the sampling
tool to be used without removing the augers from the bore hole. Hollow stem augers
thus provide support to the sides of the bore hole during the sampling operations.
Drilling fluid is normally not used with this method.
Rotary Bit Drilling (RB)
In employing rotary drilling methods, various cutting bit types and bit diameters are
rotated and pushed hydraulically to advance the bore holes. In this process, near
surface casing and /or drilling fluids are used to maintain open bore holes. The drilling
fluid typically consists of a soil -water mix, a bentonite -soil slurry or a colloidal gel -soil
slurry that is circulated down through the drill rod and bit and up the bore hole annulus
with drill cuttings.
Diamond Core Drilling (DB)
Diamond core drilling is used to sample hard, cemented formations such as rock. In
this procedure, a double tube (or triple tube) core barrel with diamond teeth cuts an
annular space around a cylindrical column of the material being sampled. The sample
is retrieved by a catcher just above the bit. Samples recovered by this procedure are
placed in sturdy containers in sequential order from top to bottom,
STS Sampling Procedures
g_40
Auger Sampling (AS)
In this procedure, soil samples are collected from cuttings off of the auger flights as
they are removed from the ground. The samples are typically retained in sealed jars or
plastic bags, then shipped to a laboratory for further examination and testing. Such
samples provide a general indication of subsurface conditions; however, they do not
provide undisturbed samples, nor do they provide samples from discrete depths.
Split- barrel Sampling (SS) - (ASTM Standard D -1586)
In the split - barrel sampling procedure, a 1.375 -inch I.D. , 2 -inch O.D., split barrel
sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by means of a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches. The value of the Standard Penetration Resistance, N, is
obtained by counting the number of blows of the hammer over the final 12 inches of
driving. This value provides a qualitative indication of the in- place relative density of
cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. The indication is qualitative only,
because many factors such as soil composition, gravel and cobble content, type of
hammer, sample depth and groundwater seepage pressure can significantly affect the
Standard Penetration Resistance N Value. Results in similar soils obtained by drill
crews using different rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer - rod -spoon assemblies may
not correlate directly. A representative portion of the recovered sample is placed in a
sample jar, labeled and then shipped to a laboratory for further analysis and testing.
Shelby Tube Sampling Procedure (ST) - (ASTM Standard D -1587)
In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, a thin - walled steel seamless tube with a
beveled cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the soil and then pulled to obtain a
relatively undisturbed sample. This procedure is typically used to sample firm to hard
cohesive soils. Two -inch diameter tubes are generally utilized. Three -inch diameter
tubes are occasionally utilized to sample softer soils where minimally disturbed samples
are desired. The tubes are sealed, labeled, and then shipped to a laboratory for
extrusion, further analysis and testing.
Bulk Sample (BS)
Bulk samples are typically obtained by hand tool digging into soil or rock deposits that
are exposed at the ground surface or within an excavation (walls or bottom). Bulk
samples are typically retained in sealed jars or plastic bags.
Continuous Sample Tube (CS)
This type of sampling device consists of 5 -ft. sections of thin -wall tubes or split - barrel
pipes which are capable of retrieving continuous columns of soil in 5 -ft. maximum
increments. Because of a continuous slot in the sampling tubes, the sampler allows
field determination of stratification boundaries and containerization of soil samples from
any sampling depth within the 5 -ft. interval. This sampler is used inside a hollow -stem
auger and is advanced slightly ahead of the auger head as the, auger is turned into the
soil. Split- barrel samples are typically opened in the field. Recovered soil is logged and
representative samples retained in sealed jars. Tube samples are sealed, labeled and
shipped to a laboratory for extrusion and testing.
`?
is
STS Laboratory Index Test Procedures
Water Content (Wc) (ASTM 2216)
The water content of a soil is the ratio of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of
the dry soil. Generally, the soil is dried in a conventional or microwave oven. Water content is
commonly expressed as a percentage.
Hand Penetrometer (Qp)
In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil is estimated, to a
maximum value of 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf), by measuring the resistance of a representative
portion of a cohesive soil sample to penetration by a 1/4 -inch diameter, spring - calibrated
cylinder. Results from penetrating into a stone or obviously disturbed portions of the sample are
generally disregarded. Hand penetrometer testing has been carefully correlated with
unconfined compressive strength tests, and when performed correctly provides a useful and a
relatively simple testing procedure in which soil strength can be quickly and reliably estimated.
Unconfined Compression Test (Qu) (ASTM D 2166)
In the unconfined compression strength test, a undisturbed cylinder of cohesive soil 2 to 3
inches in diameter with a height of 4 to 6 inches is loaded axially until failure or until a 20% stain
has been reached, whichever occurs first. It provides an indication of the samples undrained
shear strength.
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 318)
Atterberg Limits tests provide a measure of a cohesive soils plasticity. The liquid limit is the
water content at which a 1/2 -inch wide groove that is cut into a shallow cup of remolded soil
closes with 25 10mm drops of the cup. The plastic limit is the water content below which the
soil . no longer behaves as a plastic material based on behavior of rolled soil ribbons. The
Plasticity Index is the difference between the liquid and plastic limits.
Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)
Grain size analyses are performed to determine the distribution of particles by weight for a soil
sample. The distribution of particles larger than 0.075 mm (retained on a No. 200 sieve) is
determined by sifting a dried and broken soil sample through a series of generally smaller
sieves, then weighing the retained portions. If specified, the distribution of particles smaller than
0.075 mm is also determined using a hydrometer to determine particle dispersion and
settlement within water.
Classification of Samples
In conjunction with the sample testing program, retained soil samples are examined in our
laboratory and are classified on the basis of their texture and plasticity in accordance with the
United Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil descriptions on the boring logs are in
conformance with this system and the estimated group symbols according to this system are
included in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A separate sheet
entitled "STS Soil Classification System" provides a brief explanation of this system of soil
classification and is also included in the Appendix.
•
STS Standard Boring Log Procedures
In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, common
procedures are followed regarding field logs, laboratory data sheets and samples.
Field Togs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations and
are intended to document field test data, subsurface observations, sampling depths and
exploration procedures. Samples obtained in the field are generally subjected to
additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory by more experienced soil
technicians, engineers or geologists. The engineer preparing the report reviews the
field boring logs and laboratory sample descriptions, classifications and test data. The
engineer then uses judgment and experience in interpreting this data and compiling it
into the final boring logs. As a result, differences between the field and final boring logs
may exist described in the text of the report, as appropriate. The descriptive terms and
symbols used on the logs are described on the attached sheet, entitled: "General
Boring Log Notes ".
We follow a common practice of the geotechnical engineering profession by generally
not including field logs and laboratory data sheets in our engineering reports. We do
this because the field logs do not represent the engineer's final opinions on
appropriateness of field descriptions of conditions encountered in the exploration and
testing work. On the other hand, we are aware that certain contractors and
subcontractors submitting bids or proposals on work might have an interest in studying
these documents before submitting a bid or proposal_ For -this reason, the field logs are
retained in our office for review after authorization by our client. We welcome
interpretation questions and an opportunity to explain how the information was obtained
and why any boring log changes were made in the preparation of our final logs and
report.
Samples taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are
retained in our laboratory for sixty days and then are eventually disposed unless special
disposition is requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of time,
even in sealed jars, are subject to moisture loss which changes the density and
strength of cohesive soil - generally increasing soil strength from that which was
originally encountered in the field. Since these samples are then no longer
representative of the moisture, density and strength conditions initially encountered,
potential observers of these samples should recognize this factor if considering sample
re- examination weeks or months after samples were retained.
1
STS Sampling Procedures
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS
Standard Method for
PENETRATION TEST AND SPLIT - BARREL SAMPLING OF SOILS'
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 1886; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original
adoption or in the case of revision, the year of the last revision. A number In parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript
epsilon (E)indicates an editorial change nine the last revision or reapproval.
This method has been approved for use by agenoies of the •Department , of..Defense .and for,llating in the DOD Index of Specifications and
Standards. -
is _..11.00/14.
1.1 This method describes the proce-
dure, generally known as the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT), for driving a
split- barrel sampler to obtain a repre-
•sentative soil sample and a measure of
the resistance of the soil to penetration
of the sampler.
1.2 This standard may involve haz-
ardous materials, operations, and
equipment. This standard does not
purport to address all of the safety
problems associated with its use. It iB
the responsibility of whoever uses this
Standard to consult and establish ap-
propriate safety and health praotioes
and determine the applicability of reg-
ulatory limitations prior to use. For a
specific precautionary statement, see
8.4.1.
1.3 The values stated in inoh -pound
units are to be regarded as the stan-
dard.
R. Applicable Documents
•
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D2487 Test Method for Classification
of Soils for Engineering Purposes2
D2488 Praotioe for Description and
Identification of Boils (Visual -
Manual Prooedure)2
D4220 Practice for Preserving and
Transporting Soil Samples2
S. Descriptions of Terms Bnecifio to
Ts Standard
3.1 anvil —that portion of the drive-
rwa_1_4 wwww•••1.1.. «.1.aw1. 41.w l.w.. -... ..�
strikes and through which the ham-
mer energy passes into the drill rods.
3.2 cathead the rotating drum or
windlass in the rope- cathead lift sys-
tem around which the operator wraps
a rope to lift and drop the hammer by
successively tightening and loosening
the rope turns around the drum.
3.3 drill rods —rods used to transmit
downward force and torque to the drill
bit while drilling a borehole.
3.4 drive- weight assembly --a device
consisting of the hammer, hammer
fall guide, the anvil, and any hammer
drop system.
3.8 hammer —that portion of the
drive - weight assembly consisting of
the 140 t 2 lb (63.8 t 1 kg) impact
weight whioh'.is . suocessively lifted and
dropped to provide the energy that ac-
complishes. the sampling and penetra-
tion.
3 6 hammer drop system —that por-
tion of the drive- weight assembly by
whioh the operator accomplishes the
lifting and dropping of the hammer to
produoe the blow.
3 7 hammer fall guide —that part of
the drive - weight assembly used to
guide the fall of the hammer.
3.8 N -value —the blowoount repre-
sentation of the penetration resistance
of the soil. The N- value, reported in
blows per foot, equals the sum of the
number of blows required to drive the
sampler over the depth interval of 6 to
18 in. (160 to 480 mm) (see 7.3).
3.9 AN —the number of blows ob-
awa..wA t..w... en n1% n! Ch. a_4.. i1 an ......�
intervals of sampler penetration (see
7.3).
3.10 number of rope turns —the total
contact angle between the rope and the
cathead at the beginning of the opera-
tor's rope slackening to drop the ham-
mer, divided by 360° (see Fig. 1).
3.11 sampling rods —rods that con-
nect the drive - weight assembly to the
sampler. Drill rods are often used for
this purpose.
3.12 SPT— abbreviation for Standard
Penetration Test, a term by which en-
gineers commonly refer to this
method.
4. significance and Use
4.1 This method provides a soil sam-
ple for identification purposes and for
laboratory tests appropriate for soil
obtained from a sampler that may pro-
duce large shear strain disturbance in
the sample.
4.2 This method is used extensively
in a great variety of geoteohnioal ex-
ploration projects Many looal oorrela-
tions and widely published correla-
tions whioh relate SPT blowoount, or
N- value, and the engineering behavior
of earthworks and foundation are
available.
'This method is under the iurlsdiotion of ABM
Committee D-18 on Soil and Rook and is the direct
responsibility of suboommittee D18.02 on Sampl-
ing and Related Field Testing for Boil Inveetiga-
tione.
Ourrent edition approved Sept. 11, 1984.
Published November 1084. originally published
as D1686 -88T. Last previous edition D1686 -87
(1674).
aaa.. a4...wewNa Vn1114.41A.
S. ADDirstas
* Drilling Equipment —Any dril-
1 quipment that provides at the
tik..,, of sampling a suitably olean open
t hole before insertion of the Sampler
and ensures that the penetration teat
is performed on undisturbed Boil shall
be acceptable. The following pieces of
t }equipment have proven to be suitable
• ?for advancing a borehole in some sub-
s surfaoe conditions.
t I 8.1.1 Drag, Chopping, and Fishtail
Bite, less than 6.8 in. (182 mm) and
greater than 2 2 in. (86 mm) in diamet-
ier may be lased in conjunction with
open -hole rotary drilling or casing -
'iadvanoement drilling methods. To
• avoid disturbance of. .the underlying
?soil, bottom discharge bite are not per -
mitted; only side discharging bits are
ipermitted.
5.1.2 Roller-Cone Bits, less than 8.5
. in. (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in.
(88 mm) in diameter may be need in
conjunction with open -hole rotary
?drilling or casing- advancement drill -
ing methods if the drilling fluid die-
:;
e is deflected.
.3
Hollow-Stem ' ? em Continuous
FLgnt Augers, with or without a oen-
ter bit assembly, may be used to drill
the boring: -The- inside diameter of the
hollow -stem augers shall be leas than
8.8 in. (182 mm) and greater than 2.2
in. (88 mm).
8.1.4 Solid, Continuous Flight,
Buoket and Hand Augers, less than 8.8
in. (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in.
(86 mars) in diameter may be used if the
eon on the side of the boring does not
Dave onto the sampler or sampling
rods during sampling.
8.2 Sampling Rods—Flush-joint
steel drill rods shall be used to connect
the split - barrel sampler to the drive-
, weight .assembly. The sampling rod
shall have a stiffness (moment of finer-
tia) equal to or greater than that of
parallel wall "A" rod (a steel rod
which `has .ii oiitMde diameter of 1%
in. (41.2 mm) and an inside diameter
of 1% in. (28.5 mm).
NOTE 1— Repent research and oomparative
-
lipsindicates the type rod used, with stiffness
from 'A" else rod to "N" size rod, will
.ly have a Negligible effeot on the N- values to
depths of at least 100 ft (30 m).
8.3 Split- Barrel Sampler —The sam-
pler shall be constructed with the di-
mensions indicated in Fig. 2. The driv-
ing shoe shall be of hardened steel and
shall be replaced or repaired when it
ASTM Designation: D 1586
becomes dented or distorted. The use
of liners to produoe a constant inside
diameter of 1% in. (38 mm) Is permit-
ted, but shall be noted on the penetra-
tion reoord if used. The use of a sample
retainer basket is permitted, and
should also be noted on the penetra-
tion record if used.
NOTE 2 —Both theory and available test data
suggest that N- values may inoresse between 10 to
3096 when liners are used.
5.4 Drive - Weight Assembly:
5.4.1 Hammer and Anvil —The ham-
mer shall weigh 140 t 2 lb (83.8 t 1.
kg) and shall be a solid rigid metallic
mass. The hammer shall strike the an-
vil and make steel on steel contact
when it is dropped. -'4%.-hammer fall.
guide permitting a free fall shall be
used. Hammers used with the cathead
and rope method shall have- an•unim-
peded overlift capacity of at least 4 in.
(100 mm). For safety reasons, the use
of a• hammer assembly with an inter-
nal anvil is encouraged.
NOTE 3—It le suggested that the hammer fall
guide be permanently marked to enable the opera-
tor or inspector to Judge the hammer drop height.
5.4.2 Hammer Drop System —Rope-
cathead, trip, semi- automatic, or auto-
matic hammer drop systems may be
used, providing the lifting apparatus
will not cause penetration of the
sampler while re- engaging and lifting
the hammer.
8.8 Accessory Equipment—Acoes-
sories such as labels, sample contain-
ers, data sheets, and groundwater lev-
el measuring devices shall be provided
-in accordance with the requirements
of the project and other ASTM stan-
dards.
6. Drilling Procedure
6.1 The boring shall be advanced in-
crementally to permit intermittent or
' oontinuous: sampling. `Test intervals
and locations are normally stipulated
by the project engineer or geologist.
Typically, the intervals selected are 5
ft (1.5 m) or less in homogeneous
strata with test and sampling locations
at every change of strata.
6.2 Any drilling procedure that pro-
vides a suitably Olean and stable hole
before insertion of the sampler and as-
sures that the penetration test is per-
formed on essentially undisturbed soil
shall be acceptable. Each of the follow-
big prooedures have proven to be ac-
ceptable for some subsurface oondi-
tions. The subsurface conditions anti-
cipated should be considered when se-
lecting the drilling method to be used.
8.2.1 Open -hole rotary drilling
method.
6.2.2 Continuous flight hollow -stem
auger method.
8.2.3 Wash boring method.
8.2.4 Continuous flight solid auger
method.
6.3 Several•drllling methods produce
unacceptable borings. The process of
jetting. through an open tube .sampler
and then sampling when the desired
depth is reached shall not be permit-
ted. The continuous flight solid auger
•• ••. method; shall not be used for advanc-
ing the. boring below a water table or
below. the upper confining bed of a
confined non- oohesive stratum that is
under artesian pressure. Casing may
not be advanced below the sampling
elevation prior to sampling. Advancing
a boring with bottom discharge bits is
not permissible. It is not permissible
to advance the boring for subsequent
insertion of the sampler solely by
means of previous sampling with the
SPT sampler.
6.4 The drilling fluid level within the
boring or hollow -stem augers shall be
maintained at or above the in situ
groundwater level at all times during
drilling, removal of drill rods, and
sampling.
7. Sampling and Testing Procedure
7.1 After the boring has been ad-
vanced to the desired sampling eleva-
. tion and excessive cuttings have been
removed, •prepare for the test with the
following :sequence of operations.
7.1.1 Attach the -split-barrel sampler
to the sampling rods and lower into
borehole. Do : not allow the sampler to
drop onto the soil to be sampled.
7.1.2 Position the hammer above
and attaoh the anvil to the top of the
-sampling rods..-This. may, be done, be-
fore the .sampling rods and sampler
are lowered into the borehole.
7.1.3 Rest the dead weight of the
sampler, rods, anvil, and drive weight
on the bottom of the boring and apply
a seating blow. If excessive cuttings
are encountered at the bottom of the
boring, remove the sampler and sam-
pling rode from the boring and remove
the cuttings.
7.1.4 Mark the drill rods in three
successive 6 -in. (0.15-m) inorements
so that the advanoe of the sampler un•
r the impact 'of the hammer can be
11y observed for eaoh 6 -in. (0.16 -m)
.orement.
7.2 Drive the sampler with blows
from the 140 -1b (83.8 -kg) hammer and
count the number of blows applied in
eaoh 6 -In. (0.1B -m) increment until
one of the following occurs:
7.2.1 A total of 60 blows have been
applied during any one of the three
6 -in. (0.16 -m) increments described in
7.1.4.
'7.2.2 A total of 100 blows have been
applied.
7.2.3 There is no observed advance
of the sampler during the application of
10 successive blows of the hammer.
7.2.4 The sampler is advanced the
oomplete 18 in. (0.45 m) without the
limiting blow counts *occurring• as .de-
scribed in 7.2.1, 7.2.2, or 7.2.3.
.7.3 Record the number of blows re-
quired to effect each 6 in. (0.15m) of
penetration or fraction thereof. The
first.6 in. is oonsidered to be a seating
wve. The sum of the number of blows
ired for the second and third 6 in.
penetration is termed the "standard
penetration resistance ", or the
"N- value ". If the sampler is driven
less than_ 18 in. (0.45 m), as permitted
in 7.2.1, 7.2.2, or 7.2.3, the number of
blows per each complete 8 -in. (0.16 -m)
increment and per each partial incre-
ment shall be recorded on the boring
log. For partial increments, the depth
of penetration shall be reported to the
nearest 1 in.. (28 mm),. in .addition: to
the number of blows. If the sampler
advances below the bottom of the bor-
ing under the static weight of the drill
rods or the weight of the drill rods phis
the static weight of the hammer, this
information should be noted on the
boring log
7.4 The raising and dropping of the
140 -1b (63.6 -kg) hammer shall be ac-
complished using either of the follow-
ing two methods:
7.4.1 ".By . using a trip, automatic, or
•semi- eutbinatio hammer drop *system •
whioh lifts the 140 -1b (63.5 -kg) ham-
.mer and allows it to drop 30 t 1.0 in.
(0.76 m ± 25 mm) unimpeded. likpe attaohed to the hammer. When 7.4.2 By using" a oathead to pull a
attaohed to the hammer. When
the oathead and rope method is used .
the system and. operation shall con-
form to the following:
7.4.2.1 The cathead shall be essen-
tially free of rust, oil, or grease and
have a, diameter in the range of 6 to. 10
in. (180 to 280 mm).
ASTM Designation: D 1586
7.4.2.2 The cathead should be
operated at a minimum speed of rota-
tion of 100 RPM, or the approximate
speed of rotation shall be reported on
the boring log.
7.4.2.3 No more than 2Y rope turns
on the oathead may be used during the
performanoe of the penetration test, as
shown in Fig. 1.
NOTE 4 —The operator should generally use
either 114 of 214 rope turns, depending upon
whether or not the rope Domes off the top (114
turns) or the bottom (2!4 turns) of the oathead. It
Is generally known and aooepted that 214 or more
rope turns considerably Impedes the fall of the
hammer and should not be used to perform the
test. The oathead rope should be maintained In a
relatively dry, clean, and unfrayed oondition.
7.4.2.4 For each hammer blow, a
30 -in. (0.76 -m) lift and drop shall be
employed by the operator. The.-opera-
tion of pulling and throwing the rope
shall be performed rhythmically with-
out holding the rope at • the *top" 'of' •tlie`
stroke.
7.5 Bring the sampler to the surface
and open. Record the percent recovery
or length of sample recovered. De-
scribe the soil samples recovered as to
composition, color, stratification, and
condition, then place one or more rep -
resentative portions of the sample into
sealable moisture -proof containers
(jars) without ramming or distorting
any apparent stratification. Seal each
container to prevent evaporation of
soil moisture. Affix labels to the con-
tainers bearing job designation, bor-
ing number, sample depth, and the
blow count per 6 -in. (0:15 -m) incre-
ment. Protect the samples against ex-
treme temperature changes: If there is
a soil change within the sampler,
make a jar for • each stratum and note
its location in the sampler barrel. •
8. RaDOrt
8.1 Drilling information shall be
reoorded in the field and shall include
the following:
8.1.1 Name and location of job,
8.1.2 Names of' crew,
- 8.1.3 'Type and +make of drilling
machine,
8.1.4 Weather conditions,
8.1.5 Date and time of start and
finish of boring,
8.1.8 Boring number and location
(station and coordinates, if available
and applicable),
8.1.7 8urfaoe elevation, if available,
8.1.8 Method of advancing and
cleaning the boring.
8.1.9 Method of keeping boring
open,
8.1.10 Depth of water surfaoe and
drilling depth at the time of a noted
loss of drilling fluid, and time and date
when reading or notation was made,
8.1.11 Location of strata changes,
8.1.12 Size of casing, depth of cased
portion of boring,
8.1.13 Equipment and method of
driving sampler,
8.1.14 Type of sampler and length
and inside diameter of barrel (note use
of liners),
8.1.15 Size, type, and section length
of the sampling rods, and
Remarks..
8.2 Data obtained for each sample
....,sbalLbe . recorded .tn:the field and shall
include the following:
8.2.1 Sample depth and, if utilized,
the sample number,
8.2.2 Description of soil,
8.2.3 Strata changes within sample,
8.2.4 Sampler penetration and re-
covery lengths, and
8.2.5 Number of blows per 6 -in.
(0.15 -m) or partial increment.
9. Precision and Bias
9.1 Variations in N- values of 10096
or more have been observed when us-
ing different standard penetration test
apparatus and drillers for adjacent
borings in the same soil • formation.
Current opinion, based on field experi-
once; indicates-that when using the
same apparatus and driller, N- values
in the same soil can be reproduoed
with a coefficient of variation of about
10%.
9.2 The use of faulty equipment,
suoh as an extremely massive or dam-
aged anvil, a rusty oathead, a low
speed oathead, an old, oily rope, or
massive or poorly.lubrioated rope
sheaves can significantly contribute to
differences in N- values obtained be-
tween operator -drill rig systems.
9.3 The variability in N- values pro-
duced by different drill rigs and opera-
tors may be reduoed by measuring
that part of the hammer energy deliv-
ered into the drill rods from the sam-
pler and adjusting N on the basis of
comparative energies. A method for
energy measurement and N -value ad-
justment is currently under develop-
ment.
1
1
•
STS Earthwork Guideline
Fill or backfill required on the project should consist of a non - frozen, non- organic granular
material, aggregate or natural soil that is free of debris and particles larger than 25 percent of
the loose lift thickness. The natural water content of cohesive fill soil at the time of compaction
should generally be within -2 to +3 percent of the optimum water content as determined by the
Standard Proctor test (ASTM D -698). Difficulty in obtaining the desired degree of compaction is
expected for soil that is too dry or too wet. The water content should be adjusted by sprinkling if
too dry or by scarifying and aerating if too wet. Blending with an additive such as fly ash or drier
soil may also help produce an acceptable water content.
Fill or backfill which is relatively uniform should be used on the project. Non - uniform materials
or mixing two or more materials will reduce the degree of certainty in the test results and will
tend to cause variable compressibility of the fill.
Fill or backfill should be placed on a firm, checked subgrade in horizontal lifts with a loose
thickness not greater than 12 inches for granular material and 9 inches for cohesive soil. It
should then be compacted with equipment that is suited to the soil type and compaction
requirements. Normally, vibratory roller or plate compactors are better suited for granular soils,
while a sheepsfoot or other "kneading" type of compactors are more effective in cohesive soils.
Lighter, hand - propelled compactors should generally be utilized to compact backfill within 5 feet
of structures unless the structure is designed to resist expected lateral pressures from use of
heavier compactors. When using lighter, hand - propelled compactors, a maximum loose lift
thickness of 8 inches should be used for granular material and 6 inches for cohesive soil.
Unless stated otherwise in the report text, fill or backfill that supports foundations, floor slabs
that are loaded in excess of 400 psf, and roadway pavement that is subjected to concentrated
automobile or truck traffic should be compacted to a dry density of 95% or more of the
maximum dry density determined. by Standard Proctor tests (ASTM D -698) on representative
samples of the fill material. Fill or backfill that supports lightly loaded floor slabs, sidewalks or
pavement that is subjected to dispersed automobile traffic should be compacted to a dry density
of 90% or more of the maximum dry density determined by Standard Proctor tests on
representative samples of the fill material. Compaction tests may be considered satisfactory if
the average of five consecutive tests on similarly compacted material exceeds the required
compaction and no individual test is more than 2% below the required percentage of
compaction.
•
Proper compaction is generally difficult to achieve near the edge of a slope or embankment fill
due to lack of confinement. For this reason, we recommend that the compacted fill or backfill
zone extend horizontally beyond the edge of foundations a minimum of 1 foot at the subgrade
level and then with depth at a minimum slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Fill material acceptability, subgrade preparation and testing for suitability, fill placement and fill
compaction should be monitored continuously or at least regularly by a qualified soils technician
whom reports to the geotechnical engineer for the project. Compaction density for structural fill
should be tested. at a minimum frequency of once per 5000 ft2 of fill area or once per 200 yd3 of
compacted material placed unless stated otherwise in our report. In non - structural fill areas,
testirlr, . franl itani'k a n, , he rr rlt tnorl in k If
EXHIBIT G
Noise and Vibration
Monitoring/Plan Information
•
]' STS Consultants, Ltd. voice 763 - 315 -6300
`� 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 fax 763 -315 -1836
r STS C p N S U L.TANTS Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 -5547 web www.stsconsultants.com
January 20, 2003
Mr. Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
Re. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Bridge and Road Construction at Pheasant
Hills Preserve 12th Addition in Lino Lakes, Minnesota; STS Project 98623 -A
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
The site of the proposed Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition is a ridge of higher land or "island" totally
encircled by a wetland. In order to construct this project, it will be necessary to build a bridge across the
wetland. Because of the depths of compressible organic soils at the bridge site, we have recommended
that the bridge should be supported on driven piles. Your consulting engineer for this project, Loucks and
Associates, Inc., has asked us to provide comments and recommendations regarding noise and vibration
associated with the pile driving, for inclusion in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
Noise
For this specific project, we have recommended the use of steel pipe piles. We recommend that these
should be driven with a relatively small hammer, to reduce noise and vibration effects. The pile driving
hammer should have a rated energy no more than 30,000 foot pounds per blow. Typically, such a
hammer operates a frequency of about 50 to 60 blows per minute, which relatively speaking is considered
to be a low frequency. The hammer creates impulsive noise (series of repeated sounds) which would
slightly exceed the noise standards for a Noise 1 classification area, namely 60 to 65 decibels. Thus the
pile driving should be restricted to no earlier than 8 AM, and no later than 4 PM, with no pile driving on
Saturdays and Sundays.
Vibration
With respect to vibration effects from pile driving, we have reviewed actual seismograph data taken
adjacent to pile driving operations. This material was provided to us courtesy of LH Bolduc Company and
Carl Bolander and Sons Company. The seismograph tests indicate that the frequency of the vibrations is
less than 2 cycles per second and the maximum particle velocity recorded, even as close as 15 to 20 feet
from the pile driver, is generally less than 1 inch per second. On this basis, there should be no damage
to the nearest house, which is 70 feet from one end of the bridge. It should be noted that the human body
is quite sensitive, and thus occupants of the house might feel some small vibrations, or some crockery
may rattle during the pile driving, but the effects on the structure should be none or negligible. A figure
showing safe vibration levels for residential structures is appended.
We trust that this provides the information necessary for inclusion in the EAW. If we can be of further
service, please call us.
Sincerely,
STS • SULTANTS T
Mervyn Mindes . P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
MM /cb
Encs: Figure 6 -2 "Safe Vibration Levels for Residential Structures"
cc: Mr. Jared Andrews — Loucks and Associates, Inc.
C623A001.doc
Reviewed By:
James H. Overtoom, P.E.
Principal EngineerNice President
t00 -LH-8 )4/02)
100
60
AC
SAFE VIBRATION LEVELS FOP. RSSIDENTIAL STRCCTLIRZS
1 1 1
20 -Major damage
v=7.6 in/sec
1-Minor damage
I 1 v=5.4 in/sec
10 1
8
WWII/NM
AMMON. ••••■••A
11•••■■•••
AIMIIIMEMS
0
ea
1 1
•
0 A
0
1
1
111,*
•08 0
00 arto
a
t 0 0
••• 0=r I= FT •■••
o
o OS a
a■.41116
a
a ..111 op
•
•
dr)
oao
•
Damage zone
1111■11 MINOM .1•■•••
••■••■
••■••
—
..n
4
0
0
A
•
Bureau of Mines
Longefors
Edwards and Northwood
Bureau of Mines
Longefors
Edwards and Northwood
ASCE-BuMines Test
1 1 1 - 1
2. 4 6 10
Safe zone
•
Safe Wasting criterion
•
• Crandall ER=3.0, v=3.3 in/sec-1
Langefors v=2.8 in/sec---11 1
• ti---
Edwards and 1 !
Northwood v=2.0 in/sec—Jr.
Bureau of Mines v=2.0
}Major damage data
Minor damage data
1 1 1
20 40 60
FREQUENCY, cps
1 1 1
100 200 400 600 1000
-Particle velocity versus frequency with recommended safe blasting criterion.
FIGURE 6-2
From Nicholls, Johnson and Duvall, 1971
Environmental
Memo
To: Michael Grochalla
From: Marty Asleson
CC: Jeff Smyser
Date: July 31, 2003
Re: EAW Review /PHP12 /July 30 Environmental Board
The Environmental Board, on July 30, 2003, made the following comments about the
Pheasant Hills Preserve Environmental Assessment Worksheet:
• Page 2, Item 6. Somewhere in the Project Description section, a statement
should include language that states, that the project is within a Shoreland
Management Area.
Page 5, Item 9, second paragraph from the bottom, second sentence. The word
Project should be inserted between "The and is ".
Page 6, Item 11, first paragraph, second sentence, should read "Any immediate
impact on wildlife populations would be due to activities associated with
construction such as tree cutting to be performed for the road alignment
and home placement and bridge construction
Page 11, second paragraph, minimum lot area The number 20,000 sf. should
be verged.
• Page 11, third paragraph. The paragraph should state "Although the proposed
project does meet lot and width requirements, it does not meet the
requirements for setbacks from the OHWL because the island is less than
300 feet wide."
• Page 13, item b. Wards Lake needs to be identified as in or out of the Rice
Creek Chain of Lakes Park.
• Page 1
• Page 14, Item 19c, seventh sentence. Change adsorbent to absorbent
• Page 15, Item 20b, Language should be added that addresses "fuel, and oil
handling of construction equipment on site."
• Page 16, item 24. Dewatering pump noise needs to be addressed as an
impact, effects assessed, and intentions for mitigation stated.
• Page 17, item 24, first paragraph. Construction traffic needs to be addressed
as an impact, effects assessed, and intentions for mitigation stated.
• Page 17, item 24, second paragraph. Dewatering noise should again be
addressed.
• Page 18, item 25. "Scenic views and vistas should be checked as `yes."
• Page 21, item 28. Construction traffic needs to be addressed as a possible
impact
• Page 22, item 30. Migrating eagle populations need to be addressed.
Record of Decision
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition
City of Lino Lakes
Anoka County, Minnesota
draft: July 1, 2004
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th
Addition was prepared according the MN Rules 4410. The City of Lino Lakes is the responsible
governmental unit for the EAW. This document and Resolution - constitute the City's
record of decision.
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) and circulated
for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability was
published in the EQB Monitor on September 1, 2003.
The thirty -day comment period closed October 1, 2003. Written comments received from
agencies and citizens are summarized and responded to in this report in the section "Summaries
of Comments and the City's Responses ". Copies of the comments are attached to the end of this
document.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition, is a single family detached
residential development located in Lino Lakes, Minnesota . The project includes eight single
family lots. The subject property includes 30.7 gross acres. Seven lots are proposed on an island
that has 4.8 acres of upland. Another lot with one acre of upland is on the mainland. The project
would be served with municipal sewer and water.
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 1
•
•
•
The proposal includes a bridge, 300 feet long, to provide access to the lots on the island. In
effect, the bridge would be an extension of Ruffed Grouse Road, though the bridge itself would
be a private roadway owned and maintained by a homeowner association. The initial bridge
design was a truss bridge with two spans. A more recent design proposal is for a five -span
bridge without the tall trusses.
Water and sanitary sewer would connect to the existing facilities in Ruffed Grouse Road and run
across the bridge to serve the island lots. Like the bridge, these would be privately owned and
maintained facilities. The proposal includes a lift station on the island.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Compatibility with Local Plans, Zoning, Shoreland, Floodplain Requirements
Comprehensive Plan: The city's comprehensive plan guides the site for Low
Density Sewered Residential land use, defined as up to three units per acre. The property is
within the Stage 1 Growth Area (pre- 2010): municipal sewer and water could be extended to
serve the site. The proposed residential development is compatible with the current surrounding
uses and the land use and staged growth elements of the City's comprehensive plan.
Zoning: The site currently is zoned R -X Rural Executive. As such, 10 -acre lot size
minimums apply. The project proposal includes a rezoning to a single- family residential zone
that would include municipal sewer and water service. The proposed R -1X Single Family
Executive zoning would be consistent with the adjacent Quail Ridge development.
Shoreland: The project is located within a shoreland management overlay district that
includes land within 1000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Wards Lake. In fact,
the project would be exempt from the EAW process because of its small size if it were not in a
shoreland overlay district or a floodplain. Although the proposed project does meet the lot area
and width requirements, it does not meet the requirements for 150' setbacks because the island is
less than 300 feet wide.
Floodplain: Around Wards Lake, the 100 -year flood elevation, which defines the floodplain,
is 887.6. This includes the edges of the island and the peninsula. The City's surface water plan
requires that the lowest floor elevations of structures must be at least two feet above this
elevation, or 889.6. Standard plat review by the City includes compliance with lowest floor
elevation requirements.
Proposed floodplain fill is 800 cubic yards. An area southeast of the island and north of Birch St.
is proposed for compensatory storage to match the volume of floodplain fill. The City will
ensure that the Rice Creek Watershed District receives fill information for its review. The
Watershed review of the plat/PUD application includes the need for compensatory storage. The
Watershed requires a floor elevation at least two feet above the 100 year flood.
Planned Unit Development: The project includes numerous unusual physical aspects. The
standard zoning and subdivision requirements of the City's ordinances would not allow the
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 2
•
•
project as proposed. Shoreland setbacks cannot be met, private roads are not normally allowed,
the private road is in the shore impact area, and the road will extend a cul de sac that already
exceeds the maximum length of 500 feet.
Because of these and potentially other inconsistencies with ordinance requirements, a planned
unit development (PUD) has been proposed. A PUD offers the opportunity to deviate from strict
application of ordinance requirements to achieve goals —such as more efficient use of land and
preservation of desirable site characteristics —that would not be possible when adhering to
normal ordinance requirements.
An important question for the proposed project is whether the proposed design meets enough of
such goals to justify the many deviations from normal requirements. However, the decision to
approve or deny the application for a PUD rezoning and preliminary plat is separate from the
EAW process. Information gathered for this EAW will help in making that decision, but it is not
the purpose of the EAW to definitively answer the question of whether to approve or deny the
project.
Wildlife Impacts
A search in the Minnesota Natural Heritage database revealed four documented occurrences of
` Blanding's Turtles ", a state threatened species. Although none of these occurrences were
within the project area, they were within a few miles, and it is likely that Blanding's Turtles may
use the site if habitat is suitable. Based on recommendations of the DNR, a number of mitigation
techniques are proposed by the project proposer for avoiding and minimizing impacts to
Blanding's Turtle populations.
Wetland Impacts
No wetland fill was proposed for the two -span bridge. If the new five -pier bridge design
requires wetland fill, the proposal must be reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The
District is the local governmental unit under the Wetlands Conservation Act.
Dewatering and fill for the bridge pilings technically is within the area of Wards Lake because it
is below the ordinary high water level. This area falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the
Minnesotat Dept. of Natural Resources.
Noise, Vibration
Individual home construction will not cause unusual or substantial impacts. Construction noise
is an important issue for this project because of the need for a pile driver for construction of the
bridge. The potential noise and vibration has created concern over impacts on existing nearby
residences in the Quail Ridge neighborhood. The nearest existing home is approximately 70 feet
from the west end of the proposed bridge.
The noise from the pile driving would be unpleasant for nearby residents. It will be temporary —
the duration of the bridge construction. Construction hours will be limited by a standard city
requirement in all development agreements: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 3
•
•
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday; no work on Sundays or holidays. Sound levels can be
monitored and if the maximum level is exceeded, adjustments can be made to the methods being
used.
The other aspect of the pile driving activity is the potential for impacts from vibration. If the
project proceeds, the City will require a pre - construction survey and monitoring program based
on specifications used by MnDOT. The specifics would need to be determined further, but the
program would include elements such as:
1. A pre - construction building survey within 100 feet of the project to document the existing
exterior and interior conditions
2. Crack displacement monitoring gauges to help verify distress if any should develop
3. Continuously recording seismographs
4. Submittal of a plan identifying schedule, vibration, equipment, and monitoring log
5. Records of construction location, hours worked, depth, and equipment generating the
vibrations
6. Submittal of construction logs weekly including complaints
7. A test program prior to beginning activities to demonstrate the requirements can be met
8. Sound levels should not exceed 90 decibels measured at 50 feet
9. Maximum vibration levels could be established. If these limits are exceeded, the contractor
would have to cease the activity exceeding the limit and design corrective action.
10. In addition to these elements, a reasonable financial security could be established to repair
any damage to existing structures. This could involve third party arbitration to determine the
fairness of a claim and the appropriate remedy.
Such a program would establish requirements to protect existing structures and means to enforce
the requirements. While the above list represents a reasonable approach, it may be appropriate to
adjust the specifics of these requirements depending on specific equipment, additional soils
information, the new bridge design, or other information.
Water Quality Impacts
Some impact on water quality will occur with the dewatering and other activities as part of
construction of the bridge. The original design reviewed by the DNR for bridge permit approval
showed five piers. Although approved, the design was later revised to show one pier and two
150 -foot spans. The most recent five -pier design will require additional fill and construction
dewatering. These impacts will be temporary.
A "preservation area" has been incorporated into the stormwater plan. This area is located on the
north side of the island. Because it is downhill from the building sites, flow control and water
quality are enhanced by flow dispersion through duff, undisturbed soils, and native vegetation.
The preserved area will be clearly marked during clearing and construction on the site. The
project approval can include a mechanism to protect this area such as covenants or a
conservation easement.
Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction in accordance with the Best
Management Practices contained in the MPCA Stormwater Construction Permit program to
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 4
•
•
•
minimize impact to areas susceptible to erosion. These measures will include the use of silt
fences, temporary sediment basins, cut off swales, rock construction entrances, cleaning of
adjacent streets as needed, rip rap at storm outfalls, silt fence around storm inlets during
construction, and timely revegetation of all disturbed areas. The site will be monitored by the
Rice Creek Watershed District and the City engineer for erosion and defective erosion control
measures.
The close proximity of proposed stormwater ponds to a waterbody always raises the question
about groundwater and a pond's real capacity. If the normal groundwater level causes water to
partially fill a pond, it may not have adequate capacity if this is not accounted for in its design.
The proposed ponds on the island must comply with current standards and function as designed.
This is a normal element of project review by both the City and the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
A condition regarding no disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their homes can
be included in the project requirements and recorded against all properties as a platting
requirement. This was part of the developer's discussions with the DNR regarding the bridge
permit.
Regarding the location of the bridge, the lake (and bordering wetlands) spans approximately 500
feet to the west and to the south to the nearest high ground. A bridge from either of these
directions would require additional piers and corresponding fill and construction dewatering.
Visual Impacts
Any new development will alter the appearance of an area. In addition to the new houses, the
proposed bridge will change the visual appearance of the area for several residents of the existing
Quail Ridge development. A 300 ft. bridge is not a common aspect of new development, and
those residents might consider the bridge an adverse visual impact. A view of undeveloped
wetland and woods may well be considered scenic, though the views of wetlands and woods in
the project area are not unique in Lino Lakes or surrounding communities.
The more recent proposal, which returns to an original five -span, flat bridge design, reduces the
visual impact considerably. The City can require the use of wooden railings, which will fit into
the wooded environment. The two -span truss bridge would be a greater visual impact because of
the tall trusses.
There will be a visual impact, and it will be permanent. However, the extent of the impact will
be similar to the type and extent of changes that occur when new roads are constructed and
homes are built in previously undeveloped areas.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
A background review of records, literature and archaeological research relevant to the history
and prehistory of the area was carried out. No previously recorded archaeological or
historical /architectural properties have been recorded in the area. A Phase I archaeological
survey was carried out in November of 2000. No historic or prehistoric remains were found in
DRAFT July 1, 2004'
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 5
• the project area. The survey was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for
comment. The SHPO raised no issues with the survey.
•
•
Property Boundary, Regional Park Reserve
The preliminary plat, Figure 11 in the EAW, shows the property boundaries. The northern
border of the property cuts off approximately 30 feet of the northern tip of the island. Property
north of this line is within the regional park reserve and is owned by Anoka County. This is
within an area acquired by the City by eminent domain in 1997 -98 and conveyed to Anoka
County. The surveying needed for the development project was more extensive and detailed
than what was prepared for the eminent domain action. The more detailed survey revealed that
the property border cuts off a tip of the island.
While this is unfortunate and creates a clumsy situation, it has no serious effect on the park
reserve or the proposed project. The project grading plan does not include disturbing the tip of
the island that is north of the boundary line.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The main environmental issues are noise and vibration from the pile driving activity during
construction, and the visual impact of the bridge.
Noise: The noise from the pile driving will be unpleasant for nearby residents. It will be
temporary the duration of the bridge construction. Construction hours will be limited by a
standard city requirement in all development agreements: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday; no work on Sundays or holidays.
Vibration: As with construction noise, this is a temporary, though unpleasant impact. A pre -
construction survey and ongoing monitoring program, as well as additional financial security,
will be required.
Visual: A flat bridge design will minimize the visual impacts compared to a truss bridge. While
the bridge will be visible, it will be only about 10 feet higher than the tops of the vegetation.
The City can require the use of wooden railings, which will fit into the wooded environment.
There will be a visual impact, and it will be permanent. However, the extent of the impact will
be similar to the type and extent of changes that occur when new roads are constructed and
homes are built in previously undeveloped areas.
In addition, the following issues will require future attention or enforcement and will be
addressed as part of the plat review and approval:
1. The City will require a specific and extensive tree preservation plan for the plat and
individual plans for custom graded lots. These are required in the City's newly adopted
subdivision and zoning ordinances.
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 6
• 2. Erosion control and tree protection measures must be installed before grading begins on the
project. The City has begun strict enforcement of these requirement.
3. Individual custom grading of each will be examined to minimize impacts to the existing
topography and minimize other impacts to the environment. Plans must clarify where mass
grading is proposed, if any, and where custom grading is proposed.
4. The construction of rainwater gardens in individual lots may be possible, increasing
infiltration of stormwater runoff.
5. A delineated preservation area on the north side of the island will be clearly marked during
clearing and construction on the site. Care will be exercised to not damage valuable trees or
disturb designated buffer zones. This area will remain in a natural state. Covenants will be
used so property owners cannot remove vegetation in this area. Monuments will be posted
delineating this area. Drainage from the rear of the homes will travel through this area
allowing infiltration and reducing runoff The project approval can include a mechanism to
protect this area such as covenants or a conservation easement.
6. Using roof leaders to direct runoff away from impervious surfaces will reduce the volume of
runoff from the site.
7. Covenants can be included in homeowners' association by laws to prohibit the use of
• phosphorous on the lawns.
8. The posting of signs and other aspects of a protection plan, as recommended by MN DNR,
will be required to help protect Blanding's Turtles .
9. A flat bridge design will minimize the visual impacts compared to a truss bridge. The
clearance under the bridge will be approximately 12 feet above ordinary high water level,
and approximately six feet during 100 -year flood conditions, which allows for canoe access.
10. Any fill activity in the lake (below the ordinary high water level) or dewatering must
conform to DNR standards.
11. If any wetland fill does become necessary, the developer must obtain necessary approvals
from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
12. The City will require utility and roadway specifications that demonstrate compliance with
current City standards. These will be of greater detail than have been submitted to date.
13. The City will require a pre - construction survey and monitoring program for noise and
vibration (as noted above).
14. Damage to existing streets should be considered in the establishment of financial securities
for a development agreement for the project.
DRAFT, July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 7
15. A small, temporary noise wall should be constructed around any dewatering pump that will
run after daytime working hours.
16. A condition regarding no disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their homes
can be included in the project requirements and recorded against all properties as a platting
requirement.
17. The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City to step in
and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the infrastructure, and assess the
cost to the property owners. The City also could require an inspection and maintenance
program.
18. The City could impose a prohibition on the burning of vegetation cleared during construction
and require that vegetation be chipped and the chips disposed of off site.
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 8
II SUMMARIES OF COMMENTS AND CITY RESPONSES
•
This section includes responses to substantive and timely comments on the EAW received by the
indicated agencies and individuals. Summaries of the comments are listed with bullets. The
City's responses follow the comments. The complete comment letters can be found in
Attachment A..
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)
A DNR letter from October 1, 2003 states that:
• The bridge descriptions lack sufficient detail to allow for full and effective evaluation
• The bridge partially described in the EAW is not the same as that authorized by the DNR
bridge permit in 2001
• In 2002, state rules changed so that currently, the rules prohibit the construction of crossings
over public waters that provide private access to an island. They also require that bridges be
"consistent with the natural surroundings ".
The letter also asks:
• What assurances are there that the private bridge and private sanitary sewer forcemain will be
properly inspected and maintained?
• Questions regarding the effectiveness of the "preservation area" on the north side of the
island (Item 12) cannot be answered without some knowledge of its size.
• Item 12 states that each lot will be individually custom graded to preserve trees and minimize
impacts. Figure 12 includes a statement "heavy duty silt fence to be installed after mass
grading ".
• During the review for the DNR bridge permit, the project proposer committed to a stipulation
being recorded prohibiting homeowners from disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the
back of their homes. This agreement should be mentioned in the EAW.
The developer provided additional information on the bridge in May and June 2004. A letter
from DNR of May 10, 2004 states that the bridge in supplied drawings would be authorized by
the existing public waters work permit.
City Response: The City will require that the project obtain the necessary DNR bridge
permit, and the May 2004 letter states that the proposed five -span bridge is acceptable to the
DNR. The City has no authority over the DNR permitting process.
The bridge, drive, and utilities would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association.
The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City to step in and
effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the infrastructure, and assess the cost to the
property owners. The City also could require an inspection and maintenance program. The
specifics of these requirements have not yet been written. However, the importance of these
issues cannot be overstated.
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 9
•
As noted in Item 31 of the EAW, the preservation area on the north side of the island will be
clearly marked and will remain in a natural state. The "mass grading" note on one of the plans
must be clarified prior to project approval. Custom grading on individual lots is the intent.
Appropriate clearing and grading for the road will occur.
The condition regarding no disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their homes
can be included in the project requirements and recorded against all properties as a platting
requirement.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• Sanitary sewer connection plans will need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services for review.
• The Metropolitan Council's GIS parcel data shows the Outlot A parcel as part of the Rice
Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve, owned by Anoka County. This discrepancy
must be addressed.
• The City's comprehensive plan guides most of the island for Rural land use. Only part of the
island and the tip of the peninsula are guided for Low Density Sewered Residential.
• The shoreland requirements stated in the EAW differ from the statewide standards.
City Response: A review of sanitary sewer connections by Environmental Services is a
• standard requirement and should be considered added to the list in Item 8 of the EAW.
•
The preliminary plat, Figure 11 in the EAW, shows the property boundaries. The northern
border of the property cuts off approximately 30 feet of the northern tip of the island. Property
north of this line is within the regional park reserve and is owned by Anoka County. This area
was acquired by the City and conveyed to Anoka County. The detailed surveying needed for the
development project revealed that the property border cuts off a tip of the island. The grading
plan does not include disturbing this portion of the island.
It is a mapping error that overlaid the Rural category on the eastern part of the island. City staff
recognized this error after approval of the comprehensive plan. The intent of the comprehensive
plan was to include the entire island in the area guided for Low Density Sewered Residential. It
doesn't make sense to guide only part of the island for development.
The City's shoreland ordinance requirements do indeed differ from the statewide standards. The
latest state rules were effective in 1989. The City of Lino Lakes adopted a shoreland ordinance
in 1995, which was approved by the MN Dept. of Natural Resources. This was the intended
process when the statewide standards were created: to serve as a model until local municipalities
prepared their own ordinances. It is not unusual that there are differences between a city's
ordinance and the DNR's model ordinance. The City ordinance applies and includes the
standards listed in Item 14 of the EAW. (It should be noted that the DNR's 1989 statewide
standards require a 150' setback on natural environment lakes, as does the current City
ordinance. The 200' setback cited in the Met Council letter is from an older, obsolete set of state
standards.)
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 10
•
•
•
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA)
Due to limited resources available to the MPCA, they did not review the EAW and have no
specific comments.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT)
MnDOT states it has no comment: it appears there will be little impact to the highway system.
TOM & KIM PAWLAK
• Item 6: More information is needed on the bridge. Utilities crossing under the bridge is a
concern because of possible failures.
• Item 25 & 26: The bridge will have a visual impact on a scenic view.
• Item 7: EAW Guidelines say that the length of "linear" project should be given (roads,
pipelines, sewers).
• Item 11 says that there will be no wetland fill, including bridge abutments, while 600 cubic
yards of fill will be imported. Where will the fill be placed?
• Asks for more detail on dewatering for bridge construction noted in Item 13.
• Item 14: Requests a list of standard requirements that would not be met with the
development.
• Item 15: Impacts on fauna?
• Item 20: Solid wastes of construction are not addressed, and solid wastes crossing the bridge
through pipes should be addressed.
• Item 23: Waste trees and vegetation to be burned during construction should be addressed.
the developer has told residents that he would likely burn this waste vegetation.
• Item 25 notes parkland next to Quail Ridge neighborhood. Is the proposed project in the
parkland?
• Item 27: The island was supposed to be a park, according to the City's comprehensive park
plan, but then was traded for some other land.
• Item 28: Private utilities are not discussed.
• City snow clearing equipment should not be used for the private road.
• Statements in Item 24 regarding noise should be clarified: pile driving "would slightly
exceed the noise standards...namely 60 to 65 decibels." Later, text states "sound levels
should not exceed 90 decibels measured at 50 feet."
City Response:
Bridge information: The developer submitted additional information on the bridge in May and
June of 2004. This information includes computer generated graphics of the bridge and
supporting data. See Attachment B.
DRAFT July 1 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 11
•
•
The design in the EAW described an abutment at each end and one pier in the middle, with
trusses for support. The latest proposed bridge design includes five piers in the water and an
abutment at each end. It will be approximately 22 feet wide. The bottom of the beam in the
center of the bridge will be at an elevation of 890.4. The top of the road surface will be 893.6.
The rail will be about two feet higher, at about 895.6. The center of the bridge will be
approximately two feet higher than the ends, due to the slight arc of the design. The top of the
rail will be approximately 13 feet above the level of the base of the vegetation, or ground level.
If the vegetation grows four feet tall, the top of the bridge would be nine feet above the tops of
the vegetation.
The rails will be wood or steel, but the City could require wood to fit in with the wooded area.
The bridge supports, or piles, will be 10 " -12" pipes covered with concrete.
The sanitary sewer and water facilities proposed to run under the bridge would be designed
according to all minimum engineering requirements. Such facilities running under bridges is not
unique. The actual design would be part of the engineering review of the project, just as the they
would be on any development.
Linear Project: "Linear projects" in the EAW Guidelines is referring to such projects as
highways, petroleum pipelines, large trunk or interceptor sewer lines, and other large projects
that are fundamentally linear in nature As stated in the EAW, the total area of the property
involved in the proposed project is 30.7 acres. The new cul de sac at the end of Ruffed Grouse
Road would be extend about 150 feet to the bridge. The bridge would be about 300 feet long.
The road on the island would be about 720 feet long.
Fill: Construction of the roads, especially the road on the island, will require a significant
amount of fill. The bridge abutments are proposed to be out of the wetlands.
Dewatering: Typically, barriers are put in place around the location to be dewatered. Water is
then pumped out of the inside of the barriers. Then the construction occurs in the dewatered
area. Some water will seep in through the barriers, so a pump runs continually. The City would
require that a small, temporary noise wall be constructed around any dewatering pump that will
run after daytime working hours.
Standard Requirements: As stated in the EAW, the project includes numerous unusual
physical aspects. Standard zoning and subdivision requirements of the City's ordinances would
not allow the project as proposed. Shoreland setbacks cannot be met, private roads are not
normally allowed, the private road is in the shore impact area, and the road will extend a cul de
sac that already exceeds the maximum length of 500 feet.
Fauna: Item 15 refers to surface water use, i.e., boats, and their impacts on wildlife. The only
likely watercraft from the proposed project would be canoes. Impacts of development on the
island is addressed in Item 11, including means of minimizing impacts on Blanding's turtles.
Solid Waste: The pipe under the bridge would carry sanitary sewer wastewater. This is not
"solid waste ". Solid waste is such things as household trash, feedlot manure, treatment plant
sludge, and incinerator ash. Only typical construction waste will be produced during
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 12
• construction, and only typical household waste will be produced by the proposed residential
project.
•
Burning: Though the burning of trees and shrubs technically is not a stationary source air
emission, it is worth discussing. It is common for developers to burn cleared vegetation. A
burning permit from the Centennial Fire District is necessary. Burning on the island is not the
optimal way to dispose of the vegetation because of public safety concerns. The area is thickly
vegetated, homes are nearby, and there is poor access to the island for fire fighting equipment.
The City could impose a prohibition on burning and require that vegetation be chipped and the
chips disposed of off site.
Parkland: The project is not in City park property. The area dedicated as park on the Quail
Ridge plat is immediately east of the Quail Ridge lots, and is included within the property
boundary of land platted as Quail Ridge. This area is primarily wetland. Land to the west of the
Quail Ridge lots also was dedicated as park: much of this area is wetland as well. The City's
comprehensive park plan of 1992 does include the island property as a future park, with a
boardwalk trail. However, the City does not own the land and has no funding plan to purchase it.
Private Utilities, Road: Typically, a reference to "utilities" in the context of land
development refers to sanitary sewer and water. As discussed in the EAW, these would be
owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. Private utilities such as electricity, cable
television, and natural gas would need to be designed to serve the site. These likely would cross
the bridge to the island, though not necessarily. Private utilities locations typically are not
reviewed as part of development applications. They are designed by the utility companies and
developer and reviewed by the City prior to construction. The private water facilities, sanitary
sewer facilities, road and bridge would be maintained by the homeowners' association, not by
the City.
Noise, Pile Driving: This issue is discussed above in the "Findings" section. If the project
proceeds, the City will require a pre - construction survey and monitoring program based on
specifications used by MnDOT. The specifics of the survey and monitoring requirements would
be tailored to the project.
DRAFT July 1, 2004
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12t Addn. EAW Record of Decision
page 13
Attachment A
Comment letters
•
•
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
1200 Wamer Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106
651.772.7900
October 1, 2003
RE: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Smyser:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Pheasant Hills
Preserve in the City of Lino Lakes. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Description (Item No. 6), Physical Impacts on Water Resources (Item No 12)
These items describe the proposed bridge to the island as one with one center support pier supporting four
150 foot steel trusses. Bridge descriptions in the EAW lack sufficient detail to allow for full and effective
evaluation of that aspect of the project. The EAW should include drawings. DNR permit No. 2001 -6109
authorizes a bridge based on application materials used to review theproject. The bridge partially
described in the EAW document is not the same as that authorized by the permit and, therefore, may not
be buildable. Additionally, Minnesota Rules Part 6115.0231, Subpart 2., F., requires that bridges be
"consistent with the natural surroundings ". Minnesota Rules Part 61 15.0230, Subp. 5 states that, "the
project must not exceed more than a minimum encroachment, change, or damage to the environment... ".
In short, any bridge over Wards Lake will need to be authorized with a permit for working in public
waters, and should be consistent with the natural character of the area
We are also concerned about the bridge being privately owned. In 2002, the rules regarding bridges over
public waters to islands were changed. Private bridge crossings were permitable in 2001, when DNR
permit No. 2001 -6109 was issued for the proposed bridge. Currently, Minnesota Rules Part 6115.0230,
Subpart 3., item F., prohibits the construction of crossings that "provide private access to an island." This
rule was changed to recognize that it is reasonable to minimize impacts to public waters unless public
access is determined to be in the public interest. It was further recognized that private access to an island
results in a loss or diminishment of the public's ability to use and enjoy the surface area of public waters.
Physical Impacts on Water Resources (Item No. 12)
It appears that the stormwater runoff will be handled well.
This item mentions that a "preservation area" will be incorporated into the stormwater plan. Its functions
are described at the top of page 9. Questions regarding its ultimate effectiveness cannot be answered
without some knowledge of its size. The EAW should include this information.
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651 -296 -6157 1- 888 - 646 -6367 TTY: 651 - 296 -5484 1- 800 - 657 -3929
•
•
Also, during the review process for DNR permit No. 2001 -6109, the project proposer committed in an
August 5, 2001 memo that a stipulation will be recorded with the City of Lino Lakes stating that new
homeowners not be allowed to disturb any of the wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their homes.
This was to prevent the almost inevitable request from landowners to dredge channels out to the open
water portion of the Lake, or for the creation of small ponds. This agreement should be mentioned in the
EAW document.
On page 9 there is a statement that each lot will be individually custom graded to preserve trees and
minimize impacts to the topography. Figure 12, however, contains the statement "Heavy duty silt fence
to be installed after mass grading ". There seems to be some inconsistency here.
Water Quality: Wastewaters (Item No. 18)
The sewage pumped through a forcemain hung from the bridge is a concern, again because of the private
ownership of the bridge. What are the assurances that the bridge and forcemain will be inspected and
maintained on a regular basis?
Visual Impacts (Item No 26)
The addition of houses and a bridge to an undeveloped island will result in visual impacts. The structures
and lighting will permanently change the character of the island visually and in other ways.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your
record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota
Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days
of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad,
the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651- 772 - 7940.
Sincerely,
for
Kathleen A. Wallace
Regional Director
C: Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Sarah Hoffman
Bryan Lueth
Tom Hovey
Dave Zappetillo
Diane Anderson
Jon Larsen, EQB
Nick Rowse, USFWS
#20020842
LLO3PheasantHls.doc
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 1 -888- 646 -6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1- 800 - 657 -3929
t Metropolitan Council
Building communities that work
October 1, 2003
Jeff Smyser
City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
RE: Lino Lakes — Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Metropolitan Council District 11 (Georgeann Hilker, 651 -426 - 1750)
Review File No. 19017 -1
Dear Mr. Smyser:
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition proposes eight single family detached lots on 30.7 acres located north
of Birch Street, east of Black Buck, and south of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. The
project includes one lot located at the end of Grouse Road with a proposed bridge from Grouse Road to an
adjacent island. The remaining seven lots are proposed on the adjacent island. As noted in the
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW), the majority of the 30.7 acres are wetlands. The entire
proposed area consists of 8.9 acres of upland and 21.8 acres of wetland. The staff review finds the EAW is
incomplete and inaccurate with respect to the Regional Recreation Open Space System based on the
Council's Geographic Information Systems data received from Anoka County. The EAW raises concern
with the boundary line regarding the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. Staff provides the
following comments for your consideration:
Item 8 Permits and Approvals Required
Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will need to be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Municipal Services staff for review, comment, and issuance
of a construction permit before connection can be made to either the municipal or metropolitan wastewater
disposal system.
Item 9 — Land Use
The Council's GIS parcel layer for Anoka County shows (Figure 11) Outlot A parcel as a part of Rice Creek
Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. The property owner of Outlot A is listed as the County via the Parks
Department. This discrepancy between the Council's information on the boundary line and Figures 11 and
12 in the EAW needs to be fully discussed in the Responsible Governmental Unit's `Response to Comments'
document. If the proposed project is within the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve, this
would impact to the Regional Recreation Open Space System.
The City's comprehensive plan guides most of the island for "Rural land use." It appears that less than one
acre of the island is guided for "low density sewered residential." This proposed area is located in the quarter
section on the western end of the island and includes the existing lots on the northern end of the peninsula
across from the island. A comprehensive plan amendment should be submitted to the Council for any land
use change.
www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602 -1888
230 East Fifth Street • St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax 602 -1550 • TTY 291 -0904
•
•
Mr. Smyser
Oct. 1, 03
Pg. 2
Item 14 — Water - related Land Use Management District
The majority of Wards Lake is within the Regional Park Reserve, resulting in a regional interest to protect
the water resource. The EAW indicates the minimum lot size will be 20,000 square feet, the minimum lot
width 80 feet, and the structure setback 150 feet. These requirements are significantly less that the statewide
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource minimum standards for a Natural Environment classified lake.
The statewide minimum standards for a non - sewered natural environment lake are:
200 feet lot width,
80,000 sq. feet minimum lot size, and
150 /150 sewer /structure setback.
The statewide minimum standards for sewered natural environment lake are:
(Assuming that sewer was feasible and approved by the City)
- 125 feet lot width,
40,000 sq. feet minimum lot size, and
150 structure setback.
Council staff suggests that the City give further review to the standards being applied to this site in
relationship to the recommended state standards. Without the planned unit development designation, the
proposed project would be subject to the City's shoreland ordinance.
Item 16 — Erosion and Sedimentation
The EAW identifies (hay) bale, checks (Figure 12) as one of the methods proposed to be specified for use as a
temporary erosion control measure during construction grading on the proposed project. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) currently considers hay bales to be generally ineffective in controlling
erosion and sedimentation and no longer recommends using hay bales. Other options may be, checked dams
of rock, staked heavy duty silt fences with large pore sizes, temporary retention ponds, and/or heavy
temporary mulching on side slopes (followed by immediate re- vegetation) in lieu of hay bales. Council staff
recommends altering the specifications for this (and other similar) proposed project(s) to conform to these
revised MPCA erosion control recommendations.
This concludes the Council's review of the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information,
please contact Christy Stark, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1750. If you have questions regarding the
technical environmental comments, please contact Jim Larsen at 651- 602 -1159.
Sincerely,
11. //
Phyll anson, Manager
Pl. . ng and Technical Assistance
cc:
Georgeann Hilker, Metropolitan Council District 11
Bob Mazanec, Sector Representative
Christy Stark, Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator
V rev iews;coinmunities,1. ine 1:tk:s'tl._etters \Lino Lakes 2003 EA Pheasant Hills Preserve. 12 :Add 19017 -1.doe
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
September 30, 2003
Mr. Jeff Smyser
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
RE: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Smyser:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the Pheasant Hills Preserve
12th Addition, prepared by the City of Lino Lakes, Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
Due to limited resources available to the MPCA, we have not reviewed the EAW for this
project. Therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU regarding the
accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, the potential impacts
that may warrant future investigation before the project is commenced, and/or the need for
an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed project.
This decision by the MPCA not to review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the
MPCA of any pending permits required by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility
of the project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite
permit conditions.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
as
Barbara Jean Conti
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Division
BJC:gs
cc: Ed Vaughan
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194; (612) 296 -6300 (Voice); (612) 282 -5332 (TTY); www.pca.state.mn.us
St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar
Cn el !1 .4 ih C I D • + .1 I a
•
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
September 18, 2003
Jeff Smyser
Lino Lake City Planner
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lake, MN 55014
SUBJECT: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition EAW
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the referenced Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. At this time Mn/DOT does not have any comment. It appears that there
would be little impact to the highway system. If you have any questions concerning this
review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1378.
Sincerely,
Brigid Gombold
Senior Transportation Planner
Copy: Doug Fisher / Anoka County Engineer
Kate Garwood / Anoka County Planning
An equal opportunity employer
Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Jeff
Tom & Kim Pawlak
6618 Ruffed Grouse Road
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651- 426 -7941
Enclosed are my comments referencing the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the proposed Pheasant Hills 12th Addition. As you have probably ascertained
for yourself:, there are many sections of this EAW with inadequate and/or missing data.
While some editorializing may exist on my part, that should not negate the very real
issues that were totally disregarded or inadequately discussed. Additionally, where I
commented on items that may be outside the scope of an EAW, it is in direct response to
information supplied within the EAW itself therefore, since the items were "put -into-
play" by the proposer, a response was warranted in this forum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish clarification on any of my comments. I
can be reached at 651- 426 -7941 or via e-mail at kim_pasvlak.@.yahoo.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
dam► "PaA414EL- F/21/43
Tom & Kim Pawlak
Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
For
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition
Proposer: Ed Vaughan
RGU: City of Lino Lakes
Section 6. Description.
6 (b): According to the EAW Guidelines Document (Preparing Environmental
Assessment Worksheets, as published by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board),
this section should include the following information:
The description should be focused on aspects of the project that may directly or
indirectly manipulate, alter or impact the physical environment.... The purpose of
the EAW is to identify and assess environmental impacts.
Subpart 23 of the Environmental Quality Board's Environmental Review Rules (Chapter
4410.0200) defines the word "environment" as follows:
Subp. 23. Environment. "Environment" means physical conditions existing in the
area that may be affected by a proposed project. It includes land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, energy resources, and artifacts or natural
features of historic, geologic, or aesthetic significance.
Any environmental review of this project that does not discuss the "aesthetic
significance" of the proposed bridge would be grossly incomplete and negligent. The
Proposer, Ed Vaughan, has shown a video of the proposed bridge to a subset of residents
of the Quail Ridge neighborhood. I have seen it; in my opinion, the proposed bridge
design very negatively impacts the aesthetic significance of the area. In addition to being
300+ ft in length, the proposed structure stands nearly two - stories high, and is proposed
to be a steel - trussed (think "jungle -gym) style. The proposer has made no effort to
propose a bridge style that would blend aesthetically with the environment.
As of 9/17/03 (according to Jeff Smyser, Lino Lakes City Planner) the RGU had yet to
see a drawing and/or photograph of the proposed bridge structure. The proposer should
provide such information to the RGU as drawings, and especially a photograph of a
similarly- constructed bridge; provide a description of the visual impact of the bridge; and
include an analysis of the "viewshed" of the bridge. An analysis of the "viewshed" is
requested in the EAW Guidelines Document (Subpart 33) with regard to communications
towers. While the proposed bridge is not a communications tower, given the aesthetics
and the height of the proposed bridge, it is not unreasonable to request the proposer
provide a viewshed analysis. According to the EQB Rules and EAW Guidelines
Document, "visual impact" of the bridge is a legitimate environmental concern. This
EAW should be considered incomplete without such items.
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 12th Addition Page 1
Additionally, I found no detailed discussion as to how utilities, such as water, sewer,
electric transmission lines, natural gas pipeline, etc., (to be hung from the bridge), are to
be constructed so that they are "protected" in such a way that they do not create a future
adverse environmental impact. What are the potential failure mechanisms of utilities
when hung from a bridge; what are the failure rates; how might such failures affect the
environment; and how are potential failures mitigated?
Section 7. Project magnitude data:
Proposer did not provide data on the "linear" projects as provided for in the EAW
Guidelines Document.
"For linear projects such as roads, pipelines, sewers or electric transmission lines
the length should be given;"
Presumably there are roads, pipelines, sewer, electric lines and a bridge that should have
been outlined in this section. In addition, "building height" of the proposed bridge should
be addressed in this section.
Section 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
In Section b, point number 4, the proposer states:
"No wetlands will be dredged, deepened, filled, nor will any culverts be used to
connect wetland areas..."
Proposer makes an apparently contradictory statement in Section 16 by stating that
approximately 6,000 cubic yards (of earth) will be imported to the site. What are these
6,000 cubic yards of earth to be used for, if not to `1l" wetland areas? Is it really ALL
for bridge approaches "outside" of the wetland boundaries? To "fill" the peninsula lot to
make it buildable?
Section 13. Water Use
While the proposer states that dewatering will be necessary to construct various elements
of the proposed bridge, no details are provided. It is impossible to determine any
potential environmental impacts, and thus whether an Environmental Impact Study is
warranted, without some level of detail on the dewatering process.
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 12th Addition Page 2
Section 14. Water - related land use management district
Proposer states: `Because of this and other normal zoning and development requirements
that cannot be met, a planned unit development (PUD) has been proposed."
While such requirements may, or may not, have environmental impact, the proposer
should enumerate, as a LIST, all such requirements that cannot be met. While this may
be outside of the scope of this EAW, it is not outside the scope of the proposed
development project. If not required here, it should be required prior to ANY project
go /no -go determinations being made.
Section 15. Water surface use.
Proposer did not address the following from the EAW Guidelines Document:
In assessing impacts on fish and wildlife resources, consider the presence of
colonial waterbird nesting colonies, nests of bald eagles, osprey or loons;
important waterfowl feeding or brooding areas; and other resources sensitive to
disturbance.
Does it apply? Has the island property been surveyed for nesting bald eagles, osprey,
loons or other waterfowl?
Section 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks.
This item is grossly incomplete. Proposer addresses these items only in reference to the
completed development (i.e. eight households) and not in reference to the development
and construction processes themselves. Additionally, proposer does not discuss how
solid wastes will transverse the bridge structure, including pipe materials, failure rates,
failure mechanisms, mitigations, emergency response and containment plans.
The EAW Guidelines states that all types of wastes (except wastewaters, liquid manure or
air emissions) generated by the project should be discussed in this section. This includes
providing the method and location of disposal of all wastes, including demonstration that
the proposed method/location are environmentally sound. Also all chemicals or
substances that will be used on the site for any purpose are to be discussed in this section.
Section 23. Stationary source air emissions.
Again the proposer addresses an item only in reference to the completed development
and not the development and construction processes.
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 12th Addition Page 3
Additionally, proposer has verbalized, on previous occasions to Quail Ridge residents,
that he plans to "burn" (on -site) any trees /shrubs that are removed during the construction
process. This is an air quality issue that does not appear to be addressed anywhere in the
proposer's EAW. Proposer has been informed that there are several asthmatics in the
Quail Ridge neighborhood (including small children) whom this could detrimentally
effect.
Section 24. Odors, noise and dust.
As stated in the EAW Guidelines:
Odors. Identify any strong or potentially offensive odors and identify the
locations or and distances to sensitive receptors. Describe any mitigation
measures. Discuss both odors which have potential human health effects and also
those which, although they do not pose health risks, may result in a loss of quality
of life to surrounding neighbors due to nuisance or annoyance conditions.
Again the proposer has not addressed the on -site burning of trees/shrubs removed during
the construction process, the smoke odor created or the potential human health effects.
Regarding noise, the proposer has stated that the pile- driving hammer (to be used during
bridge construction) would create an impulsive noise in the range of 60 -65 decibels. It is
totally unclear, however, whether the expected 60 -65 decibels is PEAK noise,
AVERAGE (mean) noise, or calculated by some equation incorporating peak value, duty
cycle, etc.. This MUST be clarified, especially in light of proposer's statement (point #8
in this section of the EAW) that "sound levels should not exceed 90 decibels measured at
50 feet (where the possibility of 90 decibels has never been alluded to).
With respect to vibration, I find it unconscionable that the proposer provides a figure
showing safe vibration levels for residential structures and no such figure for the human
body (including children), which the proposer readily admits is "quite sensitive" to such
vibrations. What are safe vibration levels for the human body? If "some crockery may
rattle ", residents near the bridge piling construction site would be living in minor to
moderate earthquake conditions during this phase of the construction process.
Section 25. Nearby resources.
Proposer states:
The wetland area surrounding the Quail Ridge development was dedicated to the
City with the Quail Ridge plat for parkland purposes. Part of the dedicated area is
located between the proposed development and the Quail Ridge development.
Does this imply that the proposed development will actually transverse and /or occupy
land that is currently dedicated Quail Ridge parkland? Nowhere have I seen mentioned
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 12 Addition Page 4
the need to rezone parkland. Again, there is no "list" enumerating all of the zoning and
development requirements that will need deviations. (While this may or may not be of
environmental concern or directly related to the EAW, the proposer has brought it "into
play" here, so here is where I am commenting on it.) ._
I am excited to see the proposer has quoted the EAW Guidelines in this section. It shows
that the proposer HAS read them, and cannot feign ignorance regarding the lack of
inclusion or completeness of information supplied in the EAW.
Whereas the views of wetlands and woods in the project area may be common in many
areas of Lino Lakes and surrounding areas, it was unique with respect to available
residential lots in Lino Lakes at the time of the development of Quail Ridge. The scenic
beauty, the City's proposed mini -park on the island property, with trail access to the
island and beyond to the Regional Park are prime reasons why many of the Quail Ridge
residents chose to purchase and build homes in Quail Ridge.
Yes, the view of undeveloped wetland, woods and the island is scenic. And, yes, a bridge
is an unusual sight in residential development...especially an unsightly, 300 ft. long,
nearly 20 ft high bridge. The aesthetic impact to the environment cannot be ignored.
Section 26. Visual impacts.
The answer to the state question regarding whether the project will create adverse visual
impacts should be "Yes" not "No ". Proposer admits in Section 25 of the EAW that ..."a
bridge is an unusual sight in residential developments, and a bridge 300 feet long would
be a significant change to the view of several residents" (emphasis added). Again, the
proposer needs to provide the RGU with drawings and color photographs of the proposed
bridge design thus enabling the RGU to envision the adverse visual impact that the bridge
will have on the environment. Proposer should also provide a "viewshed" of the affected
areas.
Section 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.
Comprehensive Plan:
The reason the City's comprehensive park plan envisions a mini -park on this site, with a
boardwalk trail connection to other areas is because the island property was originally (at
the time the Quail Ridge development was constructed) designated parkland. It was
represented as parkland to Quail Ridge residents at the time their residences were built.
At a subsequent date, and without notification to Quail Ridge residents, the island park
property was "swapped" by the City for another parcel then owned by Ed Vaughan.
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 121 Addition Page 5
Zoning, Subdivision Ordinances:
With regards to the proposal including the use of a planned unit development due to
multiple inconsistencies with ordinance requirements: While such requirements may, or
may not, have environmental impact, the proposer should enumerate, as a LIST, all such
requirements that cannot be met. While this may be outside of the scope of this EAW, it
is not outside the scope of the proposed development project. If not required here, it
should be required prior to ANY project go /no -go determinations being made.
Section 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services.
While water and sewer services are partially addressed in this EAW, there is insufficient
data with regards to how they will be transported across the bridge, including materials,
failure rates, etc. as previously discussed in these comments. Additionally, there is
essentially no discussion of electric transmission means or natural gas pipeline(s).
Proposer states that City standard cul -de -sac radii are proposed to serve as adequate turn
around area for emergency vehicles and snow removal equipment. I am assuming that
"snow removal equipment" would not be City -owned /operated equipment but privately
contracted by proposed development association as the road is proposed to be a private
drive.
Section 30. Other potential environmental impacts.
Obviously, the EAW statement is false. Other potential environmental impacts not
addressed (or inadequately addressed) abound as outlined in the other sections of these
comments.
Section 31. Summary of issues.
In addition to the EAW summary, refer to all sections of comments above for additional
issues that need to be addressed.
EAW Comments, Pheasant Hills 12th Addition
Page 6
Je. -PP)
i�s G ID se s'� �.z r� sz �,t�ra l-,-
16-LC� Gi4
t aLL 1d r'�►d o bra %e JP
-4 `7 '' but,. .: / � �Gf -� r.e s. �° its
has rt se -d- el
73 r Dsec✓ ? /h /2 Ad";
Pao (-k
Attachment B
Supplementary bridge information
• Abutment drawing
• Pier drawing
Hand written notes/bridge information, written on April 23, 2004 letter requesting
information
DNR letter May 10, 2004
(3) Computer generated graphics illustrating bridge
Jun' 01 04 10:35p Ed
TO: JEFF SMYSER
FROM ED VAUGHAN
SUBJECT: BALANCE OF BRIDGE INFORMATIOON
DATE 6 -1 -04
651 - 426 -5053 p.1
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED. WHEN
WILL THE NEXT MEETING BE HELD?
THANK YOIU.
ED VAUG
4
Jun 01 04 10:35p Ed
05/28/2004 12:48 7637862952
651- 426 -5053
PARK CONSTRUCTION CO
p.2
PAGE 01/04
CONSTRUCTION CO.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
SUBJECT
nrt> =ssApE 1- 1-ev-.e t5
1r)f 4 I re4UQst
Contact- Me
[� ��- b a- ae_ -f z) r7he r
Q uu,
v, + { 1 ce I I --pp3 aa9' 00 x 8
If transmission is unclear or incomplete, please call Penny @ 763.786.9800.
Park Construction Company, 500 73 Ave NE Suite 123, Minneapolis MN 55432
Park Construction Company is an equal opportunity employer.
Saefl
DATE .
51 7—F 04
# PAGES a
TO.
g-cl VaL63
►
FROM V 1" el e4SN�L
TITLE
.J
TITLE
COMPANY
PARK CONSTRUCTION CO.
PHONE
PHONE 763.786.9800
FAX
tp5 1 4 24,- S o y
FAX 763.786.2952
SUBJECT
nrt> =ssApE 1- 1-ev-.e t5
1r)f 4 I re4UQst
Contact- Me
[� ��- b a- ae_ -f z) r7he r
Q uu,
v, + { 1 ce I I --pp3 aa9' 00 x 8
If transmission is unclear or incomplete, please call Penny @ 763.786.9800.
Park Construction Company, 500 73 Ave NE Suite 123, Minneapolis MN 55432
Park Construction Company is an equal opportunity employer.
Saefl
Jun 01 04 10:35p Ed
•
. JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION
23577 MN Hwy. 22, Litchfield, MN 55355 320 -693 -2871
Subject
651 -426 -5053
P-3
Page No. of
Job No.
Date
By
�l
•
Jun 01 04 10 :35p Ed
ani tdi 2ne4 12:413 7637862952
JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION
1123577 MN Hwy. 22, Litchfield, MN 55355 320 - 693 -2871
Subjsct
651- 426 -5053
PARK CONSTRUCTION CO
p.4
PAGE 82/04
Page No. of
Job No,
Date
By
Jun 01 04 10:35p Ed
651 -426 -5053
p.5
E!
a
T -r 3� -6" 1• -E"
s <1 -5
_r y �• -6-
3/4" / ANCHOR BOLTS
ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT
FOR ABUTMENT ONLY
1/2- PLATE
• BEARING PLATE' DETAIL
FOR ABUTMENT ONLY
6 PLATES WITH 1 1 jrd X 3- SLOTTED MOLES
. 18 PLATES WITH 1 1/r. HOLES
300' -O- OVERALL fir BACOWALL io
9" a8• -S- 4/C BEARONG
• LAG FOR 1 BEAN BRIDGE - t
Li eA:
L•• x 4" It 3 /e"
O 20•-4" - s O et O
NOTE: DRAWINGS RELATIVE
V8,1, Agff
April 23, 2004
Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive'
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
Post -it' Fax Note 7671
lb -
t�G� &r.1
Ca.iDept
Date
Pnono a
Fax
From 504 ✓.�,prr
co.
Plane #
Fax
re: Bridge, Pheasant Preserve 12th Addition
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
As You recall, we discussed your bridge ��
recounted the status of the EAW. We wed ro� at the April Zl work session. We also
to review the bridge in order to make a prepare a list of specific information necessary
environmental review
the effects. order recommendation on the potential for significant
particular, we must be able to assess the potential visual impacts of the
bridge as well as other possible impacts.
Community Development staff discussed the issue on April 22. Please submit the following
information: a" mg
Visual representations of the bridge including both an end view and a side view_ These must
represent the entire bridge, not just a single span.
• Materials: piers/pilings, ' . /
rails, support beams, decking etc. )014. - y _ 4 e e„ 74 74 =ildd co,,.�
• Dimensions of the bri 4 4. °a' °'° 71' c di,
bridge, including: •
- elevation of the bottom of the bridge 5 e e q/rk ;7
- elevation of the top of the rat or the
- width of' the he both the drive highest elements if ligher than the rail e
bridge, surface and the en -re bridge (rails and other �.»r`w ; h°
elements will make it wider than the driving surface ad
- elevations and width of ) ~ ''/:'� �'kF `�Rc ; s i fe 1?dc
Pilings/piers vra,s ��-cw: �, / � rSe�/O�ic�l ,
Increasing the number of piers from one to four likely will require more dewatering than
originally pianned. This may require additional review by the g an urc
Y MN Dept. of Natural Resources. Se 4t ,044e
Please call with any questions at (651)982 -2425. .e 7it'i
Sincerel
f
Jeff Smyser
City Planner
cc• Mike Grochala
Tom Hovey, MnDNR, Division of Waters, I200 Warm Road, St. Paul, M s1 55106
boo Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-7182
Phone: 651 - 982_2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TDD: 651- 982 -2410
TOTAL P.01
May 10, 2004
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Waters -1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977
Ed Vaughan
1432 Pheasant Hills Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
RE: Permit No. 2001 -6109, Bridge Construction, Wards Lake (2 -10P), Pheasant Hills Preserve
12th Addition, City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
Thank you for stopping by today with your altered photographs showing the proposed bridge for the
Pheasant Hills Preserve, 12th Addition. As we discussed, the bridge in the drawings would be
authorized by your existing public waters work permit, No. 2001 -6109. We also talked about the
aesthetic benefits of lowering the profile of the bridge so that the low chord of the structure is at
888.6', or 1 foot above the 100 year flood elevation.
The proposed bridge in the photo has five piers waterward of the ordinary high water level of Wards
Lake, is 20' wide, has 2' high guard rails on both sides, and an 890.4' elevation of the bottom of
beam at the center pier.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Tom Hovey
Area Hydrologist
c: City of Lino Lakes, Jeff Smyser V'
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 -646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1- 800 -657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
m.401ti Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
tvtimin,.‘m /If
Agenda Item 7C
Department Reports
Environmental Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004
Topic: RCWD /Comprehensive Wetland Management Planning
Summary: This is to update you on the RCWD Comprehensive Wetland
Management Plan (S) CWMP. The CWMP for CD 53 -62 is complete and the
district is now moving on to CD10 -22 -32 (Lino Lakes and Columbus Township),
and a large area to the East and North in Columbus Township and the Rondeau
Lake area of Lino Lakes.
I have included as Attachment 1, the front RCWD Web page describing the
plans, and a map (Attachment 2) showing the CWMP areas.
The CWMP planning process will be a very important initial step in our efforts to
preserve valuable and unique resource areas in Section 5 of Lino Lakes. Section
5 is the Lino Lakes Elementary area. I encourage you to go the RCWD Web
page to see more about CWMP process.
Comments:
Attachments:
1. RCWD Web cover page for CWMP
2. Map of CWMP areas.
•
gfl j-
Rice Creek Watershed District - 53 -62 Comprehensive Management Plan Page 1 of 2
About
Board
Permits
Rules
Grants
Natural Resources Education Projects
News
5/2004 - Employment opportunity
5/2004 - Linking Land Use and
Water Quality Workshop
4/2004 - New Website Design
4/2004 - Education Section
4/2004 - Frequently Asked
Questions
Board Meetings
Upcoming Board Meetings:
June 23rd, 2004 - Permitting
Deadline: Passed
July 14th, 2004
July 28th, 2004 - Permitting
Deadline: July 8th, 2004
All board meetings, unless
otherwise noted occur on the 2nd
and 4th Wednesdays of each month
at 7: OOpm in Shoreview City Hall.
Search
Search provided byGoogle
Location: Home > Projects > 53 -62 CWMP
53 -62 Comprehensive Wetland Managernent P1
A Plan is in the works for the watershed of Anoka County
Ditch 53 -62 in Blaine, Minnesota, which will help
landowners develop a portion of their property, while at the
same time conserving and in some cases improving the
wetlands in this area. The plan uses a provision in the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) for the
creation of a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
(CWMP). The CWMP will allow the wetlands of entire 53-
62 watershed to be managed as a single unit. Using this
type of approach, the uplands are aggregated, making them
more both more valuable and more usable; while the
wetlands are combined making a higher - quality, contiguous wetland co
greater biodiversity and better water quality function.
On this page you will find a variety of documents relating to this project
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, the Engineer's Repair Repo
maps.
Board Resolutions
Approval of the CWMP ( 58k )
Approval of Rule M ( 51k )
Documents
tg Engineer's Repair Report ( 123k )
▪ Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (CWMP) ( 1.3M )
Historical Maps (4.9M )
890 Maps and Property Iinformation ( 3.1M )
▪ 890 CWMP Analysis Addendum ( 1.5M )
CWMP Findings (238k )
▪ Agency Supplement ( 3.3M )
Rule M
Rule M Coverletter ( 185k )
1111RCWD Rule M (58k )
Maps
Historical Site Conditions ( 4.9M )
0
:o= C
4?
= Z3 .41)
4-+ 0 .S3
S2 (1)
895.6 Top of Rail
893.6 Top of road Surface