10/04/2006 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Environmental Assessment Worksheet Nature's Refuge Conservation Development Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota Draft Document — September 25, 2006 Page 9 Impacts Implementation of the project would result in a 56% reduction of forest area, an 8% reduction of wetland area as a result of filling, and a 66% reduction of grassland habitats (see table in Question 10 above). Further, a considerable portion of remaining wildlife habitat boundary would be adjacent to the built areas of the development. This would expose these boundary areas to risk of adverse impacts both during the construction phase and post - construction. Construction -phase risks would include: 1) sediment transport from exposed soil surfaces into wetlands via water and wind; 2) accidental spills (motor oil, chemicals); 3) damage from nearby use of heavy equipment; 4) high construction- related noise levels disturbing wildlife. Sediment barriers and other Best Management Practices for construction would be used to minimize these impacts. Post - construction risks could include: 1) lawn chemical runoff from residential lots into wetlands; 2) road salt, petroleum products, and other contaminant runoff from new streets into wetlands; 3) increased human access to wetlands causing wildlife disturbance, litter, vegetation damage, and soil compaction. It is expected that project drainage design would minimize or prevent the first two of these risks (surface -runoff related). The risks resulting from increased human activity in the area would be ongoing. It may be partly mitigated by the presence of the proposed new trails along the edges of the conservation area, which would tend to constrain human activity to the trail and its immediate borders. Further, it is expected that by designating the wetlands as conservation areas, unauthorized recreational uses may be reduced. Long -term negative impacts to habitat quality would include permanent loss of interior forest habitat, fragmentation of remaining forest, and new wildlife barriers hindering wildlife movement among habitat patches. There would also be a net loss of wetland and grassland acreage. Expected long -term positive impacts are a primary goal of the project. Habitat value of preserved wetland and upland areas would accrue over time as the conservation areas are restored and managed. More than half of the property would be designated as conservation area (wetland and upland), placed under conservation easement, restored using active restoration methods, and managed in perpetuity. Thus, the remaining wetland habitats would become higher - quality wildlife habitat than they are at present. Negative impacts to uplands would be partly mitigated by the improvements resulting from restoration and conservation. In the absence of the project's restoration and management plan, these wetlands can be expected to continue to degrade as unregulated ATV -use within them continues, and as woody plant species continue to encroach, converting wet meadows to shrub swamps and aspen swamps dominated by invasive plant species. . Are any state- listed (endangered, threatened -or apecial concern) ',sot cies rare plant communities or s nsitivei ecological resources such as tative prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies regia rare plant communities on or near the site? X Yes _ No " If yes, describe the resource and:ho °it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site surve resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame program,has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20060543. 'Describe to minimize or avoid adverse ham. Y y of Research eastires Five Minnesota state- listed vascular plant species occur in the wetland portions of the site. These include one state - endangered species (cross -leaf milkwort, Polygala cruciata), two state - threatened species (tooth -cup, Rotala ramosior; lance - leaved violet, Viola lanceolata), and two state - special- concern species (autumn sedge, Fimbristylis autumnalis; Clinton's bulrush, Scirpus clintonii). Of these five, Viola lanceolata is the most common and widespread on the site, thus it would be exposed to the greatest impact. Polygala cruciata, on the other hand, is the least common, having only been found in one location. The site was thoroughly surveyed, and all locations of these species were recorded using sub -meter accuracy GPS technology, mapped (see Aerial photo showing all wetland boundaries and rare plant locations, Figure 3), and reported to the DNR. These plants thrive in areas exposed to