Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250625 EB Combined PacketMeeting guidelines on reverse side. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, June 25, 2025 Broadcast on Cable TV Channel 16 and northmetrotv.com/lino-lakes-stream ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers (televised) 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Comment (sign-in prior to start of meeting per Rules of Decorum) 4. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items 5. Approval of Minutes: May 28, 2025 6. Action Items A. I35E AUAR 2025 Update B. Peltier Ponds Preliminary Plat 7. Discussion Items A. Recycling Updates ADJOURNMENT CITY OF LINO LAKES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES Advisory boards are fact-finding bodies established to aid the City Council in specific areas. The decisions of any board are considered advisory only and all final decisions rest with the City Council. Board meetings shall operate in accordance with the procedures established by the City Council. The following meeting guidelines are derived from the City Council Rules of Decorum. Members of the Audience – No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct such as audible commentary during a meeting, hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. Public Comment– Comments from the public will be accepted on any matter, whether on the agenda or not. Comments will not be accepted during specific agenda items unless a Public Hearing has been noticed. Please remember to be courteous and respectful and abide by the following guidelines: • Sign-in prior to the start of the meeting • Step up to the microphone when recognized by the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) • State your name and address for the record • State the subject to be discussed • Limit comments to 4 minutes • Address comments to the board as a whole, not any specific member • No question may be asked of a board member or staff member without the permission of the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) • Elect a spokesperson for a group of persons who wish to address the board on the same subject Public Hearing – A public hearing is a separate item of business on the agenda. It gives the public an opportunity to comment on the topic identified. Please remember to be courteous and respectful and abide by the guidelines outlined for public comment (although no sign-in required). Typically, a public hearing proceeds as follows: 1. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the agenda item and staff will present their report. 2. Board members have the opportunity to ask staff questions about the item. 3. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) opens the public hearing and will recognize those who want to speak. 4. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) shall close the public hearing. 5. The Board will then discuss the item. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will make a recommendation and/or decision. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the board from the audience on the matter under consideration. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. Environmental Board May 28, 2025 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Holmes called the Environmental meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on May 28, 2025. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (sign in prior to start of meeting per Rules of Decorum) Vice Chair Holmes declared open mike at 6:31 p.m. There was no one present for open mike therefore it was closed at 6:31 p.m. 4. SETTING THE AGENDA: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items Ms. Holmes made a motion to approve the May 28, 2025 agenda. Motion carried 5 – 0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 2024 Ms. Nelson made a motion to approve the April 30, 2025 minutes. Ms. Buchmeier seconded. Motion carried 5 – 0. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Northwest Main AUAR Draft Update and Public Comment DATE: May 28, 2025 TIME STARTED: 6:30 p.m. TIME ENDED: 7:20 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shawn Holmes, Julia Nelson, Mary Jo Stevenson Lindsay Buchmeier, Jonathan Parsons MEMBERS ABSENT: Alex Schwartz, Elizabeth Larkin STAFF PRESENT: Tom Hoffman, Marissa Ertel, Lauren Syring Environmental Board May 28, 2025 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES In September of 2024, the City Council approved a professional services contract with Kimley Horn to prepare a master plan and complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The study area includes 980 acres of the northwest portion of Lino Lakes. The process has included multiple community outreach opportunities, involvement of study area stakeholders and review by the City advisory boards and City Council. Three development scenarios originally emerged, one being the existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Each scenario maintained essentially the same residential unit count with a mix of land use types but provided for different design alternatives. Through the design process scenarios 2 and 3 merged into Scenario 2.1, which establishes a gateway into the City at the border with Blaine. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.1 are proposed to be carried through the environmental review process. Resolution No. 25-51 authorized the preparation of the draft AUAR document. The development scenarios will be analyzed for potential environmental impacts. A mitigation plan will be created to address the environmental impacts. Once it is prepared, the draft AUAR will be brought to the Environmental Board and City Council for discussion and revisions. The City Council will authorize the distribution of the draft for public comment. This will begin a 30-day public comment period. Leila Bunge, Kimley Horn, presented the AUAR draft updates to the board. Ms. Nelson had a question about who would be responsible for building the new wells. Mr. Hoffman stated that the City would be the one who would fund and build the new wells for the area. Ms. Nelson also wanted to know if the Rice Creek Watershed District has been involved. Mr. Hoffman stated that they have been working with the RCWD and that they would still maintain their trunks and would be maintaining the water quality throughout the development of the area. Mr. Parsons had questions about building on the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Hoffman explained that this is common, for certain areas there would not be construction. Ms. Holmes wanted to know what the steps will be once the AUAR is adopted by City Council. Mr. Hoffman explained that the developer would be required to follow the AUAR that is adopted. B. Erickson Property Preliminary Plat Hampton Companies submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat to allow the construction of 14 single-family homes at 7590 20th Avenue in Lino Lakes. The current 5.15-acre parcel contains an existing home and numerous outbuildings. The site is Environmental Board May 28, 2025 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES surrounded by the Watermark PUD development by Lennar to the North, East and South. Our plan is to extend the existing street grid planned for the Watermark development and provide another housing option. The site is comprised of one (1) land parcels, one (1) single family home on the northwest portion (Erickson’s parcel), one (1) shed in the center, and one (1) wooded barn on the southwest corner. Ms. Nelson stated that she likes the inclusion of walking trails and sidewalks in future developments. Mr. Parsons had a question about park dedication fees. Mr. Hoffman stated that the developer would still be required to pay the park dedication fees, most likely to be used for the extension of the walking trail. Ms. Buchmeier made a motion to approve the recommendations by staff. Ms. Stevenson seconded. Motion carried 5 – 0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recycling Updates Mr. Hoffman provided recycling updates. 8. ADJOURN Ms. Buchmeier made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Motion was seconded by Ms. Stevenson. Motion carried 5 – 0. Respectfully submitted, Marissa Ertel – Community Development Administrative Assistant 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator MEETING DATE: June 25, 2025 REQUEST: Approval of AUAR Update 2025 I-35E BACKGROUND The I-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is an environmental review document that analyzed potential impacts of development within a study area of 4,660 acres. The final document was originally adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council on October 24, 2005. The AUAR serves as a substitute environmental review. As long as a development project is consistent with the assumptions of the analyses in the AUAR, no additional environmental review is required. A key component of the AUAR is the mitigation plan that addresses cumulative impacts of development as the corridor develops. In order to remain valid, the AUAR must be revised under certain criteria. One of the criteria is the passing of five years. The City has previously approved updates in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The 2025 update identifies development or changes that have occurred during the last five years. The document has been updated to reflect changes including the modification of the two development scenarios investigated. These include: 1) 2040 Comprehensive Plan Full Build Out Land Use 2) Modified Full Build Out with increase residential and commercial development and reduction in industrial development WSB and Associates, the City’s Engineer, completed the draft update in April of 2025. Notice of the documents availability for review was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and made available for public and state agency review. The City received comments from five agencies: • Minnesota Department of Health 2 • Rice Creek Watershed District • Minnesota Department of Transportation • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources A summary of the comments and the City’s response is included in Appendix L of the document. WSB and Associates will be available at the meeting for questions. ANALYSIS The original I-35E AUAR was a very comprehensive document covering the City’s 35E corridor from Birch Street to our northern city limits. The most significant developments over the past five years are the 372 acre Watermark residential development and the 402,000 square foot Distribution Alternatives fulfillment center on 21st Avenue. Within the last 5 years there has also been commercial development along Main Street along this corridor. Each of these projects were subject to the mitigation requirements of the AUAR including but not limited to transportation and water management improvements. The AUAR update generally provides and assessment of current conditions based on changes over the past five years and assessment of comprehensive plan and development scenario changes. Each of the revised scenarios are within the development thresholds assumed in the original AUAR. The Mitigation Plan, included in Appendix K, has been updated to reflect changing conditions or regulatory requirements as necessary. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting a recommendation of approval of the 2025 AUAR update. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2025 Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update 2025 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW UPDATE I-35E CORRIDOR AUAR UPDATE LINO LAKES, MN JUNE 2025 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 027919-000 I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 1 I-35E CORRIDOR AUAR UPDATE This document provides for an update to the Lino Lakes I-35E Corridor AUAR. The original AUAR was completed in 2005. Updates were adopted in 2010, 2015, and 2020. This document serves as the 2025 five-year update. An abbreviated version of the EAW questionnaire form has been used for this update to assist in the review of this AUAR Update. The following figures and appendices are included in this Update. Figures Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2 – Revised Scenario 1 Figure 3 – Revised Scenario 2 Figure 4 – Developments Map Appendices Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Stormwater Management Memo Appendix C – Water Appropriation Memo Appendix D – Wastewater Management Memo Appendix E – Transportation Memo Appendix F - Climate Adaptation and Resilience Memo Appendix G – Contamination Review Memo Appendix H – IPAC and DNR Information Appendix I - SHPO Information Appendix J - Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Memo Appendix K – Mitigation Plan Appendix L– Responses to Comments 1. Project title: Lino Lakes I-35E Corridor AUAR Update 2. Proposer: NA 3. RGU City of Lino Lakes Contact person: Michael Grochala Title: Community Development Director Address: 600 Town Center Pkwy City, State, ZIP: Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Phone: (651) 982-2427 Email: mgrochala@linolakes.us 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) NA 5. Project Location: County: Anoka City/Township: Lino Lakes 6. Project Description: Overview The City of Lino Lakes adopted the I-35E Corridor AUAR in conformance with Minnesota Rules 4410 in 2005. The City has subsequently updated the AUAR every five years. The AUAR study area is approximately 4,670 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the City as shown in Figure 1. Development Scenarios Three development scenarios were included in the original 2005 AUAR and the 2020 update included two revised scenarios based on both the 2030 and draft 2040 Comprehensive Plans. The City has since adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan; making the revised Scenario 3 (2030 Comprehensive Plan) outdated and no longer applicable. The revised scenarios are within the I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 2 original density thresholds of the original AUAR, and the scenarios are consistent the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Scenario 1 This scenario represents development based on the City’s current 2040 Comprehensive Plan full build out land use. This scenario has a higher industrial use and less residential than the Scenario 2 . Table 1 provides a summary of this uses for this scenario. Figure 2 shows the studied land uses. Scenario 2 This scenario has higher residential and commercial land use, with less industrial than Scenario 1. This scenario is still within the assumptions of the original AUAR. Table 1 provides a summary of this uses for this scenario. Figure 3 shows the studied land uses. Approximately 843.3 acres have been developed within the study area (Figure 4). The remaining 3,826.7 acres are anticipated to develop over the next 5-40 years, depending upon market conditions. Table 1. Summary of AUAR Scenarios Land Use AUAR Scenarios Scenario 1 Residential (units) 4,888 Commercial (sf) 5,084,819 Industrial (sf) 12,817,289 Scenario 2 Residential (units) 7,403 Commercial (sf) 5,306,914 Industrial (sf) 10,053,499 Planned Infrastructure Development in the study area will require infrastructure improvements. The analysis for stormwater, water, wastewater, and traffic have been updated. Analyses of climate adaptation and resilience, and greenhouse gas emissions were included as part of this AUAR Update to evaluate the revised scenarios. These analyses are included in the appendices. Stormwater: The stormwater analysis was updated based on the development scenarios land use assumptions. Additionally, rules and regulations regarding stormwater management in the study area have changed since the original AUAR was completed and is consistent with the 2020 update. Stormwater will be required to be managed based on local, regional, and state water resource rules. The updated analysis indicates that runoff volumes will be reduced by approximately 60% compared to existing conditions based on the implementation of stormwater management controls for both development scenarios. This will also reduce downstream pollutant loading. Appendix B contains the stormwater management analysis. Water: The projected water demands for the development scenarios have remained within the parameters discussed in the original AUAR and subsequent updates. These scenarios are anticipated to increase the annual water use above the current authorized appropriated volume for the City, similarly as anticipated in the original AUAR. The mitigation measures for water appropriation and use have been reviewed and minor revisions were made. Appendix C contains the water appropriation analysis. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 3 Wastewater: Wastewater within the study area would be conveyed with existing and future sanitary sewer and then directed to two Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptors. Wastewater is then conveyed through the regional collection system to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. The revised analysis projects less wastewater flow than anticipated in the original AUAR and is consistent with the 2020 update. The mitigation measures have been reviewed, and no changes were needed with this Update. Appendix D contains wastewater management analysis. Traffic: The traffic analysis was updated based on the development scenarios. This incorporated the existing conditions and projected 2040 conditions. The analysis shows that future traffic generated with the revised development scenarios will be less than those assumed in the original AUAR and consistent with the 2020 update. No changes to the mitigation measures are needed. Appendix E contains the traffic analysis. Climate Adaptation and Resilience: The climate adaptation and resilience analysis was included within this update. The climate analysis for the project location supported the overall Minnesota climate trend of increasing temperatures, more damaging rains, and an increased risk of drought. The AUAR update includes mitigation measures that can help mitigate the projected climate trends for the proposed development scenarios. Appendix F contains the Climate adaptation and resilience memo. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission/Carbon Footprint : A GHG analysis was included with this project update, measuring the difference in emissions between estimated existing conditions and Scenarios 1 and 2. The proposed Scenarios will significantly increase housing, commercial, and industrial uses within the project area, as well as anticipated emissions from these uses. Appendix J contains the GHG memo and analysis. Approved Development within the Study Area Since the 2020 AUAR Update, some anticipated development did not occur, and some projects were constructed within the study area. Figure 4 shows the areas that have developed in the study area. Since the 2020 Update, the following has occurred in the study area: • NorthPointe Garden Estates: A 72-unit multi-tenant senior living facility was completed in 2022. • Kwik Trip #1182: A 10,900 square foot gas station containing gas and diesel pumps was competed in 2022/2023 within the City of Centerville. • NorBella Senior Living: A 40-unit multi-tenant senior living facility was completed in 2022/2023 within the City of Centerville. • New Horizon Academy: A 12,027 square foot daycare and preschool center was completed in 2024. • Associated Eye Care: A 12,305 square foot eye clinic completed in 2022/2023 • 7107 Otter Lake Rd: A 7,000 square foot multi-tenant commercial building completed in 2022. • Culver’s: A 4,260 square foot commercial property completed in 2024. • Sutton Transport: A 40,000 square foot industrial property completed in 2023 within the City of Centerville. • 2010 Fairview St: A 10,400 square foot multi-tenant industrial property completed in 2024 within the City of Centerville. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 4 • DMS6 Amazon Delivery Station: A 141,000 square foot warehouse / logistics hub completed in 2024 within the City of Centerville. • Watermark: Phases 4-8 of single-family residential development (440 lots) completed 2021- 2024 • Tidal Wave Auto Spa: A 3,500 square foot commercial property completed in 2023. • Aldi: A 20,000 square foot commercial property is pending approval. AUAR Mitigation Plan The mitigation plan that has been developed as part of the AUAR process has been revised with this Update. It is included in Appendix K. 6. Climate Adaptation and Resilience: a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project’s proposed activities and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified Table 1. Analysis on climate adaptation and resilience can be found in Appendix F. 7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: The original AUAR cites the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). This data is applicable today. Some areas as shown in Figure 4 have developed and have shifted to impervious and landscaped cover types. The land cover of the undeveloped areas continues to be consistent with the original AUAR with planted or cultivated areas, urban areas, wooded and shrub areas, and wetlands. The Conservation Design Framework outlined in the AUAR has continued to be carried forward in the mitigation plan. This framework outlines open space and conservation corridor space where some areas would be preserved, and some areas would be reviewed for development that could be inclusive to open space. 8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications, 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. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be Applied for State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Section 401 Water Quality Certificate To be Applied for NPDES/SDS General Permit To be Applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be Applied for I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 5 Unit of Government Type of Application Status State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Resources Review To be Applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Use of or Work within MnDOT right of way To be Applied for Drainage Permit To be Applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit (need if more than 10,000 gpd of water is appropriated) To be Applied for, if necessary Preliminary Well Construction Assessment To be Applied for Public Waters Work Permit To be Applied for General Permit 1997-0005 for Temporary Water Appropriations (need if less than 50 million gallons are appropriated) To be applied for, if necessary Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Approval To be Applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Approval To be Applied for Well Location and Construction Approval To be Applied for Regional Rice Creek Watershed District Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval To be Applied for Floodplain Alteration Approval To be Applied for, if necessary Stormwater Management Plan Approval To be Applied for Wetland Delineation Boundary Confirmation To be approved upon completion of wetland delineation Certificate of Wetland Exemption To be Applied for Wetland Impact/Replacement Application To be approved upon completion of wetland delineation Wetland Alteration To be Applied for Public Drainage Systems To be Applied for Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Connection Approval To be Applied for County Anoka County County Roadway Access Permits To be Applied for Local City of Lino Lakes Site Plan Approval To be Applied for AUAR and Mitigation Plan Approval Ongoing Planned Unit Development Approval To be Applied for Preliminary Plat Approval To be Applied for Final Plat (multiple) Approval To be Applied for Grading, Excavation and Foundation Permits (multiple) To be Applied for Building Permits (multiple) To be Applied for I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 6 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit (multiple) To be Applied for Municipal Water Connection Permit (multiple) To be Applied for Use Permit – Floodplain District To be Applied for City Roadway Access/Crossing Permits To be Applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) To be Applied for 9. Land use: No significant changes are noted for this section. The surrounding land uses are residential, highway, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and open space. The scenarios are consistent with development that has occurred in the area and compatible with adjacent land uses. Any development that will significantly impact/ change the land uses within the area will be further analyzed by the City. 10. Geology, soils, and topography/land forms: The soils and geology of the study area have not changed from the original AUAR. The area is within the Anoka Sandplain and has a flat topography. The Anoka County Soil Survey shows numerous types of soils in the study area including loamy fine sands, fine sandy loams, and hydric soils in wetland areas. 11. Water Resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project . Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Surface water in the study area remains the same as the original AUAR and includes numerous wetlands, lakes and streams and county ditches. Of note continues to be Peltier Lake (#2000400), Rondeau Lake (#2001500), Rice Creek Marsh (#02074000), Unnamed Public Water Wetland (#82019500), Public Water Wetland (#02053400) Public Water Wetland (#02000100), Clearwater Creek (#82006a), Hardwood Creek (#0213a), Rice Creek (M-059), County Ditch #3, and County Ditch #47. Based on a review of information from the MPCA, impaired waters in the study area include: • Peltier Lake • Clearwater Creek • Hardwood Creek Additional information can be found in Appendix B which contains an updated analysis of stormwater management for the study area. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. As indicated in the original AUAR, the study area has shallow groundwater. Additional information about groundwater can be found in Appendix C. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 7 b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Updated analysis on the wastewater system can be found in Appendix D. ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Updated analysis on stormwater can be found in Appendix B. iii. Water appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use , and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Updated analysis on water system impacts can be found in Appendix C. iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed . Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands . Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 8 b) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. Impacts to wetlands and surface waters include potential impacts associated with filling or draining as development occurs. These impacts were contemplated in the original AUAR and subsequent updates. Aquatic resource delineations are required and completed as development progresses. Estimates of impacts for the study area are difficult to anticipate without specific site plans. However, these impacts are anticipated to be typical of development and are subject to local, state, and federal wetland rules through the Rice Creek Watershed District, Wetland Conservation Act, US Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Impacts to wetlands will need to meet the sequencing requirements and water quality regulations, and wetland replacement and/or pre-treatment may be needed. Replacement could occur on-site or through the purchase of wetland banking credits. Hardwood Creek and Peltier Lake are impaired waters and development within 1 mile of these resources are required to incorporate additional BMPs listed in Section 23 of the Minnesota Construction Stormwater General Permit as applicable for discharges from the project site that then drains to these waters. No significant difference in analysis from the 2020 Update is needed for this Update. 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre-project site conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effect s from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. No significant changes to existing conditions in relation to existing contamination or hazards have occurred based on a review of “What’s In My Neighborhood.” A summary of the review is included in Appendix G. b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. There are no changes from the original AUAR in terms of solid waste assumptions. c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 9 accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. As indicated in the original AUAR, there is the potential for gas stations to be included as development occurs with the appropriate land use and zoning per scenario. A gas stations or convenience stores would have underground storage tanks. There may also be light industrial development that includes storage of diesel fuel for operations. These types of developments would be required to meet all other state and federal permitting and guidance for operations. A gas station and convenience store were constructed within the study area since the 2020 Update. d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. Generation of significant amounts of hazardous wastes are not anticipated with development of either of the scenarios. Waste generated will be of similar nature to residential, light industrial, and commercial uses and will be required to comply with applicable state laws. 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB- 20200206) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system was queried for federally listed threatened or endangered species and is included in Appendix H. The DNR Natural Heritage Database information was updated for this AUAR update. A formal request for review was submitted 2/3/2025 and the official NHIS review letter was received 3/9/2025 (Appendix H). Based on the NHIS review there are Sites of Biodiversity Significance (MBS Sites) within the study area and include: • Rondeau Lake Wetland - High MBS Sites • Peltier Lake Wetland – Moderate MBS Sites • Rice Lake Wetland – Moderate Sites I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 10 The information received is similar to the information obtained in the previous updates and the original AUAR. The mitigation plan contains measures that acknowledge the natural resource features in the area. The DNR NHIS information is included in Appendix H. 14. Historic properties: Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. MNSHPO’s Statewide Historic Inventory Portal and the Office of the State Archaeologist Portal were queried on February 20, 2025 and multiple documented aboveground historic resources or known archaeological and cultural sites are listed within the project area (Appendix I). The City has a robust review requirement for cultural resources when development is proposed, and the mitigation plan is adequate to address this issue. 15. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. No changes from previous AUARs. The western portion of AUAR study area is within the Carlos Avery Important Bird Area and contains significant bird habitat. Proposed developments must consider measures to minimize negative visual impacts. 16. Air: a. Stationary source emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. Not applicable to an AUAR. b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. An updated traffic study is included in Appendix E. The traffic generation is within the parameters of the original AUAR. c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vici nity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. No changes from the original AUAR. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update June 6, 2025 Page 11 17. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission/Carbon Footprint : a. GHG Quantification: For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. b. GHG Assessment An analysis on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission/Carbon Footprint can be found in Appendix J. 17. Noise: Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearb y sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. No changes from the original AUAR. Site plans for future developments will continue to include measures such as appropriate setback distances, earthen berms, noise walls and appropriate site design. 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indi cate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. An updated traffic study is included in Appendix E. 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) NA to AUAR 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No additional environmental effects have been identified. Appendix A Figures %&d( %&c( %&c( GnWX GnWX GÀWX GÀWX G¦WX CE N T E R V I L L E R D OTT E R LAK E R D MA I N S T 20 T H A V E 80TH ST BIRCH ST WARDS LAKE SHERMAN LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE PELTIER LAKE RONDEAU LAKE RICE CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES PARK RESERVE CITY HALL PARK LAMOTTE PARK PHEASANT HILLS PARK LAURIE LAMOTTE MEMORIAL PARK TRACIE MCBRIDE MEMORIAL PARK ACORN CREEK PARK EAGLE PARK HIDDEN SPRING PARK TRAILSIDE PARK CORNERSTONE PARK ROYAL MEADOWS PARK Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ F i g u r e 1 D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 ¯ 1 inch = 0.5 miles 0 0.5 MilesI-35E Corridor AUAR Lino Lakes, MN Figure 1- Project Location Study Area City Boundary %&d( %&c( %&c( GnWX GnWX GÀWX GÀWX G¦WX CE N T E R V I L L E RD OTT E R LAK E R D MA I N S T 20 T H A V E 80TH ST BIRCH ST WARDS LAKE SHERMAN LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE PELTIER LAKE RONDEAU LAKE Study Area City Boundary Full Build Land Use Permanent Rural Low Density Residential Low Density Mixed Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Planned Residential / Commercial Office Residential Commercial Business Campus Industrial Civic/Institutional Park & Open Space 0 2,700 Feet¯Figure 2 - Revised Scenario 1 I-35 Corridor AUAR Project Lino Lakes, MN Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ A U A R U p d a t e . a p r x D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 1 0 : 3 5 A M 1 inch = 2,700 feet %&d( %&c( %&c( GnWX GnWX GÀWX GÀWX G¦WX CE N T E R V I L L E RD OTT E R LAK E R D MA I N S T 20 T H A V E 80TH ST BIRCH ST WARDS LAKE SHERMAN LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE PELTIER LAKE RONDEAU LAKE 0 2,700 Feet¯Figure 3 - Revised Scenario 2 I-35 Corridor AUAR Project Lino Lakes, MN Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ A U A R U p d a t e . a p r x D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 1 0 : 3 5 A M 1 inch =2,700 feet Study Area City Boundary Scenario 2 Full Build Land Use Permanent Rural Low Density Residential Low Density Mixed Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Planned Residential / Commercial Commercial Business Campus Industrial Civic/Institutional Park & Open Space %&d( %&c( %&c( GnWX GnWX GÀWX GÀWX G¦WX Koronis Cir Park-n-Ride Two Industrial Projects in Centerville 21st Ave Extension North Pointe Eastside Villas Distribution Alternatives Main Street Shoppes 2nd Addition McDonalds Interchange 7114 Otter Lake Rd (multi-tenant) Associated Eye Care New Horizon Academy Tidal Wave Auto Spa 7107 Otter Lake Rd (multi-tenant) Culver's Rosemary Way Extension Otter Lake Rd Extension (Pending approval) North Pointe Garden Estates Nor Bella Senior Living Kwik Trip #1182 DMS6 Amazon Delivery Station 2010 Fairview St (multi-tenant) Sutton Transport Watermark Watermark Way Extension Norway Ln Forest Ln Extension Diamond Ln Aldi (Pending Approval) CE N T E R V I L L E RD MA I N S T 20 T H AV E 80TH ST BIRCH ST SHERMAN LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE PELTIER LAKE RONDEAU LAKE RICE CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES PARK RESERVE LAMOTTE PARK PHEASANT HILLS PARK LAURIE LAMOTTE MEMORIAL PARK ACORN CREEK PARK HIDDEN SPRING PARK TRAILSIDE PARK ROYAL MEADOWS PARK Study Area City Boundary 2010 Update 2015 Update 2020 Update 2025 Update 0 2,700 Feet¯Figure 4 - Developments Map I-35 Corridor AUAR Project Lino Lakes, MN Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ A U A R U p d a t e . a p r x D a t e S a v e d : 3 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 5 3 : 2 7 P M 1 inch = 2,700 feet Appendix B Stormwater Management Memo M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Henry Meeker, WSB Alison Harwood, WSB Date: May 23, 2025 Re: Stormwater Management – I-35 Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. The AUAR analyzed the stormwater impacts of the three development scenarios. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Plan was developed. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The 2020 update was made with draft scenarios of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan , which was adopted in November 2020. This AUAR update is based on two development scenarios. It includes mitigation improvements that have been completed at this time and the proposed future land uses. The information and analysis outlined within this memo is intended to complete a portion of the AUAR Update related to Item # 11.ii – Water Resources – Stormwater related to two proposed development scenarios. This memo is intended to update the stormwater analysis provided in the original AUAR where applicable. WATER RESOURCES – STORMWATER ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosio n control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Procedures and Methods Followed The procedures and methods used to estimate the runoff volumes and pollutants loads within the AUAR were based on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) runoff curve number method and event mean concentration pollutant values from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual . Any development within the study area will be required to meet the stormwater standards of the City of Lino Lakes and Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). These standards include: • Promote volume control and groundwater recharge. • Protect water quality from nutrients, heavy metals, and other urban pollutants. Mr. Michael Grochala May 23, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx • Protect life, public and private property, and the natural resources from damage resulting from runoff and the dangers associated with flooding. Existing Conditions The study area currently consists primarily of agricultural, single/multifamily/rural residential, commercial, industrial, and park/open space areas. The impervious surface is primarily made up of residential/commercial roofs and the existing roadways. The major roads include 20th Avenue, 80th Street, County Road 14, and Interstates 35E and 35W. There are four major watersheds within the study area. The west and central portion of the study area is part of the Peltier subwatershed. The north part of the study area is within the Hardwood Creek subwatershed and Upper Rice Creek subwatershed, and the southeast part is within the Clearwater Creek subwatershed. All of these subwatersheds drain to Peltier Lake through tile drain or county ditch systems. Future development will need to address any requirements that are established due to current regulatory standards adopted by the RCWD, City of Lino Lakes, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA has listed three water resources within the study area as impaired: Peltier Lake, Hardwood Creek, and Clearwater Creek. Peltier Lake and Hardwood Creek have approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that provides additional guidance and requirements for pollutant loads. Approximately 67% of the study area consists of Group D soils, and the remaining area consists of Group A, B, and C soils, plus open water surface. These soil ratings are based on hydrologic soil classifications, with A soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. The infiltration rates for A soils range from 0.8 to 1.63 inches per hour (Minnesota Stormwater Manual). These soils consist chiefly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands and gravel. Group A soils have a high rate of water transmission, therefore resulting in a low runoff potential. Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates ranging from 0.3 to 0.45 inches per hour when thoroughly wetted. Group B soils consist of deep moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Group C soils have a low infiltration rate of 0.2 inches per hour when thoroughly wetted. Group C soils include a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure. Infiltration is very low in areas with Group D soils, and the design of infiltration basins is not recommended in areas with Group D soils (per the MPCA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit). Proposed Conditions The two development scenarios were considered in this analysis for proposed conditions. Existing conditions and two proposed land use classifications were evaluated using curve numbers from the NRCS. Stormwater management for either proposed condition can be provided through a combination of wet detention ponds and infiltration and filtration features. Achieving volume reduction and pollutant reduction through the use of infiltration may be challenging for a majority of the study area due to a majority D soils with low infiltration rates and a high groundwater table. Stormwater management via green infrastructure such as stormwater reuse has been and will continue to be encouraged by the City of Lino Lakes and RCWD to achieve volume reduction and pollutant removal requirements. Reuse will be evaluated before implementation for safety and protection of human health. RCWD has supported stormwater reuse projects in the area with District funds in the past. Mr. Michael Grochala May 23, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx Local Stormwater Management Requirements Stormwater management within the future development of the study area must be in conformance with local requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, RCWD, and MPCA. Some requirements are more stringent than others. However, the development in the study area will need to demonstrate that all local standards are being met under proposed stormwater management techniques. The following is a summary of major stormwater management requirements: • Rice Creek Watershed District The RCWD rules (approved November 13, 2024) require that proposed peak runoff rates shall not exceed existing for the 2, 10, 100-year 24-hour rainfall events. Proposed projects must not adversely affect off-site water levels or resources supported by local recharge, or increase potential for on- and off-site flooding, during or after construction. The RCWD requires a water quality treatment volume depending on the area of new or reconstructed impervious surface. Applicants can use BMPs including infiltration, water reuse, filtration, and stormwater ponds to achieve the required water quality treatment volume. Each BMP design variation has a different pollutant removal fact or, and applicants must provide sufficient treatment volume depending on the BMP used for the site. The RCWD has an approved Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) for a portion of the AUAR area (Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Area CSMP). This purpose of the CSMP is to present an alternative means to meet the RCWD rules. Projects within the CSMP area must conform to design requirements detailed in the CSMP report as applicable. • City of Lino Lakes The City’s Stormwater, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (adopted October 26, 2015; amended January 9, 2023) requires proposed development to maintain or decrease runoff volume and flow frequency, duration and peak runoff rates. Proposed development must also increase infiltration or filtration opportunities, maintain existing flow patterns, and provide storage of stormwater runoff on site. Stormwater BMPs must provide infiltration where feasible, but if infiltration is shown as not feasible for a site due to physical or contamination limitations, then another stormwater BMP may be used with preference for stormwater reuse. Water discharged to BMPs shall be pretreated to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. • National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Standards The MPCA is responsible for implementing NPDES standards. The NPDES requirements in the AUAR area will be from the NPDES Construction General Permit (effective August 1, 2023) and the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (effective November 16, 2020). The NPDES Construction General Permit requires that for sites replacing pervious surfaces with one acre or more of impervious surface, a water quality volume equivalent to 1 inch of runoff from the net increase of impervious surface should be treated. This can be met through wet sedimentation basins, infiltration/filtration, or regional ponding. There are three impaired waterbodies within the study area, and sites that are within one mile of impaired water bodies require additional BMPs. Mr. Michael Grochala May 23, 2025 Page 4 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx The NPDES MS4 permit requires permittees to provide post-construction water quality standards adopted at the local level. The MS4 permit requires permittees to meet the requirements of future TMDLs. Currently there is a TMDL Implementation Plan proposed for discharges to Peltier Lake and Hardwood Creek, they are identified as the Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake Excess Nutrients TMDL and the Hardwood Creek Impaired Biota (Fish) and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. Depending on the location and proximity to impaired waters, development within the AUAR area may need to complete an anti- degradation analysis for the impaired water. Water Quantity and Quality Analysis A water quantity and quality analysis was completed for the existing and proposed conditions within the study area. This quantitative analysis uses the NRCS runoff curve number method to calculate runoff, and the results are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 summarizes the total runoff volumes for both proposed conditions scenarios, with and without volume reductions, compared to the existing condition. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Annual Runoff Volumes1 Existing conditions (AC-FT) 2040 Scenario 1 without Volume Reduction (AC-FT) 2040 Scenario 1 with Volume Reduction2 (AC-FT) 2040 Scenario 2 without Volume Reduction (AC-FT) 2040 Scenario 2 with Volume Reduction2 (AC-FT) 11,193 11,357 4,026 11,365 3,787 1Annual runoff volumes are based on an average of 32 inches of rainfall for the state of Minnesota. 21.1 inches represents approximately 90% of all rain events in Minnesota (Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards, MPCA), therefore volume reduction of 90% was assumed in all land use areas for proposed scenarios, except Permanent Rural, Urban Reserve and Right-of Way, which are assumed to not require any future stormwater management. Table 2 summarizes the total pollutant loads for proposed conditions, with and without volume reductions, compared to the existing condition. Table 2. Total Suspended Solids and Total Phosphorus Annual Loads Pollutant1 Existing conditions 2040 Scenario 1 without Volume Reduction 2040 Scenario 1 with Volume Reduction 2040 Scenario 2 without Volume Reduction 2040 Scenario 2 with Volume Reduction TSS (tons/yr) 888 950 298 955 282 TP (lbs/yr) 7,958 7,603 2,377 8,010 2,248 1Pollutant loading was determined using Event Mean Concentration values from the MPCA Stormwater Manual, based on Land Use classification for the AUAR area. Mr. Michael Grochala May 23, 2025 Page 5 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx To achieve compliance with regulatory requirements, future development must provide annual volume and pollutant load reductions in the amounts required by Local Stormwater Management Regulations and comply with the TMDL. The values presented in Tables 1 and 2 show the estimated annual volume and pollutant load reductions based on the conceptual analysis, and do not include any site-specific constraints for individual developments within the AUAR area. Potential Impact to Downstream Receiving Waters The analysis within the AUAR area shows that the runoff volumes will be reduced by approximately 60 percent for the two proposed land use scenarios compared to existing conditions. This is achieved through implementing City of Lino Lakes, RCWD, and NPDES volume reduction requirements. This reduction in runoff translates directly to the reduction in pollutant loads shown in Table 2. Mr. Michael Grochala May 23, 2025 Page 6 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Stormwater\MEMO - 021725 - Stormwater AP.docx Review and Update of the Mitigation Plan The table below provides the mitigation plan for stormwater management. These mitigation measures have been reviewed and revi sed as needed for this AUAR Update. Table 3. Water Quantity and Quality Mitigation Plan Item No. Mitigation Description Update 17.3 Require stormwater management systems to be developed in accordance with the current version of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules (these rules assist in achieving the goals of the Resource Management Plan – 3) and all other local, state, and federal stormwater management requirements. The Watershed rules outline additional requirements for areas within the CSMP. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Requirements have changed slightly with local and state rule changes. Appendix C Water Appropriation Memo M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Jon Christensen, WSB Date: June 12, 2025 Re: Water Appropriations – I-35E Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. The AUAR analyzed the water appropriation impacts of the two development scenarios. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Plan was developed. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Each assumed no change in the proposed development land use scenarios and included discussion of mitigation improvements that had been completed at the time. Since the 2020 update, the City has adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update reviews two scenarios . The information and analysis outlined within this memo is intended to complete a portion of the AUAR Update related to Item # 11.b.iii – Water Resources – Water Appropriation related to revising of the three scenarios. This memo is intended to update the water analysis provided in the original AUAR where applicable. WATER RESOURCES – WATER APPROPRIATIONS 11.b.iii - Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Existing Conditions The Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas indicates that the depth to water table within the study area varies from open water to 20 feet deep. Temporary water appropriation for construction dewatering under DNR General Permit 1997-0005 will likely be required for the construction of building foundations and buried utilities. Currently, the majority of the study area is served by private wells. The Minnesota Well Index indicates there are approximately 90 wells within the study area which are nearly all for domestic use. No information is available regarding these private wells beyond the Minnesota Well Index. It is possible that additional pre-code unlocated wells exist within the study area. Developers are responsible for locating and sealing any unlocated wells prior to development. Private well Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx locations should be taken into consideration when reviewing development proposals involving potential contaminant sources such as fuel storage tanks, in which case spill prevention plans should be considered. The municipal water supply system has a DNR water appropriation permit. The water distribution system exists in the southern portion of the study area and currently extends north of Main Street on either side of I-35E. The system will continue to be extended as development progresses. The southern portion of the study area overlaps with moderate vulnerability portion s of the City of Lino Lakes and City of Centerville Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) that are delineated in their respective Wellhead Protection Plans, and the moderate vulnerability classification should be considered when reviewing land use applications within those areas . The geology of the City’s existing wells is consistent with other communities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. The Paleozoic sedimentary rocks around the Twin Cities Metro area have three primary aquifers (in descending order): Prairie du Chien–Jordan, Tunnel City-Wonewoc (formerly the Franconian-Ironton-Galesville (FIG)), and Mt. Simon-Hinckley. Each of these are separated by a confining layer that essentially separates the aquifers. The Prairie du Chien–Jordan aquifer is the highest yielding aquifer in the Metro Area. Although these two formations have different names and are geologically different, the two units have been shown to be hydraulically connected. All of the City’s existing production wells are located in the Prairie du Chien–Jordan aquifer, and all future wells are anticipated to be as well. The City will continue to follow the typical DNR well permit process for new municipal production wells, including aquifer test pumping when necessary to evaluate aquifer sustainability and interference. Existing and future water demands for the entire City are detailed in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Water Supply Plan (Plan). Future infrastructure needs for the City, encompassing the AUAR study area, were developed in the Plan. A future well field was preliminarily located within the study area. If future wells are ultimately pursued in this area, they will require updates to the Emergency Response Area and DWSMA and associated land use considerations. The water system currently has six wells and three water towers, although Well No. 2 has been taken out of service due to poor water quality. Tower No. 3 was constructed in 2021, and Well No. 7 is anticipated in 2026. Well capacities range from 600 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,800 gpm. The existing system firm capacity (with the largest well out of service) is 3,650 gpm excluding Well No. 2 due to poor water quality. From 2020-2024, the City averaged a total water demand of 99 gallons per capita per day and a maximum day to average day ratio (peaking factor) of 2.5. For the existing population served of approximately 18,000, this results in an average day demand of 1.78 million gallons per day (MGD) and a maximum day demand of 4.45 MGD. The DNR water appropriation permit for the City of Lino Lakes includes several restrictions imposed by the Ramsey County District Court Order from litigation related to the White Bear Lake water level. The restrictions are intended to protect the White Bear Lake water level and connected groundwater aquifers. The DNR North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area and Metropolitan Council are preparing a White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan to study water supply alternatives for the Northeast Metro of the Twin Cities that both allow for growth and sustain the area’s surface water and groundwater resources. The City will continue to work with regional partners like the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to evaluate and pursue alternative water supply projects like stormwater reuse for irrigation. Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx Proposed Conditions Two possible development scenarios were considered. These were revised from the 2005 Original AUAR. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan corresponds to revised Scenario 1. Scenario 2 has also been revised. Based on the planned land uses for each scenario, the projected water demand is summarized below. New development within the study area will connect to the municipal water system. Scenario 1 The projected water demands within the study area for Scenario 1 are shown in Table 1. There are a number of properties within the southern portion of the study area that already receive municipal water, so these areas have been removed from the areas listed in Table 1. Table 1. Projected Water Demand for Scenario 1 Land Use Type Area (acres) Density (units/acre) Demand Assumption (gpd/acre) * Average Day Demand (gpd) Max Day Demand (gpd) Low Density Sewered Residential 282.6 2.3 511 144,296 404,029 Low Density Mixed Residential 376.9 3.5 777 292,838 819,947 Medium Density Residential 180.5*** 5.0 1,110 200,324 560,906 High Density Residential 39.0 7.0 1,554 60,628 169,759 Planned Residential / Commercial** 89.9 9.0 1,499 134,827 377,514 Office Residential** 139.5 5.0 1,055 147,159 412,046 Mixed Use 0.0 2.3 511 0 0 Commercial 348.9*** N/A 1,000 348,907 976,940 Business Campus**** 624.0 N/A 1,000 623,978 2,047,138 Industrial 472.4*** N/A 1,000 472,434 1,322,815 Civic/Institutional 1.0 N/A 750 775 2,169 Urban Reserve 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Permanent Rural 358.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Park & Open Space 837.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Right-of-Way 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 3,754.1 N/A N/A 2,426,166 7,093,264 *Based on residential per capita water use of 79 gallons per capita per day (historical average from 2020-2024) and 2.81 persons per household (Met Council estimate). **Assumes 50% residential and 50% commercial development. ***Areas for properties within the southern portion of the study area that already receive municipal water have been removed. ****Includes contingency for higher intensity max day water demands. Scenario 2 The projected water demands within the study area for Scenario 2 are shown in Table 2. There are a number of properties within the southern portion of the study area that already receive municipal water, so these areas have been removed from the areas listed in Table 2. Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 4 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx Table 2. Projected Water Demand for Scenario 2 Land Use Type Area (acres) Density (units/acre) Demand Assumption (gpd/acre) * Average Day Demand (gpd) Max Day Demand (gpd) Low Density Sewered Residential 173.2 2.3 511 88,452 247,667 Low Density Mixed Residential 376.9 3.5 777 292,838 819,947 Medium Density Residential 240.9*** 5.0 1,110 267,359 748,605 High Density Residential 391.1 7.0 1,554 607,806 1,701,857 Planned Residential / Commercial** 89.9 9.0 1,499 134,827 377,514 Office Residential** 0.0 5.0 1,055 0 0 Mixed Use 0.0 2.3 511 0 0 Commercial 348.9*** N/A 1,000 348,907 976,940 Business Campus**** 362.6 N/A 1,000 362,561 1,315,171 Industrial 480.3*** N/A 1,000 480,285 1,344,797 Civic/Institutional 90.9 N/A 750 68,195 190,947 Urban Reserve 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Permanent Rural 358.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Park & Open Space 837.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Right-of-Way 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 3,754.1 N/A N/A 2,651,231 7,723,446 *Based on residential per capita water use of 79 gallons per capita per day (historical average from 2020-2024) and 2.81 persons per household (Met Council estimate). **Assumes 50% residential and 50% commercial development . ***Areas for properties within the southern portion of the study area that already receive municipal water have been removed. ****Includes contingency for higher intensity max day water demands. Both scenarios will trigger the need for additional municipal water supply infrastructure. The additional wells and storage needed are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Supply and Storage Summary Existing System With Scenario 1 With Scenario 2 Average Day Demand (MGD) 1.78 4.21 4.43 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 4.45 11.54 12.17 Additional Wells Required N/A 4 to 5 4 to 5 Additional Storage Required (MG) N/A 0 to 0.7 0 to 0.9 The City’s existing authorized appropriation volume is 900 million gallons per year (MGY), and the City’s historical water use from 2020-2024 was 623 MGY. Both scenarios are projected to increase the annual water use beyond 900 MGY. Therefore, the City will likely require an amendment to its appropriation volume prior to full build out of the study area. The City’s historical water use shows a decreasing trend in per capita use, which will likely decrease these projections by the time of development. Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 5 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx Water Demand Projection Comparison Table 5 summarizes the projected average water demands from the 2005 Original AUAR and the 2025 AUAR Update for the scenarios outlined above. Table 5. Comparison of Average Water Demand Projections Scenario 2005 Original AUAR 2025 AUAR Update Scenario 1 1.86 MGD 2.43 MGD Scenario 2 2.45 MGD 2.65 MGD Scenario 3 2.61 MGD N/A The projected water demands have remained within the parameters discussed in the original AUAR. The expansion and layout of the water supply system will generally conform to the layout identified in the 2005 Original AUAR. The 2005 Original AUAR identified the need for 1.0 MG of additional storage, approximately four additional wells, and trunk and lateral watermains. Water Tower No. 3 (1.5 MG) was constructed in 2021, and this AUAR Update reiterates the need for four to five additional wells. Computer modeling completed as part of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update confirmed the adequacy of the planned 16-inch trunk watermain loop. Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 6 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx Review and Update of the Mitigation Plan The table below provides the mitigation plan for water appropriations. These mitigation measures have been reviewed and revised as needed for this AUAR Update. Table 6. Water Use Item No. Mitigation Description Update 13.1 Monitor water usage and do not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds the capacity of the water supply and distribution system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.2 Construct the water supply and distribution system in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health standards and with the goals, policies, and recommendations set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.3 As necessary, amend the City’s Comprehensive Water Supply Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any future amendments or updates to the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the water system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. No updates have been needed to date for the study area. 13.4 Follow the adopted Wellhead Protection Plans for Lino Lakes and Centerville. As necessary, amend the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan for new wells. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.5 Require abandoned private wells to be sealed in compliance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulations. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.6 Require that the installation of any private individual wells be constructed and installed in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulations (Minnesota Well Code). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.7 Continue to implement the City’s adopted water conservation policies which are intended to attenuate peak water demands throughout the City. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.8 Mitigation will be regulated through the City’s development approval and permitting process. Proposed master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans must This mitigation measure is ongoing. Mr. Michael Grochala June 12, 2025 Page 7 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Water 2025-06-02.docx Item No. Mitigation Description Update address relevant water conservation mitigation measures prior to final approval by the City. Implementation of mitigation measures will be assured through developer agreements with the City, which will require financial security for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits and/or certificates of occupancy until all relevant mitigation measures have been addressed. 13.9 Evaluate the use of alternative water sources such as stormwater reuse for irrigation in conjunction with development and implement where feasible, sustainable, and cost-effective. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.10 Conduct aquifer test pumping of new wells, when necessary. This mitigation is ongoing Appendix D Wastewater Management Memo M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Jon Christensen, WSB Date: April 28, 2025 Re: Wastewater Management – I-35 E Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. The AUAR analyzed the wastewater impacts of the three development scenarios. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Plan was developed. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Each assumed no change in the proposed development land use scenarios and included discussion of mitigation improvements that had been completed at the time. Since the 2020 update, the City has adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update reviews two scenarios. The information and analysis outlined within this memo is intended to complete a portion of the AUAR Update related to Item # 11.b.i – Water Resources – Wastewater related to revising of the three scenarios. This memo is intended to update the wastewater analysis provided in the original AUAR where applicable. WATER RESOURCES – WASTEWATER Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx Existing Conditions Within the City of Lino Lakes, the number of sanitary sewer connections is currently 5,400. Of the 5,400 connections to the public sanitary sewer system, most are single family residential with some multi-family residential, commercial/ industrial, and institutional connections. The City has approximately 1,705 properties that are served by on-site septic systems. Based on Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) meter data from 2019-2023, the City’s existing average daily wastewater flow is 1.04 million gallons per day (MGD). Since the wastewater generated within the City of Lino Lakes is primarily from residential units, the wastewater characteristics are assumed to be of typical domestic strength. Table 1 is a summary of the estimated existing wastewater characteristics for Lino Lakes. Table 1. Estimated Existing Wastewater Characteristics and Total Average Loading Parameter Concentration (mg/L) Average Load (lbs/day) Biochemical Oxygen Demand 220 1,909 Total Suspended Solids 220 1,909 Ammonia – Nitrogen 25 217 Total Phosphorous 8 69 Wastewater generated within the City is collected by a series of laterals, trunk sewer mains, and lift stations and is then directed to one of three interceptor sewers that are owned, operated, and maintained by MCES (Interceptors 9106, 8361, and 9708). Wastewater is then conveyed through the MCES regional collection system to the Metropolitan WWTP. The Metropolitan WWTP has a design capacity of 314 MGD and currently receives an average daily flow of 180 MGD. Proposed Conditions The original AUAR considered three possible development scenarios, and the 2020 update revised Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 with the third scenario being considered as the 2030 comprehensive plan . The 2040 Comprehensive Plan corresponds to revised Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 was also revised. The third scenario considered is the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Scenario and is outdated and no longer applicable. The projected wastewater flow for each scenario is based on the planned land uses as described below. The municipal collection system currently extends to Main Street on either side of I -35E. The municipal trunk sewers will continue to be extended as development progresses. As detailed in the 2040 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, development within Sanitary Sewer District 3 and 5 will require at least one large regional lift station and several smaller lift stations. The majority of the wastewater generated within the study area will discharge to MCES Interceptor 802325 which is currently extended approximately 1,000 ft northwest of the intersection of Main Street and Elmcrest Avenue. The remainder will discharge to MCES Interceptor 7651 which currently serves the existing Sanitary Sewer District 3. All of the flow generated within the study area will be conveyed through the MCES regional collection system to the Metropolitan WWTP. Scenario 1 The proposed development within the study area for revised Scenario 1, the assumed wastewater flow for each land use type, and the projected wastewater flow for that development are summarized in Table 2. There are a number of properties within the southern portion of the Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx study area that are already sewered, so these areas have been removed from the areas listed in Table 2 Table 2. Projected Average Daily Flow for Scenario 1 Land Use Type Area (acres) Density (units/acre) Flow Assumption (gpd/acre) Average Flow (gpd) Low Density Sewered Residential 282.6 2.3 414 117,002 Low Density Mixed Residential 376.9 3.5 630 237,447 Medium Density Residential 180.5** 5.0 900 162,432 High Density Residential 39.0 7.0 1,260 49,160 Planned Residential / Commercial* 89.9 9.0 1,210 108,836 Office Residential* 139.5 5.0 850 118,567 Mixed Use 0.0 2.3 414 0 Commercial 348.9** N/A 800 279,126 Business Campus*** 624.0 N/A 800 799,182 Industrial 472.4** N/A 800 377,947 Civic/Institutional 1.0 N/A 600 620 Urban Reserve 0.0 N/A N/A N/A Permanent Rural 358.1 N/A N/A N/A Park & Open Space 837.5 N/A N/A N/A Right-of-Way 3.7 N/A N/A N/A Total 3,754.1 N/A N/A 2,250,319 *Assumes 50% residential and 50% commercial development. **Areas for properties within the southern portion of the study area that are already sewered have been removed. ***Includes contingency for higher intensity wastewater flow. Table 3 summarizes the projected wastewater flow by MCES connection point under Scenario 1. Note that the flows listed in Table 3 include only additional flows generated within the study area. Table 3. Projected Additional Regional Wastewater Flow by MCES Connection Point for Scenario 1 MCES Interceptor City Sanitary Sewer District Average Flow (MGD) Peak Hourly Flow (MGD) 7651 3 0.62 2.11 802325 5 1.63 4.73 Table 4 summarizes the projected wastewater characteristics and additional loading for the wastewater that will be generated under Scenario 1. Table 4. Projected Wastewater Characteristics and Additional Total Average Daily Wastewater Loading for Scenario 1 Parameter Concentration (mg/L) Average Load (lbs/day) Biochemical Oxygen Demand 220 4,131 Total Suspended Solids 220 4,131 Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 4 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx Ammonia –Nitrogen 25 469 Total Phosphorous 8 150 Scenario 2 The proposed development within the study area for Scenario 2, the assumed wastewater flow for each land use type, and the projected wastewater flow for that development are summarized in Table 5. There are a number of properties within the southern portion of the study area that are already sewered, so these areas have been removed from the areas listed in Table 5. Table 5. Projected Average Daily Flow for Scenario 2 Land Use Type Area (acres) Density (units/acre) Flow Assumption (gpd/acre) Average Flow (gpd) Low Density Sewered Residential 173.2 2.3 414 71,721 Low Density Mixed Residential 376.9 3.5 630 237,447 Medium Density Residential 240.9** 5.0 900 216,787 High Density Residential 391.1 7.0 1,260 492,838 Planned Residential / Commercial* 89.9 9.0 1,210 108,836 Office Residential* 0.0 5.0 850 0 Mixed Use 0.0 2.3 414 0 Commercial 348.9** N/A 800 279,126 Business Campus*** 362.6 N/A 800 590,049 Industrial 480.3** N/A 800 384,228 Civic/Institutional 90.9 N/A 600 54,556 Urban Reserve 0.0 N/A N/A N/A Permanent Rural 358.1 N/A N/A N/A Park & Open Space 837.5 N/A N/A N/A Right-of-Way 3.7 N/A N/A N/A Total 3,754.1 N/A N/A 2,435,589 *Assumes 50% residential and 50% commercial development. **Areas for properties within the southern portion of the study area that are already sewered have been removed. ***Includes contingency for higher intensity wastewater flow. Table 6 summarizes the projected wastewater flow by MCES connection point under Scenario 2. Note that the flows listed in Table 6 include only those generated within the study area. Table 6. Projected Regional Wastewater Flow by MCES Connection Point for Scenario 2 MCES Interceptor City Sanitary Sewer District Average Flow (MGD) Peak Hourly Flow (MGD) 7651 3 0.64 2.18 802325 5 1.79 5.19 Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 5 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx Table 7 summarizes the projected wastewater characteristics and additional loading for the wastewater that will be generated under Scenario 2. Table 7. Projected Wastewater Characteristics and Additional Total Average Daily Wastewater Loading for Scenario 2 Parameter Concentration (mg/L) Average Load (lbs/day) Biochemical Oxygen Demand 220 4,471 Total Suspended Solids 220 4,471 Ammonia –Nitrogen 25 508 Total Phosphorous 8 163 Wastewater Projection Comparison Table 11 summarizes the projected average wastewater flows from the 2005 Original AUAR and the 2025 AUAR Update for the scenarios outlined above. The 2005 Original AUAR used flow assumptions of 274 gpd/unit for residential development and 1,500 gpd/acre for commercial and industrial development. The 2005 flow assumptions were very conservative, so the 2020 flow assumptions used in this update have been revised to agree more closely with metered wastewater flows from the last five years. Table 11. Comparison of Average Wastewater Flow Projections Scenario 2005 Original AUAR 2025 AUAR Update Scenario 1 2.529 MGD 2.250 MGD Scenario 2 3.646 MGD 2.436 MGD Scenario 3 3.733 MGD N/A The projected wastewater flows have decreased in this update. Due to topography constraints, the expansion and layout of the sanitary sewer system will generally conform to the layout identified in the 2005 Original AUAR. However, the exact sizing of trunk facilities may be revised based on the most current wastewater flow projections. Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 6 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Water Wastewater\MEMO Wastewater 2025-02-14_Scenario 3 removed.docx Review and Update of the Mitigation Plan The table below provides the mitigation plan for wastewater management. These mitigation measures have been reviewed and revised as needed for this AUAR Update. Table 12. Water Quality: Wastewater Item No. Mitigation Description Update 18.1 Monitor wastewater flows and not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds the capacity of the wastewater system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.2 Construct the major infrastructure improvements needed to expand the capacity of the wastewater system (i.e. lift stations, force mains, and upgrades to the existing systems) in accordance with the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.3 Adequately phase capacity improvements. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.4 Amend the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the sanitary sewer system and regional capacity needs. This mitigation measure is ongoing. No updates have been needed to date for the study area. 18.5 Each proposed development will be required to provide a detailed projection of wastewater generation and flows. These calculations will be checked by the City’s Engineering Consultant. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.6 The City will create a year-end report to evaluate wastewater increases by major sewer lines and overall system usage in relation to capacity. Results of this assessment will become the targets for growth for the following year. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Appendix E Transportation Memo M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Mallori Fitzpatrick, PE, PTOE, WSB Alison Harwood, WSB Date: April 2, 2025 Re: Transportation – I-35 Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. The AUAR analyzed the transportation impacts of the three development scenarios for the years 2030 and post 2030. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Plan was developed. Mitigation included adding new roadway connections, intersection control, turn lanes , and widening roads as necessary as development occurs throughout the area. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The 2010 and 2015 updates assumed no change in the proposed development land use scenarios and included discussion of mitigation improvements that had been completed at the time. In both cases no additional mitigation was recommended. As part of the 2020 AUAR update, the City completed an updated Comprehensive Plan including a Transportation Plan for the 2040 forecast year. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION UPDATE There have been several developments in the study area that have been approved since the original AUAR was completed in 2005 through the 2020 update including: • Park-and-Ride in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and CSAH 14 • McDonald’s restaurant and Main Street Shoppes east of I-35E on CSAH 14 • NorthPointe residential development north of Birch Street between I-35E and CSAH 54 • Watermark residential development west of I-35E, north of CSAH 14 • Clearwater Creek commercial development west of I-35E and south of CSAH 14 on 21st Avenue Since the 2020 update, the following developments have occurred: • 7107 Otter Lake Rd multi-tenant development north of CSAH 14 on Otter Lake Road • Culver’s development north of CSAH 14 on Otter Lake Road • Tidal Wave Auto Spa development north of CSAH 14 on Otter Lake Road • Kwik Trip gas station development west of 21st Avenue on CSAH 14 • NorBella Senior Living development west of 21st Avenue on Michaud Way • New Horizon Academy development west of 24th Avenue on Rosemary Way • Associated Eye Care development north of CSAH 14 on Rosemary Way • NorthPointe Garden Estates development west of I35e on Chestnut St • Sutton Transportation development east of CSAH 54 on Gateway Circle • 2010 Fairview St – multi tenant development east of CSAH 54 on Fairview Street • DMS6 Amazon Delivery Station development in the northeast quadrant of CSAH 54 and Fairview Street Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx In addition, there have been roadway improvements completed since the original AUAR through the 2020 update including: • CSAH 14 Improvements west of I-35E • I-35E at CSAH 14 Interchange Improvements Since the 2020 update, the following roadway improvements have occurred: • Extension of Rosemary Way west of 24th Avenue • Watermark development neighborhood street construction and a roundabout at Watermark Way and Forest Lane As previously discussed, three development scenarios were included in the original AUAR, and three consolidated scenarios were included with the 2020 update that were consistent with the original AUAR. The revised Scenario 3 was considered the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Scenario and is now outdated and no longer applicable. Traffic Generation The original AUAR include traffic generation for the three land use scenarios using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition.” The traffic generation was prepared for both the 2030 base year and the Post 2030 conditions. For comparison purposes, the Post 2030 conditions were used. Tables 1 – 3 shows the Post 2030 Traffic Generation from the original AUAR. For the 2020 AUAR Update, the traffic generation was updated based on the revised development scenarios. Traffic generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual “Trip Generation Manual, 10h Edition” were used to determine the updated traffic forecasts. Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 show the 2020 AUAR Update Scenario traffic generation. Table 1. 2005 AUAR Scenario 1 – City Comprehensive Plan Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Rural Land Use DU 125 93 127 1,196 Low Density Res DU 510 383 516 4,880 Med Density Res DU 1,129 416 496 6,078 High Density Res DU 473 241 294 3,178 Commercial SF 2,985,000 5,090 6,773 63,598 Industrial SF 11,175,000 7,912 8,270 68,872 Total 14,135 16,476 147,802 Table 2. 2005 AUAR Scenario 2 – Commercial / Industrial Emphasis Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Rural Land Use DU 44 33 44 422 Low Density Res DU 118 88 119 1,130 Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx Low/Med Density Res DU 2,419 1,439 1,060 18,662 Med/High Density Res DU 2,173 954 1,149 13,150 High Density Res DU 981 490 596 6,458 Commercial SF 5,617,000 9,577 12,745 119,676 Industrial SF 9,570,000 6,775 7,082 58,980 Total 19,356 22,795 218,478 Table 3. 2005 AUAR Scenario 3 – Residential Emphasis Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Rural Land Use DU 43 32 43 412 Low Density Res DU 118 88 119 1,130 Low/Med Density Res DU 3,685 2,192 1,614 28,430 Med/High Density Res DU 3,247 1,425 1,718 19,650 High Density Res DU 1,566 799 971 10,524 Commercial SF 4,141,000 7,060 9,396 88,228 Industrial SF 5,829,000 4,127 4,313 35,924 Total 15,723 18,174 184,298 Table 4. 2020 AUAR Update Scenario 1 – City 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Low Density Res DU 2,335 1,728 2,312 22,042 Med Density Res DU 1,675 687 838 11,089 High Density Res DU 678 312 380 4,963 Commercial SF 5,085,000 3,865 4,831 67,936 Industrial SF 12,817,000 5,127 4,999 41,014 Total 11,718 13,358 147,044 Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 4 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx Table 5. 2020 AUAR Update Scenario 2 Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Low Density Res DU 2,283 1,689 2,260 21,552 Med Density Res DU 1,977 811 989 13,088 High Density Res DU 3,143 1,446 1,760 23,007 Commercial SF 5,307,000 4,033 5,042 77,270 Industrial SF 10,054,000 4,022 3,921 32,173 Total 12,001 13,971 167,089 Table 6. 2020 AUAR Update Scenario 3 – City 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Unit Size AM Peak PM Peak ADT Low Density Res DU 190 140 188 1,794 Med Density Res DU 1,991 816 996 13,180 High Density Res DU 273 126 153 1,998 Commercial SF 3,229,000 2,454 3,068 47,014 Industrial SF 10,128,000 4,051 3,950 32,410 Total 7,588 8,354 96,396 Comparing the land use scenarios shows that the future traffic generated with the 2020 updated land uses will be less than that from the original AUAR. The percent reduction in traffic generation is shown below in Table 7. Table 7. Scenario Comparison 2005 Scenario 2020 Updated Scenario AM Peak % Reduction PM Peak % Reduction ADT % Reduction Scenario 1 Scenario 1 21% 23% 1% Scenario 2 Scenario 2 61% 63% 31% Scenario 3 Scenario 2 31% 30% 10% Scenario 1 Scenario 3 86% 97% 53% Traffic Analysis The Transportation Study completed as part of the original AUAR analyzed the effects the land use scenarios had on the local and regional roadway systems. The analysis was based on existing traffic counts at the time and the Anoka County version of the Met ropolitan Council’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 5 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx The Traffic analysis focused on the operation of the primary roadways and their intersections during the peak travel periods (a.m. and p.m. peak hours), which is typically the time when the most severe traffic congestion is incurred. The results found that mitigation improvements would be required for each Scenario for the transportation system to operate at acceptable levels. Based on the analysis a Mitigation Plan was developed. Mitigation included adding new roadway connections, intersection control, turn lanes and widening roads as necessary as development occurs throughout the area. The improvements were intended to represent the minimum level of infrastructure investment that would be needed to meet acceptable level of service standards. Additional roadway and non-motorized improvements, beyond the minimum level, may be identified to accommodate specific development needs. As part of the 2020 Update, traffic forecasts were revised for 2040 and Post 2040 with the Cities “Draft 2040 Transportation Plan”. The forecasts assumed a roadway network consistent with the AUAR mitigation improvements. Since the 2020 Update, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been finalized, and a few forecasts were slightly modified. Figure 1 shows the forecasted 2040 and Post 2040 (Full Build) Average Daily Traffic volumes with the future roadway network. Based on the comparison of the forecasted traffic generation from the AUAR area and the forecasted 2040 traffic volumes, the traffic analysis conducted, and Mitigation Plan recommended with the 2005 AUAR and the 2010, 2015, and 2020 updates remain valid for this AUAR Update. Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 6 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx Review and Update of the Mitigation Plan The table below provides the mitigation plan for Transportation. These mitigation measures have been reviewed and revised as needed for this AUAR Update. Table 7. Transportation Item No. Mitigation Description Update 21.1 Create a monitoring program that closely evaluates traffic impacts from proposed developments within the AUAR area. Traffic Impact Studies are required for proposed developments showing the impact on the transportation system and consistency with the AUAR. 21.2 Implement traffic mitigation measures as development occurs within the AUAR area. Specific mitigation measures for the three development scenarios are discussed in Item 21 and depicted on Figures 21-8, 21-9, and 21-10. These mitigation measures improve overall traffic operations for the respective development scenarios. The improvements are intended to represent the minimum level of infrastructure investment that would be needed to meet acceptable level of service standards. Additional roadway and non-motorized improvements, beyond the minimum level, may be identified to accommodate specific development needs that are identified within the AUAR area. Primary improvements, regardless of land use scenario, include: 21.2.1 Develop frontage road system in compliance with local, county and state access management guidelines to serve local and regional traffic. 21.2.2 Work with appropriate road authorities to reconstruct and provide additional capacity for CSAH 14. 21.2.3 Work with appropriate road authorities to construct Northerly Bypass with new interchanges at I-35W and I-35E (80th Street East) to improve traffic operations and access to and within the AUAR area. As recommended by FHWA and Mn/DOT, a phasing plan should be established to construct each piece of the Northerly Connector as it becomes necessary to maintain the serviceability of the transportation system. CSAH 14 improvements were completed in 2009 and noted in the 2010 AUAR Update CSAH 54 with CSAH 14 (formerly CSAH 21) 20th Avenue North intersection improvements were completed and noted in the 2010 AUAR Update. I-35E Interchange reconstruction was completed in 2011. This mitigation measure is complete. Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 7 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx Item No. Mitigation Description Update Phase Improvement 1. CSAH 14, I-35W to I-35E (funded and programmed for construction) 2. CSAH 14, I-35E Interchange 3. CR 140 (80th Street)/I-35E Interchange 4. CSAH 14 across Peltier Lake (Northerly Bypass/Connector) 5. CSAH 14/I-35W Interchange As part of these improvements, the following steps should be taken as the opportunity is presented: ▪ Inclusion of the northerly bypass and proposed interchanges in future transportation and comprehensive plans ▪ Coordination with Anoka County regarding the proposed Northerly Bypass alignment through Rice Creek Park Reserve. ▪ Preservation of right of way through official mapping or other process ▪ Right of way dedication through the platting process 21.3 Require a traffic impact analysis for all development projects within the AUAR area. The traffic impact analysis will assist the City and other road authorities in determining the appropriate mitigation measures that are required to mitigate impacts of a specific development proposal. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.4 Work with appropriate road authorities to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic on the on the regional system, specifically Interstates 35W and 35E, by reconstructing each to provide a six-lane cross-section consistent with the recommendations outlined in the I-35 IRC. It should be noted that it was determined that an expansion will be necessary even without the development scenarios used in this analysis. As the interstates serve a much larger area, the projected growth of the entire Twin Cities region should warrant expansion by the year 2030. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Mr. Michael Grochala February 14, 2025 Page 8 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Traffic\MEMO - 021425 - Transportation_Scenario 3 removed.docx Item No. Mitigation Description Update 21.5 Prioritize alternative travel modes within the AUAR study area and require project proposers to address alternative travel modes (e.g., buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians) by identifying appropriate accommodations. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.6 Consider the need for additional infrastructure improvements (see item #21.2) in future updates or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Submit the plan update to the appropriate agencies (i.e., FHWA, MnDOT, Met Council, etc.). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.7 Require project proposers to follow all appropriate guidelines and policies related to traffic nose and noise walls. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.8 Require that site plans for each of the developments include measures such as appropriate setback distances, earthen berms, noise walls, and appropriate site design to reduce the impact of traffic noise to residential areas. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.9 Continue to require the implementation of the conditions of approval for the Eagle Brook Church relating to mitigating traffic impacts. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.10 Achieve effective traffic operations within the city by requiring that site plans make use of access management practices to promote safe, effective traffic flow. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.11 Require project proposers to follow the Anoka County Highway Department Development Review Process Manual (updated August 2014). This mitigation measure is ongoing and has been updated to reflect the newest manual. 21.12 Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable transportation authorities. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.13 Requires project proposer to contact MNDOT if development within the area impacts Metro Transit Route 275 This mitigation measure is ongoing. !? !? "S %&d( %&c( %&c( GnWX GnWX GÀWX GÀWX G¦WX 62, 0 0 0 45, 8 0 0 16, 0 0 0 12 , 3 0 0 12 , 1 0 0 35,000 36,000 3,0 0 0 2,4 0 0 20 , 0 0 0 5, 9 0 0 60 , 0 0 0 43 , 5 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 8, 4 0 0 17 , 1 0 0 8, 5 0 0 41,000 32,400 11 , 1 0 0 6,4 0 0 14 , 0 0 0 5, 8 0 0 10,000 6,500 61 , 0 0 0 55 , 1 0 0 6, 5 0 0 CE N T E R V I L L E RD OTT E R LAK E R D MA I N S T 20 T H A V E 80TH ST BIRCH ST WARDS LAKE SHERMAN LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE PELTIER LAKE RONDEAU LAKE RICE CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES PARK RESERVE CITY HALL PARK LAMOTTE PARK CLEARWATER CREEK PARK PHEASANT HILLS PARK BRANDYWOOD PARK LAURIE LAMOTTE MEMORIAL PARK TRACIE MCBRIDE MEMORIAL PARK ACORN CREEK PARK EAGLE PARK HIDDEN SPRING PARK TRAILSIDE PARK ROYAL MEADOWS PARK 0 2,700 Feet¯Figure 1 - Transportation I-35 Corridor AUAR Project Lino Lakes, MN Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ A U A R U p d a t e . a p r x D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 1 3 A M Study Area City Boundary !?Future Interchange "S Future Overpass Future Roadway XXX Post 2040 Full Build ADT Volume XXX 2040 Forecasted ADT Volumes 1 inch = 2,700 feet Appendix F Climate Adaptation and Resilience Memo Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 1 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Tim Paquin, WSB Date: June 3, 2025 Re: Climate Adaptation and Resilience – I-35 Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010 , 2015, and 2020. Each assumed no change in the proposed development land use scenarios and included discussion of mitigation improvements th at had been completed at the time. Since the 2020 update, the City has adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update reviews two scenarios. The information and analysis outlined within this memo is intended to complete a portion of the AUAR Update related to Item # 6 – Climate Adaptation and Resilience related to revising of the two scenarios. This memo is intended to update the climate analysis provided in the original AUAR where applicable. CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 2 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" For the general project location, trends in precipitation, temperature, flood risk, and cooling degree days have been analyze d and described below. Some of the climate projections summarized below use Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.1 Precipitation According to the Minnesota Climate Explorer, the historic average precipitation level in Anoka County between 2000 and 2024 was 31.04 inches with the lowest range in 2021 (21.94 inches) and the highest average in 2002 (41.01 inches).2 Average annual precipitation in Anoka County from 2040-2059 is projected to be 32.79 inches under RCP 4.5. From 2080-2099, average annual precipitation is projected to be 33.62 inches under RCP 4.5 and 35.87 inches under RCP 8.5. Temperature According to the Minnesota Climate Explorer, the historic average temperature in Anoka County between 2000 and 2024 was approximately 45.14°F with the lowest average in 2014 (40.93°F) and the highest average in 2012 (48.39°F). The average annual temperature in Anoka County is projected to increase to 48.42°F from 2040 to 2059 under RCP 4.5 (intermediate emissions pathway). In 2080-2099, average annual temperature is projected to further increase to 50.84°F and 54.58°F under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 (high emissions pathway), respectively. Urban Heat Island Surfaces and structures such as roads, parking lots, and buildings absorb and re -emit more heat from the sun than natural landscapes. This can significantly raise air temperature and overall extreme heat vulnerability in urban areas where there are dense conc entrations of these surfaces. This is referred to as urban heat island effect. According to the Metropolitan Council’s Extreme Heat Map Too l, the AUAR study area is located in an area of medium heat vulnerability in the less developed areas and high heat vulnerability in areas with more development.3 Flood Risk Climate change can exacerbate the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events and associated flooding in some location s. According to the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, a tool that identifies current effective flood hazard data, the majority of the study area has a 1 RCP 4.5 is an intermediate scenario in which emissions decline after peaking around 2040, and RCP 8.5 is a worst -case scenario in which emissions continue to rise through the 21st century. Climate Explorer Metadata available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate-explorer-metadata.html 2 Available at: https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/climateexplorer/main/historical 3 Available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 3 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" minimal risk of flooding despite increases in extreme rainfall events.4 However, special flood hazard areas were identified near water bodies and waterways where flooding has an increased chance of occurring. Development within special flood hazard areas is required to follow FEMA permitting requirements. Cooling Degree Days Degree days are based on the assumption that when the outside temperature is 65°F, heating or cooling is not needed to be comfortable , as defined by the National Weather Service. Degree days are the difference between the daily temperature mean and 65°F. If th e temperature is above 65°F, 65 is subtracted from the mean and the result is the cooling degree days. For example, if the mean temperature over a 24-hour period is 70°F, then there have been 5 cooling degree days.5 Cooling degree days are used as a proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings. According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota, the number of cooling days in 2019 for Anoka County was 379. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Anoka County is projected to be 453 and 598 for RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively .6 4 Available at: Flood Data Viewers and Geospatial Data | FEMA.gov 5 Available at: https://www.weather.gov/key/climate_heat_cool 6 Available at: https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/ Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 4 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project’s proposed activities and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified Table 1. Table 1 - Climate Considerations Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations Project Design Aspects of building architecture/materials choices and site design may impact urban heat island conditions in the surrounding area, including changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves. In the coming decades, the location of the study area is anticipated to experience: • Increased annual precipitation and more frequent heavy rainfall events • Increased annual temperatures • Increased freeze thaw cycles • Medium to high urban heat island effect • Buildings could be constructed with rooftop-ready infrastructure for green roofs or solar power generation • Building shells could be energy efficient • Proposed climate smart tree plantings and landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate urban heat island effect. • Developer should consider climate adapted vegetation to mitigate impacts of drought and large rain events. Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 5 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" Land Use No critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed. Portions of the proposed development may experience flooding during extreme rain events. • Design of the site and stormwater management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR study area. • Buildings will be set at elevations to maintain clearance above flood elevations per Lino Lakes City code. • Infiltration areas may be used and would improve water quality and stormwater runoff in the project vicinity. Water Resources Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence water resources. Water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and change in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff. There may be more evaporation and water available when it rains leading to an increase in the flood potential. It is projected that there will be more severe storm events with high, intense rain amounts which will require drainage systems to be adequately maintained to accommodate for the increase in water volume. • Developer will consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping and stormwater features will absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation. The MPCA’s Updated Plants for Stormwater Design is a recommend resource for native plant selection. • Stormwater BMPs will be designed to weather a 100- year storm event in accordance with City/ Watershed requirements as the property is developed. • Developments occurring within special flood hazard areas will need to follow FEMA permitting requirements Mr. Michael Grochala June 3, 2025 Page 6 "M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Climate\MEMO Climate 2025-02-24.docx" • Developer will consider chlorine management plan to minimize impacts of increased freeze and thaw cycles on water resources Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/Wastes Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of hazardous waste and materials. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste or materials. Not applicable. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the local species and suitable habitat. Suitable habitat for species may become unsuitable due to land use changes, increased temperature, and runoff. • Native plantings and stormwater BMPs will provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species that currently utilize the existing developed area. Appendix G Contamination Review Memo 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Ryan Spencer, WSB Roxy Robertson, WSB Date: April 2, 2025 Re: Desktop Contamination Review – I-35 Corridor AUAR Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 Introduction WSB reviewed public database information to identify sites that pose a contamination risk to the Lino Lakes I-35 Corridor located in Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the Study Area). A map showing the Study Area is included as Figure 1. The following online databases were reviewed on February 6, 2025, as part of this desktop contamination review: • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) "What's in My Neighborhood?" website • Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) "What's in My Neighborhood?" website This desktop contamination review is not intended to replace a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed by ASTM Standard E1527-21. WSB did not verify the database information for accuracy. Therefore, further environmental review is recommended prior to performing any follow-up investigation work (e.g. subsurface borings) to verify What's in My Neighborhood (WIMN) source information. Based on this desktop review, the following pertinent contamination information is provided: Study Area Sites Seventy two (72) sites were identified within the Study Area (see Figure 2). Many of the sites were included on multiple databases listings, however, not all listings indicate the presence of contamination. The following Study Area listings indicate the presence of contamination: Site 3 – Private Residence, 8196 20th Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN • Brownfields BF0002193: The site was enrolled into the Petroleum Brownfields (PB) Program in 2022. Brownfields are potentially contaminated sites where the MPCA is assisting with environmental investigations and/or redevelopment activities. The status is listed as active. Site 32 – Eagle Trucking Inc, 7087 20th Avenue, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0013133: The identified leak was discovered in 1999, consisted of diesel, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2000. Site closure does not mean that the site is free of contamination. Michael Grochala February 10, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Contamination Review\2025 Memo\0 - Contamination Review Memo - AUAR 2025 - 2.10.25.docx Site 41 – Lakes 1 Stop, 7090 21st Avenue South, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0013380: The identified leak was discovered in 2000, consisted of gasoline, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2003. Site 62 – Acton Construction, 2209 Phelps Road, Lino Lakes, MN • Leak Site LS0001284: The identified leak was discovered in 1989, consisted of fuel oil #1 & #2 and lead gasoline, impacted groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 1992. • Brownfields VP3340: The site entered the Brownfields Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program from 1992 to 1997. • Brownfields BF0001207: A second VIC listing associated with Site 62 was listed as active from June 2019 to December 2019. Site 85 – Rehbein Shop/Office, 6805 20th Avenue South, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0015707: The identified leak was discovered in 2003, consisted of diesel, did not impact groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2006. Adjacent Sites Nine (9) sites were identified adjacent to the Study Area (see Figure 2). Many of the sites were included on multiple database listings, however, not all listings indicate the presence of contamination. The following adjacent site listings indicate the presence of contamination: Site 31 – Corner Express, 1990 Main Street, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0018115: The identified leak was discovered in 2010, consisted of unleaded gasoline, impacted groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2011. • Leak Site LS0020747: The identified leak was discovered in June 2018, consisted of gasoline, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in August 2018. Site 70 – Jim Stevens Construction, 7007 20th Avenue, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0009694: The identified leak was discovered in 1996, consisted of diesel and gasoline, impacted groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 1998. Site 81 – Lino Lakes Well #4, 6786 Clearwater Creek Dr, Centerville, MN • Leak Site LS0014107: The identified leak was discovered in 2000, consisted of (unknown), did not impact groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2003. Surrounding Area Sites (Within 500 Feet) Nine (9) sites were identified in the surrounding area (within 500 feet) of the Study Area (see Figure 2). Many of the sites were included on multiple databases, however, not all listings indicate the presence of contamination. The following surrounding area site listing indicates the presence of contamination: Site 7 – Hugo 30 Acres, 4330 170th Street North, Hugo, MN • Brownfields PB4670: The site entered the PB Program from September 2014 to December 2014. • Brownfields VP31840: A second VIC listing associated with Site 20 was listed as active from September 2014 to January 2015. Michael Grochala February 10, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Contamination Review\2025 Memo\0 - Contamination Review Memo - AUAR 2025 - 2.10.25.docx Conclusion Multiple sites were identified during this desktop contamination review that pose a contamination risk to the Study Area. These sites include: • Study Area Sites o Sites 3, 32, 41, 62, and 85 • Adjacent Sites o Sites 31, 70, and 81 • Surrounding Area Sites (Within 500 Ft.) o Site 7 Prior to redevelopment in the vicinity of the above listed sites, it is recommended that a subsurface environmental investigation is completed to determine if contaminated soil and/or groundwater will be encountered during redevelopment. Further, a Response Action Plan / Construction Contingency Plan (RAP/CCP) should be in place prior to disturbance near the above listed sites to ensure all contaminated materials (if encountered) are managed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ryan Spencer at 763- 231-3644 or rspencer@wsbeng.com. Enclosures: Figure 1 – Study Area Figure 2 – MPCA/MDA What’s in My Neighborhood Search Results GHWX21 GHWX34 GHWX34 GHWX14 GHWX14 GHWX54 GHWX54 4A140 84 84 35W 35W 35W 35 35 35 35E 35E Gull Dr 21 s t A v e S 21 s t A v e N Mound Trl L a m o t t e Dr Robin Ln N Otte r L a k e R d Ot t e r L a k e R d Frenchm a n R d Norway Ln WFreeway Dr NE 80th St Rondeau Lake Rd W E t h a n T rl N Main St M a i n S t M ainSt Main St Rainy L n Osa k i s S t G ard en WayN Heritage Pk w y N Fable Hill P k wy N Butternut St JardinAve N Chestnut S t Empress Way N Ell e n C t Ba y D r TartLa k e R d Lacasse D r Mi l l R d E m p r e s s D r N Brian Dr Ha w k R i d g e C i r Island Ct ValjeanBlv d N El m o C t Beave r P ondWay Fab l e R d N 15 0 th S t N Sherman Lake Ct ClearwaterCreek Dr Heron Ct Heritage A v e PrivateRd W e s t v i e w S t White Oak R d Go r d o n A v e Heritage St Ada D r Partridge Pl D e li n a Cir Timberwolf Cir Lacasse C ir CraneDr Mil l e L a c s L n 24 t h A v e Sorel St Al b e r t C t M o u n d C t Me a d o w l a r k C t D o g w o o d S t Velvetleaf Ln Pheasa n t L n Oakvie w C t P o r t a g e W a y Elm crestAve N Lac a s s e C t Widgeon Cir T i m b erwolf Trl Wolf Cir Arbre Ln N Sn o w G o o s e T r l Un i t y A v e To u r v i l l e C i r 20 t h A v e 20 t h A v e 20t h A v e Clearwater Dr 20th Av e Victor P a t h D e e r C t Grangeview D u p r e Rd CountyPkwyH 158th StN SedgeCt Ce n t e r v i l l e R d N ormaWay Ta r t C t Ed e n C i r St e l l a Ln Su m a c C t G r a n t a i r e L n N Oa k C i r Cass Dr Iv y C t V o y a g e r C t P e t e r son Trl M e a d o w C t Whitetail Trl 12 t h A v e B r i a n C t D o g w o o d C t Go i f f o n R d 70th St Old M ill R d Te l e Ln Pondview Cir Meadow Ln Willo w Cir Pr o g r e s s R d Gateway Cir Clearwater Creek Ct Vict o r H ugoBlvd N C l ear Ridge HarrietLn P ioneerLn R o s e maryWayN Forest Ln Ot t e r L a k e S e r v i c e R d 7 3 r d St Fox Run VictoriaCir 159th St N Merca n t i l e D r N Northern LightsBlvd Houle Cir Arthur C t OspreyCt Steven Ln Robin Ln S Mallard Wa y E n f i e l d A veN Cardinal Dr JohannaCir R u ffed G rouseRd Canfield Rd Red Oak Ln Iv y w o o d A v e P a lm S t Iver s o n C t H u n t e r s Trl William Ln E a gle T r l Koronis Cir Itasca Cir S h ermanLake R d T w i n L a k e s Ave Te a l C t Tele Dr PeltierLake Dr Fable Rd Ct N Emp r e s s A v e N Em ilyCir R o s e m a r y Way Old Mill Ct C y p ress St 65thSt Prairie Dr W ater m ark Way Brian W a y Cott o n wood Ct Ga a g e L n LamotteCir Lavalle D r Stoneybroo k Dr 72nd St C enter St Laramee Ln 81st St W Quebec St Ta l l e L n Phe a sant H il ls Dr Revoir St Diamo n d Ln Balsam W ay Sh a d A v e Phelps Rd County Pkwy G Woodlan d D r Fairview St Commerce Dr R osewoodSt R o n d e a u LakeRdE Peltier Cir Langer L n 81st St E County Pkwy E Victo r P a t h N L a k e l a n d C ir 180th St N Birch St Birch St E Rondeau L a k e D r N E Ly o n s S t N E 165th St N 170th St N Jo y e r L n W Rondeau Lake Dr NE Cedar St 77th St E Rehbein St 24 t h A v e 24 t h A v e 24 t h A v e El m c r e s t A v e N El m c r e s t A v e N El m c r e s t A v e N Centerville Columbus Forest Lake Hugo Lino Lakes Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ F i g u r e 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n _ C o n t a m D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 ¯1 inch = 1,800 feet 0 1,800 Feet Contamination Review I-35 Corridor AUAR Project City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Figure 1 - Project Location Study Area City Boundaries " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! #GHWX21 GHWX34 GHWX34 GHWX14 GHWX54 GHWX54 4A140 84 84 35W 35W 35W 35 35 35 35E 35E Gull Dr 21st Ave N Mound Trl L a m o t t e Dr Robin Ln N OtterLakeRd OtterLake Rd Frenchm a n R d Norway Ln WFreeway Dr NE 80th St Rondeau Lake Rd W E t h a n T rl N Main St M a i n S t M ainSt Rainy L n Butternut St Main St Osa k i s S t G ardenWayN Heritage Pk w y N Fable Hill P k wy N JardinAve N Chestnut S t Empress Way N Ell e n C t BayD r TartLa k e R d Lacasse D r Mi l l R d E m p r e s s D r N Brian Dr Ha w k R i d g e C i r Island Ct ValjeanBlv d N El m o C t Beave r P ondWay Fab l e R d N 15 0 th S t N Sherman Lake Ct ClearwaterCreek Dr Heron Ct Heritage A v e PrivateRd Wes t v i e w S t White Oak R d Go r d o n A v e Heritage St Partridge Pl D e li n a Cir Timberwolf Cir Lacasse C ir CraneDr 2 1 st Ave S Mil l e L a c s L n 24 t h A v e Sorel St Al b e r t C t F a l l D r M o u n d C t Me a d o w l a r k C t D o g w o o d S t Velvetleaf Ln Pheasa n t L n Oakvie w C t P o r t a g e W a y Elm crestAve N Lac a s s e C t Widgeon Cir T i m b erwolf Trl Wolf Cir Arbre Ln N Sn o w G o o s e T r l Un i t y A v e To u r v i l l e C i r 20 t h A v e 20 t h A v e 20 t h A v e 20t h A v e Clearwater Dr Victor P a t h D e e r C t Grangeview D u p r e Rd CountyPkwyH 158th StN SedgeCt Ce n t e r v i l l e R d N o r m aWay Ta r t C t Ed e n C i r St e l l a Ln Su m a c C t G r a n t a i r e L n N Oa k C i r Iv y C t V o y a g e r C t P e t e r son Trl M e a d o w C t Whitetail Trl 12 t h A v e B r i a n C t Go i f f o n R d 70th St O l d M ill R d Tele L n Pondview Cir Meadow Ln Willo w Cir Pr o g r e s s R d Gateway Cir V i c t or HugoBlv d N C l ear Ridge HarrietLn P ioneerLn R o s e maryWayN Fo restLn 7 3 r d St Fox Run VictoriaCir 159th St N Merca n t i l e D r N Houle Cir Arthur C t OspreyCt Steven Ln Robin Ln S Mallard Wa y E n f i e l d A veN Cardinal Dr JohannaCir R u ffed G rouseRd Canfield Rd Red Oak Ln P a lm S t Iver s o n C t H u n t e r s Trl William Ln E a gle T r l Koronis Cir Itasca Cir S h ermanLake R d T w i n L a k e s Ave Te a l C t Tele Dr Peltier Lake Dr Fable Rd Ct N Emp r e s s A v e N Em ilyCir Old Mill Ct C y p r e ss St 65thSt Prairie Dr W ater m ark Way Bri a n W a y Cotton w o od Ct M i c haud Way Ga a g e L n LamotteCir Lavalle D r Stoneybroo k Dr 72nd St C enter St Laramee Ln 81st St W Quebec St Ta l l e L n Phe a sant H il ls Dr Revoir St Di amo n dLn Balsam W ay Sh a d A v e Phelps Rd County Pkwy G Woodlan d D r Fairview St Commerce Dr R osewoodSt R o n d e a u LakeRdE Peltier Cir Langer L n 81st St E County Pkwy E Victo r P a t h N L a k e l a n d C ir 180th St N Birch St Birch St E Rondeau L a k e D r N E Ly o n s S t N E 165th St N 170th St N Jo y e r L n W Rondeau Lake Dr NE Ce d a r S t 77th St E Rehbein St P e l t ier Lake Dr 24 t h A v e 24 t h A v e 24 t h A v e El m c r e s t A v e N El m c r e s t A v e N El m c r e s t A v e N Centerville Columbus Forest Lake Hugo Lino Lakes 5 64 16 27 83 23 87 19 31 48 81 80 72 65 56 69 46 32 22 74 78 36 18 30 9 9088 33 6 62 25 44 89 35 20 26 58 84 71 82 42 4 63 10 51 7 3 79 66 21 40 43 49 53 77 37 2 13 86 17 29 39 68 11 1 47 73 38 15 54 52 59 70 76 61 28 24 34 85 55 41 12 14 67 8 75 45 60 57 Do c u m e n t P a t h : M : \ 0 2 7 9 1 9 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ A U A R U p d a t e \ F i g u r e 2 _ W I M N _ C o n t a m D a t e S a v e d : 4 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 ¯1 inch = 1,800 feet 0 1,800 Feet Contamination Review I-35 Corridor AUAR Project City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Figure 2 - MPCA/MDA What's in my Neighborhood Study Area 500ft Buffer City Boundaries MPCA What's in my Neighborhood Sites Multiple Programs "Feedlots "Hazardous Waste !Investigation and Cleanup !Solid Waste !Stormwater #SSTS Appendix H IPAC and DNR Information 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2025-0075798 Project Name: I35 E AUAR Update Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).   Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The  Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.   Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance  on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural  Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   2 of 19 1. 2. We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to  access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below), which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the  Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of  certain activities to support these determinations. If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes  valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter. If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional  guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter. Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys, although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.              Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then  project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed  species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated  IPaC species list report for your records.  If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must  determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records.  Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   3 of 19 3. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office  for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. Northern Long-Eared Bats Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long- eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected. For bat activity dates, please review Appendix L in the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long- Eared Bat Survey Guidelines. Examples of unsuitable habitat include: Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas, Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas), A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees. If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the  following activities are proposed: Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year, Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine, Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine, Construction of one or more wind turbines, or Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC  Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   4 of 19 species list report for your records.  If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,  the federal project user will be directed to either the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat range-wide D- key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit Administration Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Additional information about available tools can be found on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website. Whooping Crane Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”   Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to survey the area for any migratory bird nests. If there is an eagle nest on-site while work is on-going, eagles may be disturbed. We recommend avoiding and minimizing disturbance to eagles whenever practicable. If you cannot avoid eagle disturbance, you may seek a permit. A nest take permit is always required for removal, relocation, or obstruction of an eagle nest. For  communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and  the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   5 of 19 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. State Department of Natural Resources Coordination While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 (952) 858-0793 Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   6 of 19 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2025-0075798 Project Name:I35 E AUAR Update Project Type:Land Management Plans - NWR Project Description:The City of Lino Lakes adopted the I-35E Corridor AUAR and in conformance with Minnesota Rules 4410 in 2005.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7, for the AUAR to remain valid as the environmental review document for the area, the document needs to be updated every five years until all development in the study area has received final approval. Since undeveloped areas still remain in the study area and the AUAR will expire in 2025, the purpose of this document is to update the AUAR pursuant to Minnesota Rules Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@45.178302200000005,-93.04079016887556,14z Counties:Anoka County, Minnesota Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   7 of 19 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   8 of 19 MAMMALS NAME STATUS Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered BIRDS NAME STATUS Whooping Crane Grus americana Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC, NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 Experimental Population, Non- Essential CLAMS NAME STATUS Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6208 Proposed Endangered INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Proposed Threatened Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/L4O2XUU4V5GSDHQKYBKW6BB3YY/ documents/generated/5967.pdf Endangered Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/12017 Proposed Threatened CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   9 of 19 1. 2. 3. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area. Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/ activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska, please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity. The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete 2 1 Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   10 of 19 If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds elsewhere PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   11 of 19 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 1. 2. 3.  no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The incidental take of migratory birds is the injury or death of birds that results from, but is not the purpose, of an activity. The Service interprets the MBTA to prohibit incidental take. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. 1 Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   12 of 19 NAME BREEDING SEASON American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10561 Breeds elsewhere Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Black Tern Chlidonias niger surinamenisis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093 Breeds May 15 to Aug 20 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9454 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643 Breeds May 20 to Aug 10 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds elsewhere Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745 Breeds May 1 to Jul 20 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8329 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 20 Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   13 of 19 NAME BREEDING SEASON Henslow's Sparrow Centronyx henslowii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941 Breeds May 1 to Aug 31 Le Conte's Sparrow Ammospiza leconteii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9469 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 15 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481 Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561 Breeds elsewhere Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10633 Breeds elsewhere Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9603 Breeds elsewhere Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   14 of 19  no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence NAME BREEDING SEASON Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431 Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   15 of 19 American Golden- plover BCC Rangewide (CON) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black Tern BCC Rangewide (CON) Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) Canada Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Golden-winged Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Grasshopper Sparrow BCC - BCR Henslow's Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) Le Conte's Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Long-eared Owl BCC Rangewide (CON) Marbled Godwit BCC Rangewide (CON) Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   16 of 19 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Pectoral Sandpiper BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Ruddy Turnstone BCC - BCR Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Semipalmated Sandpiper BCC - BCR Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   17 of 19 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1Af PEM1Fx PEM1Cx PEM1C PEM1Cd PEM1A PEM1F PEM1Ad LAKE L1UBH L2UBH L2ABH FRESHWATER POND PUBFx PUBH PABHx PABH PUBF PUBHx RIVERINE R4SBC R5UBH R2UBH R2UBFx R5UBFx FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PFO2Dg PSS1C PFO1/EM1A PFO1A PSS1/EM1C PFO1Ad PSS1A PFO1/SS1C PSS1/EM1Cd Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   18 of 19 ▪ ▪ PSS3Dg PSS1/EM1A Project code: 2025-0075798 03/28/2025 18:21:18 UTC   19 of 19 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Chaldelia Browne Address:701 Xenia Ave S Address Line 2:Unit 300 City:Golden Valley State:MN Zip:55416 Email cbrowne@wsbeng.com Phone:6123942395 I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE #: 2025-00105 Page 1 of 5 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: I-35E Corridor AUAR Update Project Proposer: City of Lino Lakes Project Type: Development, Mixed Use Project Type Activities: Other TRS: T31 R22 S1, T31 R22 S10, T31 R22 S11, T31 R22 S12, T31 R22 S13, T31 R22 S14, T31 R22 S15, T31 R22 S2, T31 R22 S23, T31 R22 S24, T31 R22 S25, T31 R22 S26 + County(s): Anoka DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: State EAW, Other Project Description: This is an AUAR update that is evaluating different urban redevelopment scenarios. Existing Land Uses: The existing land use includes developed areas, agricultural, wooded, wetlands, lakes, highways. Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Any development would most likely occur in upland areas. Waterbodies Affected: Waterbodies within the study area include: Centerville, George Watch, Peltier, Rondeau, Rice and wetland areas. Treated stormwater may be directed to these waterbodies as development occurs. Groundwater Resources Affected: Future wells may be installed to provided public drinking water as developments occur. Previous Natural Heritage Review: Yes, ERDB#: 20150232 Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required Ecologically Significant Area Comments Potential RNC under WCA MBS Sites - Recommendations NPCs - Recommendations State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Needs Further Review State-protected Species - Needs Further Review State-Listed Species of Special Concern Comments Recommendations Federally Listed Species Comments Visit IPaC for Federal Review RPBB High Potential Zone 2/3/2025 12:30 PM I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE #: 2025-00105 Page 2 of 5 2/3/2025 12:30 PM I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE #: 2025-00105 Page 3 of 5 February 3, 2025 Project Name: I-35E Corridor AUAR Update Project Proposer: City of Lino Lakes Project Type: Development, Mixed Use Project ID: MCE #2025-00105 AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features. Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted. Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features. For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed project. If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results. This additional information will be considered during the project review. 2/3/2025 12:30 PM I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE #: 2025-00105 Page 4 of 5 2/3/2025 12:30 PM I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE #: 2025-00105 Page 5 of 5 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 2/3/2025 12:30 PM I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 1 of 6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 May 9, 2025 Chaldelia Browne WSB & Associates, Inc. RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed I-35E Corridor AUAR Update, T31N R22W Sections 1-3, 10-15, 23-26, T32N R22W Sections 34-36; Anoka County Dear Chaldelia Browne, For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE- 2025-00105 in the email subject line. As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project: Ecologically Significant Areas • The Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) has identified several Sites of Biodiversity Significance (MBS Sites) within the project boundary. Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying levels of native biodiversity and are ranked based on the relative significance of this biodiversity at a statewide level. Factors taken into account during the ranking process include the number of rare species documented within the site, the quality of the native plant communities in the site, the size of the site, and the context of the site within the landscape. o Randeau Lake Wetland – High MBS Site – Sites ranked as High contain very good quality occurrences of the rarest species, high quality examples of the rare native plant communities, and/or important functional landscapes. o Peltier Lake Wetland and Rice Lake Wetland – Moderate MBS Sites – Sites ranked as Moderate contain occurrences of rare species and/or moderately disturbed native plant communities, and/or landscapes that have a strong potential for recovery. These MBS Sites contains several DNR Native Plant Communities (NPC). NPCs are given a rank that reflects the relative rarity and endangerment of the community type in Minnesota. Ranks range from critically imperiled (S1) to secure, common, widespread, and abundant (S5). NPCs with a rank of S1, S2, or S3 are considered rare within Minnesota. o FPs63a: Tamarack Swamp (Southern) – imperiled (S2) o MRn83: Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh – imperiled (S2) I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 2 of 6 o FDs37: Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland – vulnerable to extirpation (S3) o MHs38c: Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest – vulnerable to extirpation (S3) o FPn73a: Alder - (Maple - Loosestrife) Swamp – secure and abundant (S5) o WMn82a: Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp – secure and abundant (S5) The DNR recommends that the project be designed to avoid impacts to these ecologically significant areas. Actions to avoid or minimize disturbance include, but are not limited to, the following recommendations: o As much as possible, operate within already-disturbed areas. o Avoid MBS Sites and rare NPCs (ranked S1, S2, or S3). o Retain a buffer between proposed activities and the MBS Site. o Conduct surveys to better document resource impact and designate areas to avoid. o Minimize vehicular disturbance in the MBS Site (allow only vehicles/equipment necessary for construction activities). o Do not park equipment or stockpile supplies in the MBS Site. o Do not place spoil in the MBS Site or other sensitive areas. o If possible, conduct the work under frozen ground conditions. o Use effective erosion prevention and sediment control measures. o Inspect and clean equipment prior to operation and follow recommendations to prevent the spread of invasive species. o Revegetate disturbed soil with native species suitable to the local habitat as soon after construction as possible. o Use only weed-free mulches, topsoils, and seed mixes. Of particular concern are birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and crown vetch (Coronilla varia), two invasive species that are sold commercially and are problematic in prairies and disturbed open areas. MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and DNR Native Plant Communities can be viewed using the Explore page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer (MCE) or their GIS shapefiles can be downloaded from the MN Geospatial Commons. Reference the MBS Site Biodiversity Significance and Native Plant Community websites for information on interpreting the data. To receive a list of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and DNR Native Plant Communities in the vicinity of your project, create a Conservation Planning Report using the Explore page in MCE. • If the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is applicable to this project, please note that native plant communities with a Conservation Status Rank of S1 through S3 or wetlands within High or Outstanding MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance may qualify as Rare Natural Communities (RNC) under WCA. Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0515, subpart 3 states that a wetland replacement plan for activities that modify a RNC must be denied if the local government unit determines the proposed activities will permanently adversely affect the RNC. If the proposed project includes a wetland replacement plan under WCA, please contact your DNR Regional Ecologist for further evaluation. Please visit WCA Program Guidance and Information for additional information, including the RNC Technical Guidance. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 3 of 6 State-listed Species • Butternut (Juglans cinerea), a state-listed endangered tree species, have been documented within the proposed project area. This species occurs in mesic hardwood forests with loamy or alluvial soils or in sandy soil if the water table is relatively near the surface. It is perhaps most common on river terraces elevated several feet or more above the active floodplain, where it is protected from siltation and flood scouring. This species is susceptible to a lethal fungal disease called butternut canker (Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum). Nearly all of Minnesota’s butternuts are dead or dying from the fungus, triggering the protected status of this tree within the state. Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of endangered or threatened plants or animals, including their parts or seeds, without a permit. As this species has been documented in the proposed project area, a qualified surveyor will need to (1) resurvey known occurrences and (2) conduct a habitat assessment to determine if suitable habitat exists within the activity impact area and, if so, conduct a rare plant survey of any trees in the proposed project area that are proposed to be removed. Surveys must be conducted by a qualified surveyor and follow the standards contained in the Rare Species Survey Process and Rare Plant Guidance. Visit the Natural Heritage Review page for a list of certified surveyors and more information on this process. Survey proposals should be submitted to Reports.NHIS@state.mn.us prior to initiating survey work. Project planning should take into account that any botanical survey needs to be conducted during the appropriate time of the year, which may be limited. Please consult Review.NHIS@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this process. • Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in the direct vicinity of the proposed project. Blanding’s turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland habitat. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels. Development in this area has the potential to impact this rare turtle through direct fatalities and habitat disturbance/destruction. Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or endangered species without a permit. Given that project details are unknown at this time and the presence of Blanding’s turtles and suitable habitat in the project area, we are unable to provide specific avoidance measures at this time. Individual projects should request a Natural Heritage Review via Minnesota Conservation Explorer to ensure compliance with Minnesota Endangered Species Statute and Rules. Below are some resources to help plan avoidance for projects within the AUAR: o Blanding's Turtle Fact Sheet (state.mn.us) o Blanding's Turtle Flyer (state.mn.us) o Emydoidea blandingii : Blanding's Turtle | Rare Species Guide | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us) I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 4 of 6 o Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control (state.mn.us) o Helping Turtles Across the Road | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us) o Best Practices Manual | Minnesota DNR  Chapter 1: Species Protection • Water-willow (Decodon verticillatus), a state-listed plant species of special concern, has been documented within the project area. In Minnesota water-willow appears to be restricted to boggy or marshy margins of lakes and slow-moving streams. It is typically found in a narrow fringe of shoreline vegetation with cattails or bulrushes. These vegetation zones may be on floating root mats or "grounded" in peat, muck, or sand. The DNR recommends avoiding known occurrences of water- willow and avoiding impacts to suitable habitat. • Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri) and trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), state-listed bird species of special concern, have been documented nesting in the vicinity of the proposed project. These rare birds are found in wetlands with a mixture of emergent vegetation and open water. Potential concerns include construction disturbance during the breeding season, loss or degradation of habitat, and collisions overhead transmission lines. Actions to minimize impacts to these rare birds may include, but are not limited to, the following recommendations: o Avoid construction activities during the nesting season, from late April through August, near suitable nesting habitat. o Retain a buffer between proposed activities and suitable habitat to avoid negative impacts such as human disturbance, water level fluctuation, chemical contamination. o Install bird diverters on overhead lines, if any, near lakes and rivers, or other areas that may attract large concentrations of waterfowl. • Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), a state-listed bird species of special concern, has been documented in the vicinity of the project. In Minnesota, Bell’s vireo prefers shrub thickets within or bordering open habitats such as grasslands or wetlands. This bird suspends its nests from forks of low branches of small trees or shrubs. If feasible, avoid tree and shrub removal from May 15 through August 15 to avoid disturbance of nesting birds. • The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15. • Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. • Please report incidental sightings of state-listed species via the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 5 of 6 Federally Protected Species • The area of interest overlaps with a U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Rusty Patched Bumble Bee High Potential Zone. The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) is federally listed as endangered and is likely to be present in suitable habitat within High Potential Zones. From April through October this species uses underground nests in upland grasslands, shrublands, and forest edges, and forages where nectar and pollen are available. From October through April the species overwinters under tree litter in upland forests and woodlands. The rusty patched bumble bee may be impacted by a variety of land management activities including, but not limited to, prescribed fire, tree- removal, haying, grazing, herbicide use, pesticide use, land-clearing, soil disturbance or compaction, or use of non-native bees. If applicable, the DNR recommends reseeding disturbed soils with native species of grasses and forbs using BWSR Seed Mixes or MnDOT Seed Mixes. To ensure compliance with federal law, please conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Please note that all projects, regardless of whether there is a federal nexus, are subject to federal take prohibitions. The IPaC review will determine if prohibited take is likely to occur and, if not, will generate an automated letter. The USFWS RPBB guidance provides guidance on avoiding impacts to rusty patched bumble bee and a key for determining if actions are likely to affect the species; the determination key can be found in the appendix. Environmental Review and Permitting • Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses. • Given the potential presence of state protected species, we encourage submission of Natural Heritage Review requests to ensure avoidance of take for these species and to determine survey needs as individual projects are planned. • The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance. Sufficient information should be provided so the DNR can determine whether a permit to take will be needed for any of the above protected species. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. I-35E Corridor AUAR Update MCE-2025-00105 Page 6 of 6 For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one year of initiating project activities. Resubmit by selecting Clone Project as Draft on the project page in MCE. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Molly Barrett Natural Heritage Review Specialist molly.barrett@state.mn.us Cc: Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3) Cc: Catherine Plank, Assistant Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3) Cc: Amanda Weise, Regional Ecologist, Central (Region 3) Cc: Jennie Skancke, Wetlands Program Coordinator Appendix I SHPO Information HISTORY/ARCHITECTURE INVENTORY COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION QUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUM NRHP CEF DOE INVENTNUM Anoka Centerville house 7238 Main St.31 22 14 SW-SW Centerville AN-2005-1H AN-CVC-009 house 1695 Sorel Rd.31 22 22 SW-NW Centerville AN-2005-1H AN-CVC-035 Lino Lakes Bridge 9830 CSAH 14 over I35 W 2.2 miles NE of Junctin TH49 31 22 10 SE-NW Centerville AN-LKC-009 Bridge 02802 CR 140 over I 35E 1.5 miles S of Junction TH 35W 31 22 12 NE-NW Centerville AN-LKC-011 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATIONS COUNTY SITENUM SITENAME TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION XQUARTERS ACRES WORKTYPE DESCRIPT TRADITION CONTEXT ReportNum Natreg CEF DOE Anoka 21AN0003 31 22 11 C-S-S 6 2 EW, AS W-1 Ps-2, SO-2 AN-01-11 21AN0037 Paul 31 22 10 SE-NE-NW-SE,SE-NE- SW-NE 16 1 AS W-1 21AN0038 Hensel 31 22 22 NA-NW 80 1,2 AS W-1,PL-2 MW-1, LW- 2,Pl-2 AN-16-13 21AN0039 Wards Lake 31 22 22 W-NW-SW 26 2,1 AS W-1 21AN0040 Cartier 31 22 10 SW-SE-SE 60 1 AS A-2, W-1 AL-2, HR-1, LW-2 AN-02-03 21AN0041 31 22 10 N-S-SW 25 1 AS W-1 RA-1 31 22 10 SE-NW-SW 25 1 AS W-1 RA-1 31 22 10 SW-NE-SW 25 1 AS W-1 RA-1 21AN0049 Dupre 31 22 14 SW-NW-SW 21 1,2 AS PL-1,A-1,W-1 Pl-1,AL-1,HR- 2,SO-1,Ka-2 Dupre 31 22 14 NW-SW-SW 21 1,2 AS PL-1,A-1,W-1 Pl-1,AL-1,HR- 2,SO-1,Ka-2 21AN0060 Peltier Island 31 22 11 W-SW 50 2 AS W-1 MW-1 AN-02-03 21AN0067 31 22 3 SW-SE-NE-NW 3 1 AS A-1 21AN0071 (overlaps w/21AN72)31 22 14 SE-NE-SE-NW 1 1 AS W-2 MW-2 21AN0072 (overlaps w/ 21AN71)31 22 14 NE-SE-SE-NW 1 1 AS W-2 MW-2 21AN0083 31 22 2 S-NE-SW, N-SE-SW 15 1 AS W-1 21AN0089 31 22 10 C-NE-NW-NW 3 1 LS A-2 21AN0090 31 22 2 C-N-NW-SW 6 1 AS W-1 Anoka 21AN0091 31 22 2 S-NW-NE-NW, N-SW- NE-NW 5 1 AS W-1, O-2 21AN0095 31 22 2 SE-SE; E-NW-NE-NE 24 1 AS W-1 LW-1 31 22 11 24 1 AS W-1 LW-1 21AN0128 31 22 22 NE-SE-SW-SW 0.5 1 LS 21AN0132 Iverson III 31 22 12 NE-NE 0 5 LS 21AN0143 31 22 14 SW-SE-SW 2.4 1 AS,LS A-3,W-1 AN-97-02 21AN0166 31 22 22 NW-SW-SW-SW 1 1 LS 21AN0168 Paul Farm (east)31 22 10 SW-SE 19 1 AS W-1 RA-1 21AN0174 Old Willow 31 22 1 SW-SW-NW-SW 0.1 1 LS 21ANd 31 22 14 C-SW 5 LS Appendix J Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Memo Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 1 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Greenhouse Gas\MEMO GHG 2025-02-24.docx Final Technical Memorandum To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes From: Tim Paquin, WSB Date: April 28, 2025 Re: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission/Carbon Footprint– I-35 Corridor AUAR City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota WSB Project No. 027919-000 INTRODUCTION The original Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed and approved in September 2005. The AUAR analyzed the stormwater impacts of the three development scenarios. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Plan was developed. AUAR updates are required every five years from the original date of the approved AUAR. Updates were prepared in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Each assumed no change in the proposed development land use scenarios and included discussion of mitigation improvements that had been completed at the time. Since the 2020 update, the City has adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update reviews two scenarios . The information and analysis outlined within this memo is intended to complete a portion of the AUAR Update related to Item # 17.a. and 17.b. – Greenhouse Gas Emission/Carbon Footprint related to revising of the two scenarios. This memo is intended to update the climate analysis provided in the original AUAR where applicable. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSION/CARBON FOOTPRINT GHG Quantification: For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. Analyses for GHG emissions for the study area under existing conditions, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2 were prepared; each is shown in Appendix A. Project-specific emission sources and references to the methods used to quantify emissions are included within the calculation tables in the appendix. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. During this phase in site planning, plans are concept-level; exploration and development of potential mitigation practices is dependent on further development planning and design. Proposed land use change scenarios increase housing density and availability of shops and live-work units. The existing 35 E Park and Ride within the area can accommodate increased density and encourage non-vehicle travel which would reduce Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 2 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Greenhouse Gas\MEMO GHG 2025-02-24.docx GHG emissions. The following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that could be considered for the proposed development to reduce emissions: • Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting, • Energy efficient building shells, • Implement waste best management practices; recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable, • On-site native landscaping to reduce potable water and pesticide use, along with the inclusion of trees and tree trenches to improve local air quality, absorb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce local urban heat island effect, • Provide on-site electric vehicle charging infrastructure, • On-site solar PV installations, • Purchase of off-site carbon sequestration credits, • Grid-based wind and solar power purchases, • Other actions Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on feasibility, schedule, code requirements, and tenant considerations. ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. This level of detail is not known due to the high-level nature of this analysis and uncertainty of any specific future development. Both Scenarios 1 and 2 significantly increase density of all uses. Table 1 shows a summary of proposed land use changes. Table 1 - Development Scenarios for GHG Analysis Existing (2024) Scenario 1 (2040) Scenario 2 (2040) Land Use Res Units Area (sqft) Res Units Area (sqft) Res Units Area (sqft) Commercial - 93,748 - 5,084,819 - 5,306,914 Residential 1,764 2,116,800 4,888 5,865,600 7,403 8,883,600 Industrial - 583,000 - 12,817,289 - 10,053,499 Compared to existing conditions, Scenario 1 proposes a 17,225,360 sq ft increase in commercial and industrial use area, and Scenario 2 proposes a 14,683,665 sq ft increase in commercial and industrial use area compared to existing commercial and industrial use. Compared to existing uses, Scenario 1 proposes a 3,124-unit increase to residential units in the project area (3,748,800 sq ft increase) and Scenario 2 proposes a 5,639-unit increase (6,766,800 sq ft increase). It is understood that mixed-use zones (allowing retail and commercial establishments near housing) allow people to drive less and thus emit less greenhouse gases. Reductions from other potential voluntary mitigation measures could also contribute to reducing overall GHG emissions. In addition to these proposed mitigation efforts, the project may consider additional strategies as it continues to move through the design process. Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 3 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Greenhouse Gas\MEMO GHG 2025-02-24.docx In both Scenarios, increasing residential density may improve ridership and service among the transit route that serve this area. Additionally, in each Scenario, it is assumed that improved trail and sidewalk connections to the surrounding network will be provided. Each Scenario’s potential impact on transportation and reduction to single -occupancy vehicle travel is not accounted for in the emissions analysis above. Existing and proposed future sustainability or climate-related City/County programs and greenhouse gas reduction strategies were not explicitly incorporated within the modeling methods; however, incorporating greenhouse gas mitigation measures such as those mentioned above may further reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond what is provided in the Scenario estimates. iii. Quantify the proposed projects predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per # of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals. Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80% between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. Within the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, among the sustainable energy action items, it is identified that the city aims to: • Protect access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems on principal structures, • Encourage future sites and building plans to maximize efforts to design for efficient use of solar energy including such elements as the location of windows, shade trees (and types), windows, and driveways, • Use where possible solar energy design elements for future public facilities and infrastructure development, and • Encourage and support educational programs and research that focuses on alternative or renewable energy systems Methods for modeling air emissions were completed in accordance with EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) standards. The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years. The project’s predicted net GHG emissions over the project’s lifespan (compared to existing conditions) are estimated at 184,790 CO2e metric tons per year for Scenario 1 or 213,938 CO2e metric tons per year for Scenario 2. Error! Reference source not found. presents a summary of modeled emissions for existing and proposed development Scenarios. Table 2 – GHG Emissions Summary Total Emissions (tonnes/yr) Net Total Emissions (tonnes/yr) Building Area (sqft) Total Emissions per Building Area (kg/yr/sqft) Existing 89,843 - 2,793,548 6.0 Scenario 1 184,790 94,947 23,767,708 7.8 Scenario 2 213,938 124,095 24,244,013 7.9 The proposed Scenarios will significantly increase housing, commercial, and industrial uses within the project area. Mr. Michael Grochala April 28, 2025 Page 4 M:\027919-000\Admin\Docs\Greenhouse Gas\MEMO GHG 2025-02-24.docx Developments within each Scenario could also implement any applicable state or local GHG goals as determined by the City or project proposers. The proposer may explore additional sustainability measures such as the examples listed above to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city building codes. Appendix A: GHG Analysis Results Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Existing Project Components Size (sq ft)Units Commercial 93,748 Residential:1,764 Residential Building 2,116,800 Average sq. ft. per unit 1,200 Industrial 583,000 Use Uses: Existing Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Existing Scope* Data Source Notes** Amount Units Site Energy Use Index (kBtu/sq. ft.) 3 Emission Factors GHG (tonnes) GHG (kg/sq. ft.) Percent of Total GHG 1 2 329,273 ADVMT 0.44 53,091 19.00 59% 1 therms Commercial 3 93,748 sq. ft.20.3 0.20 101 1.08 Dwelling units (1764 units)3 2,116,800 sq. ft.48.4 0.48 5,436 2.57 Industrial 3 583,000 sq. ft.13.8 0.14 426 0.73 Subtotal 2,793,548 sq. ft.5,964 2.13 7% Combustion area (diesel, back-up generators, GHG kg/gal.)1 1 & 2 1,774 gallons 10.74 19 0.0% Off-site electricity, Xcel 2021 (GHG kg/sq. ft.)2 kWh Commercial 3 93,748 sq. ft.35.3 10.35 278 2.96 Dwelling units (1764 units)3 2,116,800 sq. ft.25.9 7.59 4,605 2.18 Industrial 3 12,817,289 sq. ft.19.6 5.75 21,100 1.65 Subtotal 15,027,837 sq. ft.25,983 1.73 29% 3 2 19,332 tons of waste 4,787 0.37 5% Total emissions (tonnes)89,843 6.0 100% *Scope: ** Data Source Notes: 1 2 3 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator"), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator For an explanation of Emissions scopes, please reference the following: • Scope 1: “Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse (GHG) emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, furnaces, vehicles).” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance) • Scope 2: “Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling.” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2- inventory-guidance) • Scope 3: “Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organization’s scope 1 and 2 boundary. The scope 3 emissions for one organization are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. Scope 3 emissions, also referred to as value chain emissions, often represent the majority of an organization’s total GHG emissions.” (EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory- guidance) Source (Zip Code: 55304): US EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager Target Finder. Refer to Energy Finder sheet. https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/resources_audience/service_product_providers/commercial_new_construction/target_finder Refer to the sheet "Mobile Equipment." ADVMT = Average Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled. Emission Source Off-site waste management Combustion, stationary equipment, natural gas (therms/sq. ft./yr.): Operational emissions, mobile equipment, after project is operational Uses and project average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT): Existing Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Existing Waste Generation Data Source Amount Units Emission Factor (tonnes/ton) Waste Amounts Waste (kg per sq. ft.) 2 93,748 sq. ft.86,342 0.9 3 1,764 units 4,826,304 2.3 Industrial (kg @ 0.985 kg/sq. ft./yr.)7 12,817,289 sq. ft.12,625,030 1.0 Subtotals 12,912,801 17,537,676 1.4 Waste (tons)19,332 Landfilled waste, 42% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 8,119 0.54 4,384 Waste to energy, 4% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 773 0.52 402 Subtotal emissions (tonnes)4,787 Notes: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Industrial assumes industrial facilities generate approximately 0.006 pounds of waste/sq. ft./day. Source: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates?utm_source=chatgpt.com Solid Waste Generation New uses: Source for emission factor for landfilled waste: "Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Organic Materials Chapters," Exhibit 1-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, February 2016. https://www.epa.gov/warm/documentation-chapters-greenhouse-gas-emission-energy-and-economic-factors-used-waste Source for emissions from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/permitted-facility-air-emissions-data. Source for tons processed by the HERC: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/report-2019-score-programs Source: Table 21, "Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups , 2006. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1184 Apartments: Assumes 1.5 cu. yd. of mixed trash per unit per month. Source: https://www.wastecare.com/usefulinfo/Waste_Generated_by_Industry_Cubic_Yards.htm. At 335 lbs. per cubic yard and 2.2 pounds per kg, the average is about 228 kg per month. Source: https://www.solidwaste.com/doc/bolton-on-landfill-management-converting-cubi-0001 Source: "2021 SCORE REPORT," Anoka County 2020 and 2021 average waste generation, MPCA Data Services, https://data.pca.state.mn.us/#/views/SCOREreport2021/2021SCOREreport?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y Dwelling units (kg @ 228 kg/unit/month) Commercial (kg @ 0.921 kg/sq. ft./yr.) Existing Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Existing Backup Generator Fuel Consumption Size Generator Size (kW) 1 Diesel Consumption (gal.) 2 GHG (kg) Non-Residental Land Uses (sq. ft.)93,748 519 11 120 Residential Building (sqft)2,116,800 10,634 1,378 14,796 Industrial (sq. ft.)583,000 2,965 384 4,125 Total 1,774 19,041 Notes: 1 2 Source: https://www.uspeglobal.com/pages/resources Building Backup generator: Assume 50 kW + 5 W per sq. ft. (source: https://woodstockpower.com/blog/how-to-size-a-generator-for-commercial-building/). Diesel consumption per hour from chart below. Monthly testing for 30 minutes (source: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/engineering/docs/lscgensets.pdf) Existing Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Existing Average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT) in the vicinity of the site ADVMT GHG (kg) Current ADVMT 329,273 53,090,648 Notes: Category Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - SCENARIO 1 Project Components Size (sq ft)Units Commercial 5,084,819 Residential:4,888 Residential Building 5,865,600 Average sq. ft. per unit 1,200 Industrial 12,817,289 Use Uses: Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - SCENARIO 1 Scope* Data Source Notes** Amount Units Site Energy Use Index (kBtu/sq. ft.) 3 Emission Factors GHG (tonnes) GHG (kg/sq. ft.) Percent of Total GHG 1 2 604,307 ADVMT 0.44 97,436 4.10 53% 1 therms Commercial 3 5,084,819 sq. ft.20.3 0.20 5,471 1.08 Dwelling units (4888 units)3 5,865,600 sq. ft.48.4 0.48 15,064 2.57 Industrial 3 12,817,289 sq. ft.13.8 0.14 9,374 0.73 Subtotal 23,767,708 sq. ft.29,910 1.26 16% Combustion area (diesel, back-up generators, GHG kg/gal.)1 1 & 2 12,670 gallons 10.74 136 0.1% Off-site electricity, Xcel 2021 (GHG kg/sq. ft.)2 kWh Commercial 3 5,084,819 sq. ft.35.3 10.35 15,074 2.96 Dwelling units (4888 units)3 5,865,600 sq. ft.25.9 7.59 12,760 2.18 Industrial 3 12,817,289 sq. ft.19.6 5.75 21,100 1.65 Subtotal 23,767,708 sq. ft.48,934 2.06 26% 3 2 33,820 tons of waste 8,374 0.47 5% Total emissions (tonnes)184,790 7.8 100% *Scope: ** Data Source Notes: 1 2 3 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator"), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator For an explanation of Emissions scopes, please reference the following: • Scope 1: “Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse (GHG) emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, furnaces, vehicles).” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance) • Scope 2: “Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling.” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2- inventory-guidance) • Scope 3: “Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organization’s scope 1 and 2 boundary. The scope 3 emissions for one organization are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. Scope 3 emissions, also referred to as value chain emissions, often represent the majority of an organization’s total GHG emissions.” (EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory- guidance) Source (Zip Code: 55304): US EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager Target Finder. Refer to Energy Finder sheet. https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/resources_audience/service_product_providers/commercial_new_construction/target_finder Refer to the sheet "Mobile Equipment." ADVMT = Average Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled. Emission Source Off-site waste management Combustion, stationary equipment, natural gas (therms/sq. ft./yr.): Operational emissions, mobile equipment, after project is operational Uses and project average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT): Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - SCENARIO 1 Waste Generation Data Source Amount Units Emission Factor (tonnes/ton) Waste Amounts Waste (kg per sq. ft.) 2 5,084,819 sq. ft.4,683,118 0.9 3 4,888 units 13,373,568 2.3 Industrial (kg @ 0.985 kg/sq. ft./yr.)7 12,817,289 sq. ft.12,625,030 1.0 Subtotals 17,906,996 30,681,716 1.7 Waste (tons)33,820 Landfilled waste, 42% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 14,205 0.54 7,670 Waste to energy, 4% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 1,353 0.52 703 Subtotal emissions (tonnes)8,374 Notes: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Industrial assumes industrial facilities generate approximately 0.006 pounds of waste/sq. ft./day. Source: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates?utm_source=chatgpt.com Solid Waste Generation New uses: Source for emission factor for landfilled waste: "Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Organic Materials Chapters," Exhibit 1-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, February 2016. https://www.epa.gov/warm/documentation-chapters-greenhouse-gas-emission-energy-and-economic-factors-used-waste Source for emissions from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/permitted-facility-air-emissions-data. Source for tons processed by the HERC: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/report-2019-score-programs Source: Table 21, "Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups , 2006. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1184 Apartments: Assumes 1.5 cu. yd. of mixed trash per unit per month. Source: https://www.wastecare.com/usefulinfo/Waste_Generated_by_Industry_Cubic_Yards.htm. At 335 lbs. per cubic yard and 2.2 pounds per kg, the average is about 228 kg per month. Source: https://www.solidwaste.com/doc/bolton-on-landfill-management-converting-cubi-0001 Source: "2021 SCORE REPORT," Anoka County 2020 and 2021 average waste generation, MPCA Data Services, https://data.pca.state.mn.us/#/views/SCOREreport2021/2021SCOREreport?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y Dwelling units (kg @ 228 kg/unit/month) Commercial (kg @ 0.921 kg/sq. ft./yr.) Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - SCENARIO 1 Backup Generator Fuel Consumption Size Generator Size (kW) 1 Diesel Consumption (gal.) 2 GHG (kg) Non-Residental Land Uses (sq. ft.)5,084,819 25,474 550 5,907 Residential Building (sqft)5,865,600 29,378 3,807 40,875 Industrial (sq. ft.)12,817,289 64,136 8,312 89,236 Total 12,670 136,018 Notes: 1 2 Source: https://www.uspeglobal.com/pages/resources Building Backup generator: Assume 50 kW + 5 W per sq. ft. (source: https://woodstockpower.com/blog/how-to-size-a-generator-for-commercial-building/). Diesel consumption per hour from chart below. Monthly testing for 30 minutes (source: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/engineering/docs/lscgensets.pdf) Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - SCENARIO 1 Average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT) in the vicinity of the site ADVMT GHG (kg) Current ADVMT 604,307 97,436,019 Notes: Category Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Scenario 2 Scope* Data Source Notes** Amount Units Site Energy Use Index (kBtu/sq. ft.) 3 Emission Factors GHG (tonnes) GHG (kg/sq. ft.) Percent of Total GHG 1 2 686,884 ADVMT 0.44 110,750 4.57 52% 1 therms Commercial 3 5,306,914 sq. ft.20.3 0.20 5,710 1.08 Dwelling units (7403 units)3 8,883,600 sq. ft.48.4 0.48 22,815 2.57 Industrial 3 10,053,499 sq. ft.14.5 0.14 7,727 0.77 Subtotal 24,244,013 sq. ft.36,253 1.50 17% Combustion area (diesel, back-up generators, GHG kg/gal.)1 1 & 2 12,858 gallons 10.74 138 0.1% Off-site electricity, Xcel 2021 (GHG kg/sq. ft.)2 kWh Commercial 3 5,306,914 sq. ft.35.3 10.35 15,732 2.96 Dwelling units (7403 units)3 8,883,600 sq. ft.25.9 7.59 19,326 2.18 Industrial 3 12,817,289 sq. ft.20.6 6.04 22,174 1.73 Subtotal 27,007,803 sq. ft.57,232 2.12 27% 3 2 38,630 tons of waste 9,565 0.62 4% Total emissions (tonnes)213,938 7.9 100% *Scope: ** Data Source Notes: 1 2 3 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator"), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator For an explanation of Emissions scopes, please reference the following: • Scope 1: “Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse (GHG) emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, furnaces, vehicles).” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance) • Scope 2: “Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling.” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2- inventory-guidance) • Scope 3: “Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organization’s scope 1 and 2 boundary. The scope 3 emissions for one organization are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. Scope 3 emissions, also referred to as value chain emissions, often represent the majority of an organization’s total GHG emissions.” (EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory- guidance) Source (Zip Code: 55304): US EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager Target Finder. Refer to Energy Finder sheet. https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/resources_audience/service_product_providers/commercial_new_construction/target_finder Refer to the sheet "Mobile Equipment." ADVMT = Average Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled. Emission Source Off-site waste management Combustion, stationary equipment, natural gas (therms/sq. ft./yr.): Operational emissions, mobile equipment, after project is operational Uses and project average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT): Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Scenario 2 Waste Generation Data Source Amount Units Emission Factor (tonnes/ton) Waste Amounts Waste (kg per sq. ft.) 2 5,306,914 sq. ft.4,887,668 0.9 3 7,403 units 20,254,608 2.3 Industrial (kg @ 0.985 kg/sq. ft./yr.)7 10,053,499 sq. ft.9,902,697 1.0 Subtotals 15,367,816 35,044,972 2.3 Waste (tons)38,630 Landfilled waste, 42% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 16,225 0.54 8,761 Waste to energy, 4% (tons) and emission factor 4, 5, 6 1,545 0.52 804 Subtotal emissions (tonnes)9,565 Notes: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Industrial assumes industrial facilities generate approximately 0.006 pounds of waste/sq. ft./day. Source: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates?utm_source=chatgpt.com Solid Waste Generation New uses: Source for emission factor for landfilled waste: "Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Organic Materials Chapters," Exhibit 1-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, February 2016. https://www.epa.gov/warm/documentation-chapters-greenhouse-gas-emission-energy-and-economic-factors-used-waste Source for emissions from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/permitted-facility-air-emissions-data. Source for tons processed by the HERC: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/report-2019-score-programs Source: Table 21, "Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups , 2006. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1184 Apartments: Assumes 1.5 cu. yd. of mixed trash per unit per month. Source: https://www.wastecare.com/usefulinfo/Waste_Generated_by_Industry_Cubic_Yards.htm. At 335 lbs. per cubic yard and 2.2 pounds per kg, the average is about 228 kg per month. Source: https://www.solidwaste.com/doc/bolton-on-landfill-management-converting-cubi-0001 Source: "2021 SCORE REPORT," Anoka County 2020 and 2021 average waste generation, MPCA Data Services, https://data.pca.state.mn.us/#/views/SCOREreport2021/2021SCOREreport?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y Dwelling units (kg @ 228 kg/unit/month) Commercial (kg @ 0.921 kg/sq. ft./yr.) Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Scenario 2 Backup Generator Fuel Consumption Size Generator Size (kW) 1 Diesel Consumption (gal.) 2 GHG (kg) Non-Residental Land Uses (sq. ft.)5,306,914 26,585 574 6,165 Residential Building (sqft)8,883,600 44,468 5,763 61,870 Industrial (sq. ft.)10,053,499 50,317 6,521 70,009 Total 12,858 138,044 Notes: 1 2 Source: https://www.uspeglobal.com/pages/resources Building Backup generator: Assume 50 kW + 5 W per sq. ft. (source: https://woodstockpower.com/blog/how-to-size-a-generator-for-commercial-building/). Diesel consumption per hour from chart below. Monthly testing for 30 minutes (source: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/engineering/docs/lscgensets.pdf) Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 35e AUAR - Scenario 2 Average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT) in the vicinity of the site ADVMT GHG (kg) Current ADVMT 686,884 110,750,401 Notes: Category Existing Appendix K Mitigation Plan 1 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 MITIGATION PLAN The AUAR Mitigation Plan is outlined below. ITEM 7. CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE Item No. Mitigation Description Update 7.1 Proposed climate smart tree plantings and landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate urban heat island effect. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 7.2 Design of the site and stormwater management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR study area. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 7.3 Developer will consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping and stormwater features will absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation. The MPCA’s Updated Plants for Stormwater Design is a recommend resource for native plant selection. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 7.4 Developer should consider climate adapted vegetation to mitigate impacts of drought and large rain events. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 7.5 Developer will consider chlorine management plan to minimize impacts of increased freeze and thaw cycles on water resources This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED As projects are proposed, the project proposer will be required to obtain permits and approvals. Projects proposed since the original AUAR have obtained proper approvals. Additional permits that may not be listed here may also be required. Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be Applied for Federal Highway Administration Interchange Access Request To be Applied for State 2 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Assessment (AUAR) In progress Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Section 401 Water Quality Certificate To be Applied for NPDES/SDS General Permit To be Applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be Applied for State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Resources Review To be Applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Use of or Work within MnDOT right of way To be Applied for Drainage Permit To be Applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit (need if more than 10,000 gpd of water is appropriated) To be Applied for, if necessary Preliminary Well Construction Assessment To be Applied for Public Waters Work Permit To be Applied for General Permit 97-0005 for Temporary Water Appropriations (need if less than 50 million gallons are appropriated) To be Applied for, if necessary Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Approval To be Applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Approval To be Applied for Well Location and Construction Approval To be Applied for Regional Rice Creek Watershed District Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval To be Applied for Stormwater Management Plan Approval To be Applied for Wetland Delineation Boundary Confirmation To be approved upon completion of wetland delineation Certificate of Wetland Exemption To be Applied for Wetland Impact/Replacement Application To be approved upon completion of wetland delineation Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Connection Approval To be Applied for County Anoka County County Roadway Access Permits To be Applied for 3 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Roadway Plan Approval on County Roads To be Applied for Local City of Lino Lakes Site Plan Approval To be Applied for AUAR and Mitigation Plan Approval Ongoing Planned Unit Development Approval To be Applied for Preliminary Plat Approval To be Applied for Final Plat (multiple) Approval To be Applied for Grading, Excavation and Foundation Permits (multiple) To be Applied for Building Permits (multiple) To be Applied for Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit (multiple) To be Applied for Municipal Water Connection Permit (multiple) To be Applied for Use Permit – Floodplain District To be Applied for City Roadway Access/Crossing Permits To be Applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) To be Applied for 4 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 11. FISH, WILDLIFE, ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Item No. Mitigation Description Update 11.1 Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, see Figure 10-3), which includes conservation of “Core” and “Outlier” habitat areas, buffering these natural resources, and establishing greenway corridors throughout the AUAR area to provide connectivity for ecological and wildlife corridors, regional stormwater collection and conveyance, and passive recreational opportunities. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.2 Add the “Core” and “Outlier” habitat areas to the City’s Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways, and Trail System Plan map. This has been added to Fig 2-9 in the Comprehensive Plan. 11.3 Require public land dedication of priority natural open space areas through the subdivision process. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.4 Require that cash in lieu of public land dedication for subdivisions within the AUAR area be spent within the AUAR area to purchase, restore, and/or maintain priority natural open space areas. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.5 Consider provisions for conserving “Other” habitat areas (see Figure 10-2) during the development review process. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.6 Establish mechanisms for ecological restoration, management, stewardship, and education. This mitigation measure is ongoing and implemented through the Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan. 11.7 Provide for turtle and other wildlife passage by continuing to require surmountable curbing in new residential developments and encouraging ecologically sensitive site design. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Residential developments that have occurred within the study area have all incorporated surmountable curbs. 11.8 Consult with the DNR and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine appropriate mitigation strategies for activities near the Bald Eagle’s nests within the AUAR area before development occurs within the vicinity of the nests, including reviewing recommended disturbance limit guidelines developed by the DNR. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.9 Continue to enforce the Peltier Lake No-Wake Zone ordinance and establish buffers to protect the Peltier Lake Heron Rookery. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 5 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Item No. Mitigation Description Update 11.9A The City will limit development within 300 meters of the edge of a heron colony and not allow disturbance in or near colonies from March to August. Measure was included in original AUAR within the text. 11.10 Require rare plant surveys, by qualified personnel, prior to development in wetland areas and of areas of banded soils between muck soils and adjacent Isanti, Soderville, or Zimmerman soil map units. These surveys shall be conducted by qualified professionals at an appropriate time of year to identify the rare plants. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.11 Encourage ecologically sensitive design and construction practices for the proposed northerly bypass that would connect I-35W and I-35E. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.12 Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF) of the AUAR (Figure 10-3 and 10-2). The CDF includes consideration of: • Conservation of the most ecologically significant natural resources within the AUAR area (in particular, the “Core” and “Outlier” habitats as shown in Figure 10-2 of the original AUAR). • Protection of ecologically significant natural resources from adjacent land uses by implementing buffering. • Connection of ecologically significant natural resources via multi- functional greenway corridors. Measure was included in original AUAR within the text. 11.13 Avoid impacts to state Sites of Biodiversity Significance (Rondeau Lake, Peltier Lake and Rice Lake Wetlands) and rare NPC’s (ranked S1, S2, or S3). These resources may qualify as Rare Natural Communities pursuant to Minn. Rule 8420.0515 Subp.4. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11.14 Developers are required to request a Natural Heritage Review to ensure compliance with Minnesota Species Statute and Rules. This measure is ongoing. 11.15 The Carlos Avery Important Bird Area contains significant bird habitat therefore; proposed developments must consider measures to minimize negative visual impacts. The MNDOT Approved Product for Luminaries should be followed as applicable when using LED luminaries. This measure is ongoing. 6 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 12. WATER RESOURCES: WETLANDS Item No. Mitigation Description Update 12.1 Delineate wetlands in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and classify wetlands according to Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.2 Follow sequencing process of wetland avoidance, minimization, rectification, and mitigation as outlined in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) if wetlands area altered. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.3 Apply for applicable wetland permits to obtain authorization for wetland alterations under WCA and Section 404 prior to project construction if development activities will impact a jurisdictional wetland. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.4 Mitigate areas of wetland impacts according to the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act, US Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as applicable This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.5 Submit wetland permit applications and replacement plans, as appropriate, to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the City of Lino Lakes. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.6 Follow the requirements for wetland alterations delineated by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.7 Minimize or avoid totally any filling of public waters through careful design. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 12.8 Avoid impacts to state Sites of Biodiversity Significance (Rondeau Lake, Peltier Lake and Rice Lake Wetlands) and rare NPC’s (ranked S1, S2, or S3). These resources may qualify as Rare Natural Communities pursuant to Minn. Rule 8420.0515 Subp.4. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 7 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 13. WATER USE Item No. Mitigation Description Update 13.1 Monitor water usage and do not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds the capacity of the water supply and distribution system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.2 Construct the water supply and distribution system in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health standards and with the goals, policies, and recommendations set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.3 As necessary, amend the City’s Comprehensive Water Supply Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any future amendments or updates to the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the water system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. No updates have been needed to date for the study area. 13.4 Follow the adopted Wellhead Protection Plans for Lino Lakes and Centerville. As necessary, amend the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan for new wells. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.5 Require abandoned private wells to be sealed in compliance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulations. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.6 Require that the installation of any private individual wells be constructed and installed in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulations (Minnesota Well Code). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.7 Continue to implement the City’s adopted water conservation policies which are intended to attenuate peak water demands throughout the City. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.8 Mitigation will be regulated through the City’s development approval and permitting process. Proposed master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans must address relevant water conservation mitigation measures prior to final approval by the City. Implementation of mitigation measures will be assured through developer agreements with the City, which will require a financial security for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits and/or certificates of occupancy until all relevant mitigation measures have been addressed. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 8 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Item No. Mitigation Description Update 13.9 Evaluate the use of alternative water sources such as stormwater reuse for irrigation in conjunction with development and implement where feasible, sustainable, and cost-effective. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13.10 Conduct aquifer test pumping of new wells, when necessary. This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 14. NOISE Item No. Mitigation Description Update 14.1 Developments will be evaluated for the need to implement noise mitigation methods such as setbacks, earthen berms, and noise walls This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 15. WATER SURFACE USE Item No. Mitigation Description Update 15.1 Consider restricting individual lake access and dock construction along public and private shorelands by encouraging the use of clustered access and dock facilities. This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Item No. Mitigation Description Update 16.1 Require project proposers to acquire NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity from the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 16.2 Require project proposers to meet the erosion and sediment control regulations in all applicable regulations, ordinances and rules of the City, MPCA, and Rice Creek Watershed District. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 9 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 16.3 Require project proposers to minimize runoff, improve the quality of runoff, and provide erosion control through BMPs and other low impact development techniques. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 16.4 Provide construction oversight to ensure designed sediment and erosion control measures are being implemented. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 16.5 Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, Figure 10-3). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 10 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 17. WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF Item No. Mitigation Description Update 17.3 Require stormwater management systems to be developed in accordance with the current version of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules (these rules assist in achieving the goals of the Resource Management Plan – 3) and all other local, state, and federal stormwater management requirements. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Requirements have changed slightly with local and state rule changes. ITEM 18. WATER QUALITY: WASTEWATER Item No. Mitigation Description Update 18.1 Monitor wastewater flows and not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds the capacity of the wastewater system. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.2 Construct the major infrastructure improvements needed to expand the capacity of the wastewater system (i.e. lift stations, forcemains, and upgrades to the existing systems) in accordance with the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.3 Adequately phase capacity improvements. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.4 Amend the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the sanitary sewer system and regional capacity needs. This mitigation measure is ongoing. No updates have been needed to date for the study area. 18.5 Each proposed development will be required to provide a detailed projection of wastewater generation and flows. These calculations will be checked by the City’s Engineering Consultant. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 18.6 The City will create a year-end report to evaluate wastewater increases by major sewer lines and overall system usage in relation to capacity. Results of this assessment will become the targets for growth for the following year. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 11 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 19. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Item No. Mitigation Description Update 19.1 Require the removal of all tanks and associated underground piping in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 19.2 Require that any party that may discover residual petroleum contamination shall follow state law and report the information to the MPCA for further investigation and potential remediation. This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 21. TRANSPORTATION Item No. Mitigation Description Update 21.1 Create a monitoring program that closely evaluates traffic impacts from proposed developments within the AUAR area. Traffic Impact Studies are required for proposed developments showing the impact on the transportation system and consistency with the AUAR. 21.2 Implement traffic mitigation measures as development occurs within the AUAR area. Specific mitigation measures for the three development scenarios are discussed in Item 21 and depicted on Figures 21-8, 21-9, and 21-10. These mitigation measures improve overall traffic operations for the respective development scenarios. The improvements are intended to represent the minimum level of infrastructure investment that would be needed to meet acceptable level of service standards. Additional roadway and non-motorized improvements, beyond the minimum level, may be identified to accommodate specific development needs that are identified within the AUAR area. Primary improvements, regardless of land use scenario, include: 21.2.1 Develop frontage road system in compliance with local, county, and state access management guidelines to serve local and regional traffic. 21.2.2 Work with appropriate road authorities to reconstruct and provide additional capacity for CSAH 21. CSAH 14 improvement was completed in 2009 and noted in the 2010 AUAR Update CSAH 54 (formerly CSAH 21) 20th Avenue North intersection improvements were completed and noted in the 2010 AUAR Update. I-35E Interchange reconstruction was completed in 2011. This mitigation measure is complete. 12 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Item No. Mitigation Description Update 21.2.3 Work with appropriate road authorities to construct Northerly Bypass with new interchanges at I-35W and I-35E (80th Street East) to improve traffic operations and access to and within the AUAR area. As recommended by FHWA and Mn/DOT, a phasing plan should be established to construct each piece of the Northerly Connector as it becomes necessary to maintain the serviceability of the transportation system. Phase Improvement 1. CSAH 14, I-35W to I-35E (funded and programmed for construction) 2. CSAH 14, I-35E Interchange 3. CR 140 (80th Street)/I-35E Interchange 4. CSAH 14 across Peltier Lake (Northerly Bypass/Connector) 5. CSAH 14/I-35W Interchange As part of these improvements, the following steps should be taken as the opportunity is presented: • Inclusion of the northerly bypass and proposed interchanges in future transportation and comprehensive plans; • Coordination with Anoka County regarding the proposed Northerly Bypass alignment through Rice Creek Park Reserve. • Preservation of right of way through official mapping or other process; • Right of way dedication through the platting process. 21.3 Require a traffic impact analysis for all development projects within the AUAR area. The traffic impact analysis will assist the City and other road authorities in determining the appropriate mitigation measures that are required to mitigate impacts of a specific development proposal. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 13 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Item No. Mitigation Description Update 21.4 Work with appropriate road authorities to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic on the on the regional system, specifically Interstates 35W and 35E, by reconstructing each to provide a six -lane cross-section consistent with the recommendations outlined in the I-35 IRC. It should be noted that it was determined that an expansion will be necessary even without the development scenarios used in this analysis. As the interstates serve a much larger area, the projected growth of the entire Twin Cities region should warrant expansion by the year 2030. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.5 Prioritize alternative travel modes within the AUAR study area and require project proposers to address alternative travel modes (e.g., buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians) by identifying appropriate accommodations. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.6 Consider the need for additional infrastructure improvements (see item #21.2) in future updates or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Submit the plan update to the appropriate agencies (i.e., FHWA, MnDOT, Met Council, etc.). This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.7 Require project proposers to follow all appropriate guidelines and policies related to traffic nose and noise walls. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.8 Require that site plans for each of the developments include measures such as appropriate setback distances, earthen berms, noise walls, and appropriate site design to reduce the impact of traffic noise to residential areas. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.9 Continue to require the implementation of the conditions of approval for the Eagle Brook Church relating to mitigating traffic impacts. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.10 Achieve effective traffic operations within the city by requiring that site plans make use of access management practices to promote safe, effective traffic flow. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 21.11 Require project proposers to follow the Anoka County Highway Department Development Review Process Manual (updated June 2013). This mitigation measure is ongoing and has been updated to reflect the newest manual. 21.12 Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable transportation authorities. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 14 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 ITEM 25. CULTURAL RESOURCES / FARMLANDS Item No. Mitigation Description Update 25.1 Consult the map that shows areas with a high potential for archaeological sites when development applications are submitted for review. Given the sensitive nature of this information, this map cannot be included in the AUAR document, nor can it be made available to the public. If a development application falls within an area that is considered to have a high potential for archaeological sites, the City will require that the following steps and procedures involved in the identification and analysis of any archaeological sites is followed prior to development: ▪ Conduct a Phase I archaeological survey within the area of potential effect (APE). The objective of the archaeological fieldwork is to determine if there are archaeological sites in the areas identified as having high potential for such and define the extent of those sites that may be impacted by development plans. ▪ Conduct a Phase II archaeological survey. If archaeological resources are uncovered within the APE that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) a Phase II survey should be conducted. The objective of the investigation is to determine whether archaeological resources are eligible for listing on the NRHP. ▪ Plan for avoidance or conduct Phase III data recovery. If a significant archaeological site is identified that will be impacted by development, avoidance is recommended. If this is not possible, then a data recovery of the site should occur. ▪ If human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological investigation or development, all activities must stop, and consultation initiated with the Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 15 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 Item No. Mitigation Description Update 25.2 Consider preservation of agricultural heritage sites by implementing thoughtful interpretive planning. As development plans for the two Century Farms come to fruition, the City can encourage landscaping and other amenities that reflect the agricultural heritage of this city. In addition, the City can continue to reflect the agricultural heritage of the community in public buildings and gathering places (for example, City Hall reflects elements of the community’s agricultural heritage). This mitigation measure is ongoing. ITEM 27. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS Item No. Mitigation Description Update 27.1 Use the information contained in the AUAR during future considerations of updates or amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Any future consideration of amendments or updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances would follow the City’s set procedures and guidelines for such amendments. The City has completed the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 27.2 Require that tools such as clustering, buffering, and/or screening be incorporated into future development plans to mitigate potential land use conflicts. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 27.3 Any changes to Scenario 1’s land use density or intensity from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will require an amendment to the plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 27.4 Development consistent with Scenario 2 will require an amendment to the plan This mitigation measure is ongoing ITEM 28. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSION/CARBON FOOTPRINT Item No. Mitigation Description Update 16 Mitigation Plan Update – 2025 June 16, 2025 28.2 Developers will consider design strategies and sustainability measures that could reduce emissions. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 28.3 On-site native landscaping to reduce potable water and pesticide use, along with the inclusion of trees and tree trenches to improve local air quality, absorb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce local urban heat island effect. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 28.4 Consider providing on-site electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This mitigation measure is ongoing. 28.5 Buildings could be designed with energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting. This mitigation measure is ongoing. Appendix L Responses to Comments 1 Comment Response 1. Information has been added to the Water Appropriations memo (Appendix C) with additional detail. 2. A statement has been added to the Water Appropriations memo (Appendix C) acknowledging the possibility of pre-code unlocated wells and developer’s locating to locate and property seal any wells found during development. 3. The City’s Wellhead Protection Plan was adopted in 2015. A 2021 evaluation of the effect of Well 6 on the DWSMA included reclassifying the entirety of the Lino Lakes DWSMA to Moderate Vulnerability based on the latest MDH guidance at that time, which will be memorialized in the City’s upcoming WHPP update. A statement has been added to the Water Appropriations memo (Appendix C) regarding Centerville’s DWSMA. 4. The White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan will offer additional information and recommendations about regional groundwater sustainability. A statement has been added to the Water Appropriations memo (Appendix C) that new municipal production wells will continue to follow the typical DNR well permitting process, including test pumping to evaluate sustainability and interference. Comment Response 1. 2. 3. 4. 2 5. Comment noted. A safety evaluation has been added to the Stormwater memo (Appendix B). 1. Narrative has been added to wildlife/plant communities (13) of AUAR Update and Item 12.8 has been added to mitigation plan. Comment Response 1. 5. 3 1. Floodplain Alteration and Public Drainage system approvals were included under Item 8(Permits and Approvals required). 2. County Ditches are included. In the water resources section (Item 11) 3. County Ditch # 3 is included in the water resources section (Item 11) 4. Language has been added to the Water appropriation memo (Appendix C) about continued collaboration between the City and RCWD on alternative water supply projects like stormwater reuse for irrigation. 5. Map legend includes all layers within map. 6. RCWD support comment added to Stormwater memo (Appendix B). 7. CSMP referenced in Stormwater memo (Appendix B). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4 Comment Response 8. The Anoka County 2004 CSAH 14 Alternative Analysis Study includes information about this alignment. 9. Comment noted. Table 1 in the climate memo (Appendix J) has been updated. Comment Response 8. 9. 5 1. Comment noted. A Drainage permit is included in the permits and approvals required table. 2. Comment noted. Mitigation Item 21.13 requires that MNDOT staff be contacted if an impact to the bus route is proposed. Comment Response 1. 2. 6 3.Comment noted. Item 17 of the AUAR Update notes the implementation of mitigation measures such as setbacks, berms, and noise walls to minimize noise impacts. 4. Comment noted. MNDOT right of way permit is included in the permit matrix. 5. Comment noted. 3. 4. 5. 7 Comment Response 1. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan identified this roadway as part of the proposed roadway system. The City also recognizes the importance of the resources located within the Rice Creek Park Reserve. Mitigation Measure 21.2 has been updated to note the need for coordination with Anoka County regarding the alignment of this future roadway. 2. Comment noted. Mitigation measures added as Items 7.4 and 7.5. 1. 2. 8 3. Comment noted 4. Comment noted. Items 27.3 and 27.4 have been added to the mitigation plan. 5. The City’s Wellhead Protection Plan was adopted in 2015. A 2021 evaluation of the effect of Well 6 on the DWSMA included reclassifying the entirety of the Lino Lakes DWSMA to Moderate Vulnerability based on the latest MDH guidance at that time, which will be memorialized in the City’s upcoming WHPP update. A statement has been added to the AUAR regarding Centerville’s DWSMA and land use choices. 6. A statement has been added to the water memo (Appendix C) about future wellhead DWSMA. 7. A statement has been added to the water memo (Appendix C) for developers to locate and seal any unlocated wells. This is also noted in the Mitigation Plan as Mitigation Measure 13.5. 8. A statement has been added to the water memo (Appendix C) for aquifer test pumping of new wells when necessary. This is also noted in the Mitigation Plan as Mitigation Measure 13.10. 9. Comment noted. 3. 4. 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9. 9 10. Mitigation Measures 28.2 and 28.4 include these recommendations. 11. Comment noted Comment Response 10. 11. 10 1. The narrative in Appendix C has been updated and The DNR General Permit has been added to the Permit table. 2. The list of notable aquatic resources has been updated to include all DNR waters. 1. 2. 11 3. Comment noted. 4. The NHIS letter has been received. Mitigation Item 11.14 requires developers to request NHIS review for individual projects. 3. 4. 12 5. The AUAR narrative has been updated, and Mitigation Item 11.15 has been added to include the DNR’s recommendation. 5. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator DATE: June 25, 2025 REQUEST: Peltier Ponds PUD Preliminary Plat CASE NUMBER: PZC2025-0004 CPA2025-002 APPLICANT: Lennar Josh Metzer 16355 36th Ave N, Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55127 OWNER: Hal & Pam Leibel 7566 Peltier Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55038 BACKGROUND The applicant, Lennar, is proposing a master planned development located on the West side of 20th Ave N (CSAH 54) just across from Watermark, East of Peltier Lake Drive, and North of the Centerville border. The development contains approximately 125.02 gross acres, 64.32 developable and consists of mix of residential housing. The proposed development is called Peltier Ponds. Future land use applications may include: • Rezoning property from R, Rural to PUD, Planned Unit Development • PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. This staff report is based on a review of the following documents: • Applicant Narrative prepared by Lennar dated November 12, 2024 • Peltier Ponds Development PUD Concept Plan prepared by James R Hill dated November 11, 2024 ANALYSIS 2 Current Zoning and Land Use Current Zoning R, Rural Current Land Use Agricultural Future Land Use per 2040 Comp Plan Low Density, Medium Density, High Density Utility Staging Area Stage 1A (2018-2025) Stage 1B (2025-2030) Current Proposal The attached applicant’s narrative provides a detailed description of the project. Per the narrative, “The proposed land uses 74 (74) – CMA back to back townhome, 39 (39) CMS row townhome, 149 (149) single-family lots.” Residential The applicant is proposing the following mix and number of housing types: Housing Type # Units CMA back-to-back Townhomes = 48 CMS row Townhomes = 33 Single-Family = 165 246 The residential development transitions from townhomes along 20th Avenue North and the SE corner of the proposed property to sing-family lots in the interior of the property heading west to Peltier Lake Dr. Trails, sidewalks and stormwater ponds are included throughout the development. Commercial No commercial use being proposed on site. General Site Characteristics The 125.02-acre site is predominately used for agricultural purposes or existing in a natural state with associated wetlands covering the site. The site is immediately west 3 of Watermark development that consists of single family residential uses and park and open space amenities. Land Cover Pre-settlement land cover (Marschner) was forested big woods. The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) identifies the southeastern parcel as deciduous forest and cattail marsh. This area currently has wetlands scattered throughout the site. Moving north the land transitions to cultivated herbaceous vegetation. This area of the site is currently agricultural and farmed for row crops. Soils The soils within the agricultural area consist of Nessel Fine sandy loam and Hayden fine sandy loam. These consist of a layer of silty sand and sandy lean clay. The top layer of silty sand is categorized as Hydrologic soil group B along with silty clay loam Group D. Based on the soil boils provided onsite infiltration will be limited due to the layer of silty clay loam and sandy clay. Infiltration may be possible in soil group B where an adequate depth of soil exists for infiltration. Groundwater was also observed throughout the site at an average depth of 8’. Peltier lake at the time of borings was at an elevation of 882-884’ which would be consistent with the water levels found in the boring log. It is expected that the ground water in this area is tied into the NWL of Peltier Lake. The sandy, well drained areas offer the potential for stormwater infiltration, provided groundwater separation requirements can be met. Rare, Unique, or Significant Resources A Rare plant survey was completed by Midwest Natural Resources on September 15, 2024. 16 potential rare species were identified using the DNR’s online Rare Species Guide associated with wetland habitat. During the site visit no state-listed plant species were found during the late-season rate plant survey. It is to be noted that the survey occurred outside the appropriate time window to search for early and mid-season rare species. Based on the disturbance and degradation of the existing habitat it is unlikely that any of these species are established on this site. Two species of state-listed species of special concern have been documented in the vicinity of the project area: 4 1. Water-willow, Decodon verticillatus 2. Bell’s Vireo, Vireo bellii If suitable habitat for any of these species occurs within your project footprint or activity impact area, the project may negatively impact those species. To avoid impacting state listed species of special concern, the DNR recommends modifying the location of project activities to avoid suitable habitat or modifying the timing of project activities to avoid the presence of the species. Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. The USFWS identified 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species within the project location. 1. Tricolored Bat Proposed Endangered 2. Whooping Crane Experimental 3. Salamander Mussel Proposed Endangered 4. Monarch Butterfly Proposed Threatened There are no critical habitats identified within the project area. Bald Eagles are protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Based on the proximity of the location to Peltier Lake there is the potential for impacts. If Eagle nests are discovered on the property mitigation will be required. A Blandings turtle mitigation plan will be required with future submittals. Stormwater Management Peltier Lake is identified as an impaired water by the MPCA for excess nutrients. The project provides the opportunity to eliminate agricultural runoff from the site and create stormwater management systems that improve water quality entering the lake. With the conversion of agricultural land to residential development there will be a nutrient and sediment loading reduction. However, it is also imperative that the site meet the city and RCWD requirements for stormwater runoff to limit pollutant runoff. The preliminary plat includes nine stormwater ponds. A stormwater management plan must be submitted at the Preliminary Plat phase. Larger ponds are proposed running parallel to the wetland areas. This will allow for treatment prior to discharge into the adjacent wetland complex. Existing drainage flows from east to west. There is significant elevation change from the east side of the site to the west (change of elevation from 906’-890’). Opportunities exist to incorporate a stormwater treatment train that filters and treats stormwater runoff as it flows through the site. Any opportunities to incorporate natural treatment 5 systems into the site should be encouraged. There is an existing waterway onsite that discharges directly to Peltier Lake, a stormwater management BMP should be installed prior to the start of the waterway to reduce sediment and pollutants leaving the site. Options for infiltration should be evaluated and used where practicable. Capacity is limited to existing drainages and infiltration and water retention should be used where feasible. Use of stormwater for irrigation purposes for the site should be evaluated and if feasible required as part of site development. Flood Plain The southeastern corner of the site falls within a Zone A floodplain. This is an area where the 100-year flood elevation has been determined by approximate means. No buildings are proposed to be in the floodplain area. Grading and construction of storm water management best management practices (BMP’s) are permissible with the flood plain. Any filling of flood plain will require mitigation and FEMA approval. Shoreland District The subject property is located within the Shoreland Management Overlay District of Peltier Lake. Shoreland Districts extend 1,000’ from the Ordinance High Water Level of the water body. Peltier Lake is classified as Natural Environment lake. Natural Environment Lakes are generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. City Code Section 1102.13 details additional Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements. PUD development allows the city and developer to work in partnership to achieve creative conservation design elements that preserve open space, and unique natural features and resources. The City Planner will review the Shoreland Ordinance to determine that all requirements are being met with the proposed project. Wetlands The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) for this area. Any wetland impacts will need to be approved by RCWD. Wetlands preserved on site will need to meet RCWD and City buffer requirements. 6 There are nineteen wetlands identified on site. A majority of the wetlands (13) are shown within the currently farmed area of the parcel. These wetlands are considered degraded and have a lower biological value. Any wetlands that are impacted will need to meet mitigation requirements. Larger wetlands on the south side of the parcel are within the RCDW wetland management corridor and will require a 50’ buffer. The extent of the wetlands and corridor will be evaluated with preliminary plans. It is likely additional wetlands will be included within these protected areas. Wetlands in these areas will be placed under a conservation easement with the project. All wetlands that are preserved onsite should be managed and restored as possible. Mitigation and management to enhance wetland function and benefits should be fully investigated. Opportunity exists on the site to establish and restore an upland buffer in excess of 40’ wide along the western edge of the “built” area. Stormwater ponds are allowed within buffer areas. Mitigation for proposed impacts is required. 10 wetlands are being proposed to have impacts with proposed development for a total of 48,700 square feet. The developer is proposing mitigation through wetland mitigation banking credits. Greenway System, Parks and Trails The 2040 Comprehensive Plan does show areas of value for natural resource conservation related to wetlands on the site. The greenway system consists of a Natural Resource Conservation area running along the wetland and trunk storm sewer. Conservation easements should extend from the wetlands on the NE quadrant of the parcel to Peltier lake through the greenway. Peltier Lake road should be realigned through the development and a trail system with public use will be incorporated into the existing lake frontage. Realigning the road will create the opportunity for public use, shoreline restoration, and extended trail system through this corridor. Conservation easements should be provided over all open space and wetland areas. The goal of this project is to extend the greenway corridor and trail system by connecting it to existing infrastructure to the east. Watermark park and trail system is located directly east of this property. The ultimate goal is to connect these greenways with future development and acquisition of land creating a link between the open space corridors. 7 A future neighborhood park is also shown in this area. A future park is proposed along the greenway corridor and along the existing storm sewer outlet prior to Peltier Lake. The current plan shows natural trails being proposed in Out lot E, developer to confirm if these trails will be open to the public and maintained by the HOA. Tree Preservation A Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan will be required for existing trees that are proposed to be removed. The area has been farmed and few desirable trees exist within this area. On the northern end of the project tree removal should be limited to provide screening from existing houses on the south side of Rehbein St. The southwest corner of the property has trees that are shown for removal. These areas appear to be outside of the basic use area and will require mitigation. Provide calculations in future submittals showing the basic use area for the property and areas of environmentally sensitive areas. Boxelder is being shown as undesirable and no mitigation is being provided. Cottonwoods and Ash trees can be considered undesirable as defined in the development standards. However, boxelder should be mitigated for, 116 boxelder are being removed outside of the Basic Use Area. Tree removals should be broken down between Non-Basic Use Area and any Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Currently trees are just shown outside of the basic use area, it appears that there will be removals within the ESA of wetland. Landscaping Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for single family and two-family lots. Townhomes and multi-family properties require one tree per 70 feet of linear feet of road frontage. Open areas shall be landscaped to meet requirements of 1 large tree and 2 large shrubs per 2500 SF. Open space calculations should be provided with future submittals. Landscape screening and buffers shall be installed along CSAH 54/20th Street. Buffer screening and berming should meet the city’s 6’ height requirement from the low point of foundation. The landscape plans shall comply with Section 1007.043 (17), Required Screening, Landscaping and Buffer Yards of the zoning ordinance. No recommendations for additional plantings were called out during the noise study. Mitigation for the townhomes should meet the requirements of the noise study. 8 Drinking Water Protection The southern portion of the site is within the Lino Lakes Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). This area is considered to be of moderate vulnerability and will need to be accounted for during development. A majority of the stormwater bmp’s and development is proposed outside of the DWSMA. The Minnesota Well Index indicated no known locations of a well on the property. Proof should be provided of the well sealing and septic system removal if a septic system existed. The site will be served off city sewer and water as part of the proposed project. AUAR The project location is within the I35E AUAR corridor study area. As part of the AUAR the development will need to meet the mitigation checklist as outlined in the AUAR for proposed development. The AUAR shows the site within an area for high potential of important cultural resources. A cultural Resource Assessment was completed by the City in 2016 as part of the Northeast Lino Drainage Study. A portion of the site falls within the area that the assessment was looked at. No historical or cultural resources were found as part of the city’s assessment. The developer will be required to complete a Cultural Resource Assessment for the rest of the site to confirm that no areas of significance exist. Based on the amount of disturbance due to farming operations for years it is unlikely areas of importance will be found. Staff will review the AUAR checklist to ensure all mitigation measures are being met with the development and is in compliance with the guidelines. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has the following recommendations for consideration by the board: Provide increased buffer widths around wetland where the trail is going past these locations. Buffers should be extended throughout the park land to provide pretreat of runoff before discharging to the wetlands. 9 1. Show buffers in between the trail and existing channel shown on the proposed plans. 2. All wetlands should be included in conservation easements. 3. This area is included in the RCWD wetland corridor plan. With future submittals impacts and mitigation of wetlands will be required. i. Wetlands falling within the wetland corridor will require 50’ buffers 2. The project will disturb more than an acre of soil and will be required to obtain an NPDES permit. Proof of permit shall be required before construction. 1. A SWPPP shall be required in additional submittals as required by the MPCA meeting sections 5.2-5.26 2. Final erosion and sediment control will be reviewed with future submittals 3. Plans show rock construction entrance in the legend. Does not appear to be shown on the plan sheet. Call out the location on the plans. 4. Redundant perimeter control will be required around all wetlands onsite where a 50’ natural buffer cannot be maintained during construction. Redundant perimeter control should be spaced 3-5’ apart. i. Legend shows heavy duty silt fence. Appears to be covering additional erosion control. Call out on plan set if two layers are to be proposed in these areas. 3. Rice Creek Watershed District shows Anoka County Ditch 72 branch 1 running through the site. Verify the location and use of the ditch with the watershed. Ditch location and drainage should be shown on the plan set if it is required to be maintained. 1. Confirm with RCWD on what is allowed within the proposed new alignment of ACD 72 Br 1. Potential trail extension along this corridor to 20th could cause impacts. 4. Provide increased buffer widths around wetland where the trail is going past these locations. Buffers should be extended throughout the park land to provide pretreat of runoff before discharging to the wetlands. 5. Show buffers in between the trail and existing channel shown on the proposed plans. 6. All wetlands should be included in conservation easements. 7. This area is included in the RCWD wetland corridor plan. With future submittals impacts and mitigation of wetlands will be required. 1. Mitigation banking credits have been proposed 10 8. Wetlands falling within the wetland corridor will require 50’ buffers 9. The project site is located with the I-35 E corridor AUAR. As part of the planning the AUAR mitigation checklist should be used. 1. There are areas of potential cultural significance shown adjacent to the site and will need to complete a Cultural Resource Assessment of the proposed project. 2. I35E AUAR mitigation checklist should be used with future submittals to ensure all requirements are being met. 10. Provide conservation easements over all wetland and open space in the development to ensure connectivity with existing and future development. 1. Confirm ownership of outlot E and ownership and maintenance of proposed natural trails. 11. Retain 50’ wide drainage & utility easement over trunk storm sewer. 1. The 50’ buffer appears to go into outlot BB. The 50’ drainage and utility easement goes into block 26 lots 1-5. Drainage and utility easement should be outside of those lots. 12. A stormwater treatment train that filters and treats stormwater runoff as it flows through the site should be developed. Any opportunities to incorporate natural treatment systems into the project should be encouraged. 13. Use of stormwater for irrigation purposes for the site should be evaluated and if feasible required as part of site development. Larger stormwater ponds constructed for fill should be evaluated for water reuse. 14. The southern portion of the site is within the Lino Lakes drinking water supply management area. 1. This area is considered moderately vulnerable, and considerations should be taken into account for the proposed project. 15. Boxelder is being shown as undesirable, and no mitigation is being provided. Cottonwoods and Ash trees can be considered undesirable as defined in the development standards. However boxelder should be mitigated for, 116 boxelder are being removed outside of the Basic Use Area. 16. Tree removals should be broken down between Non-Basic Use Area and any Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Currently trees are just shown outside of 11 the basic use area, it appears that there will be removals within the ESA of wetland. 17. Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for single family and two-family lots. Townhomes and multi-family properties require one tree per 70 feet of linear feet of road frontage. 18. Open areas shall be landscaped to meet requirements of 1 large tree and 2 large shrubs per 2500 SF. Open space calculations should be provided with future submittals. 19. Landscape screening and buffers shall be installed along CSAH 54/20th Street. Buffer screening and berming should meet the city’s 6’ height requirement from the low point of foundation. 20. The landscape plans shall comply with Section 1007.043 (17), Required Screening, Landscaping and Buffer Yards of the zoning ordinance. 1. No recommendations for additional plantings were called out during the noise study. 2. Mitigation for the townhomes should meet the requirements of the noise study. 21. Provide a 30’ easement along Peltier Lake Drive for future trail and riparian restoration. Current plans show 30’ going down to 15’ with vacated easement. Provide clarification on ownership. 22. Provide a Blandings turtle mitigation plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Project Narrative 3. Peltier Ponds Preliminary Plat NARRATIVE: Peltier Ponds - Single-Family & Townhome Residential Community U.S. Home, LLC, dba Lennar, is pleased to submit this application for a proposed single-family and townhome community composed of 246 homes. Existing Conditions The property is located on the west side of 20th Ave N (CSAH 54) across from Watermark, east of Peltier Lake Drive, and north of the Centerville city border. The site is 125.02 gross acres (64.32 net developable acres) in size and is currently farmed agricultural land with wetlands and pockets of wooded upland and lowland. The site is currently guided Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. Nineteen wetlands have been delineated on the site totaling 15.66 acres in size. Guided Land Uses and (current use of land) surrounding the subject property include: • North – Guided Urban Reserve (single-family residential – Rehbein’s Peltier View); • West – Guided Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Water (two single-family homesteads and Peltier Lake); • Southwest – Guided Medium Density Residential (50-acre single-family homestead) • South – City of Centerville (single-family residential and open space); • East – Guided Low Density Mixed Residential (20th Ave N & Watermark). Description of Requests Lennar is requesting a Rezoning of the subject property from Rural to PUD to align with the guided Land Use of the property; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to realign the Low, Medium, and High Density Residential land use designations to match the layout of single-family homes (low density) and townhomes (medium density); and PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications. Proposed Homes and Architecture Peltier Ponds consists of single-family homes and townhomes similar to homes built in Watermark. CMA back-to-back townhome CMS row townhome 55-foot single-family lots 65-foot single-family lots 80-foot single-family lots Bedrooms 3 3 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5 Home Sq Ft 1770-1800 1800-1900 942-2400 1920-3876 1920-3876 Garage Stalls 2 2 2 to 3 3 3 to 4 Garage Sq Ft 405 379-388 445-744 626-780 645-951 Starting Price $345,000 $365,000 $525,000 $575,000 $635,000 Concept Plan Home Count 74 39 75 49 25 262 Preliminary Plat Home Count 48 33 89 45 31 246 Home Count Difference -26 -6 +14 -4 +6 -16 Infrastructure Peltier Ponds is located adjacent to existing residential developments. As a result, infrastructure is readily available for extension to serve this development. Access for the community will be provided through the westward extension of Watermark Way and southward extension of Gordon Ave. Access will also be provided from Peltier Lake Drive on the north and south, however, Peltier Lake Drive will be moved away from the lake and redirected into the new neighborhood. Existing Peltier Lake Drive will be abandoned and possibly turned into a trail in the future. The single-family homes will be served by public streets with a curb-to-curb street width of 32 feet. The townhomes will all be served by private streets. Public Park, Open Space, Trails, and Sidewalks Lennar is proposing the dedication of 5.37 acres of land in the central area of the community and at the west edge fronting on Peltier Lake intended for use as a City park. Approximately 25 acres of the site is being preserved as public open space, and nearly 4 acres will be preserved as private open space within the townhome neighborhoods. When including the public park, ponding areas, and wetlands the site will contain 58.62 acres will be open space which constitutes 47% of the site. The community includes a network of trails that will connect to the new public park, a future lakefront trail, connection to a future trail fronting on 20th Avenue, and will allow access to the Watermark Park and trail system on the east side of 20th Avenue. Sidewalks will be constructed on one side of each public street. The public park areas will be deeded to the City and trails within the park will be maintained by the City. Common open spaces will be owned by the HOA and trails outside of park maintained by the HOA. Trees and Landscape Buffers Given the long-term agricultural use of the property, and large presence of wetlands, much of the site is void of trees. There are, however, a few large clusters of trees in the southern wetlands, along the north property line, near the homesteads by the lake, and around the creek in the center of the site where the park is proposed to be located. There was a total of 2,186 trees were inventoried. Lennar is proposing the removal of 371 trees from the site, which means 83% will be preserved. Lennar will be planting trees in accordance with City Code requirements. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goals The Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan guides the subject properties Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. This is a complicated site to design to meet density requirements given the scattered location of wetlands and the need to provide ponding, but PUD zoning would provide the flexibility to offer the proposed mix of townhomes and three base lot width standards for the single-family homes to achieve the density required by the Comp Plan. The proposed plan meets the overall required density unit range requirements based on existing and proposed land use designations. However, the land use designations are being amended to align with the proposed housing types (single-family = low density residential; row townhomes = medium density residential; back-to-back townhomes = high density residential). Along with 34.25 acres being preserved in park/open space, the preservation of wetlands and trees, and the creation of a public park, the proposed community aligns with goals outlined in the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. PELTIER PONDS USING EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Land Use Required Density Range (units/acre) Net Acres Density Range Proposed Units Resulting Density (units/acre) Low Density Residential 1.6 - 3.0 27.57 44 - 83 77 2.79 (within density requirements) Medium Density Residential 4.0 - 6.0 27.68 111 - 166 124 4.48 (within density requirements) High Density Residential 6.0 - 8.0 9.07 54 - 73 45 4.96 (below density requirements) 64.32 209 - 322 246 3.82 (within density range) PELTIER PONDS USING PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Land Use Required Density Range (units/acre) Net Acres Density Range Proposed Units Resulting Density (units/acre) Low Density Residential 1.6 - 3.0 51.96 84 - 156 165 3.17 (exceeds density requirements) Medium Density Residential 4.0 - 6.0 4.60 19 - 28 33 7.21 (exceeds density requirements) High Density Residential 6.0 - 8.0 7.76 47 - 63 48 6.18 (below density requirements) 64.32 150 - 247 246 3.82 (within density range) PELTIER PONDS USING YIELD PLAN Land Use Required Density Range (units/acre) Net Acres Density Range Proposed Units Resulting Density (units/acre) Low Density Residential 1.6 - 3.0 31.49 51 - 95 78 2.83 (meets density requirements) Medium Density Residential 4.0 - 6.0 30.44 122 - 183 168 6.07 (meets density requirements) High Density Residential 6.0 - 8.0 10.49 63 - 84 73 8.04 (meets density requirements) 72.42 236 - 362 319 4.96 (within density range) Goal 1: Create a unified vision and future for the city, promote a well-planned community, prevent fragmented development, address the impacts of development and redevelopment on natural resources, aesthetics and view corridors, and provide balanced land use and connectivity that ensures the integration of both sides of the regional park. • Preserving open space, providing park dedication and trails, and/or providing stormwater management areas, in excess of minimum standards to implement the Greenway System and Rice Creek Watershed District’s Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan. • Restoring/enhancing ecological systems. • Managing stormwater using natural filtration and other ecologically based approaches. • Providing life-cycle and affordable housing. Peltier Ponds will be preserving 34.25 acres of upland open space (58.62 acres of open space if ponding and wetland areas were included) which is 47% of the site. This plan proposes the dedication of a 5.37-acre park at the west side of the community near Peltier Lake. Of the 15.66 acres of wetland located on the site 13.73 acres will be preserved along with the creation of 6.03 acres of wetland buffers. Five of the wetlands (2.44 acres combined) on site are being restored from their current farmed agricultural state to revitalized wetlands. As mentioned, there will be ten (10) stormwater ponds constructed which will treat stormwater runoff prior to it entering the natural systems of wetlands, creeks, and lakes. By offering two types of townhomes and the various floorplans that can be built on 55-foot, 65-foot, and 80-foot wide lots Peltier Ponds will certainly provide Lino Lakes residents options for life-cycle housing. Goal 3: Ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and provides accessibility to key community features and natural amenities. • Link trails to parks, lakes, and schools. • Encourage pedestrian activity in residential areas by providing sidewalks and trails as well as connections to existing and future pedestrian or transit facilities. The community includes a network of trails that will connect to the new public park, a future lakefront trail, connection to a future trail fronting on 20th Avenue, and will allow access to the Watermark Park and trail system on the east side of 20th Avenue. Sidewalks will also be provided on all public streets. Goal 4: Maintain safe neighborhoods and community areas. • Develop neighborhoods with mixed housing styles that promote diversity and attract all age groups. The proposed mix of homes should attract buyers of all ages and demographics from young single first-time buyers, couples, families with children, empty-nesters, and retirees. Goal 7: Sustain Lino Lakes’ Natural Resources which make it such a desirable place to live. • Protect and preserve the natural resources throughout the city. • Continue to promote the use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) as the city’s preferred development process to implement the Greenway System. Please see comments provided for Goal 1 and Goal 3 above. In addition, 1,815 trees will be preserved out of the 2,186 trees existing on site today (83% preserved). Many of which are located in the proposed park and open spaces. Comprehensive Plan Parks, Open Space, and Trail Goals Goal 1: Continue development and maintenance of an appropriate balance of active and passive recreational activities to serve the diverse needs of the community for people of all ages and abilities, including, where possible, neighborhood parks, larger multi-use community parks and the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve (Regional Park). • Acquire, reserve, develop and maintain sufficient park and open space land to fulfill the identified and projected needs of the present and future populations. • Continue, whenever possible, inclusion of neighborhood parks in future developments and planned redevelopments. • Direct and manage activities in an appropriate manner by balancing the use of programming activities in the neighborhood parks. As mentioned in the response for Land Use Goal 1, this plan proposes the dedication of a 5.37- acre park near the center of the community and at the west edge with lake frontage. Goal 2: Collaborate with Anoka County to guarantee and improve public access of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve (Regional Park) waterways for recreational use and enjoyment of the community. • Identify, develop and maintain new public access points to area lakes and waterways so that residents can enjoy these unique recreational opportunities. There is an opportunity for the City to create and offer a new public access point to Peltier Lake at the western edge of the proposed park dedication area. Goal 3: Develop, maintain and connect the current and proposed trails and greenway systems in the City of Lino Lakes and the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve (Regional Park) in a manner that preserves and sustains the natural environment. • Preserve the open character of Lino Lakes through the preservation of natural open space and the establishment of greenway corridors. • To the extent possible, require an interconnected trail system to be developed concurrently with the infrastructure of the subdivision or new development. Please see comments provided for Land Use Goal 3 above. Goal 4: Identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the community. • Where possible, restore damaged or misused natural and ecologically significant areas to their original state. • Require natural space buffers, where appropriate, around wetlands to preserve their function and value. Please see wetland comments provided for Land Use Goal 1 above. Goal 5: To provide city residents with parks, trails, greenways and natural areas for protection of the natural environment, recreational uses, as visual/physical diversions from the hard surfacing of urban development, and as a means to maintain the character, ambiance, appearance and history of the community. • The city shall reserve the right to acquire land within all development areas for park, natural open space, greenways and trail purposes. • Parkland dedication policies and ordinances shall be used by the city to require each developer (of all land use categories) to dedicate land, or at the discretion of the city provide a payment in lieu for all or part, for parks, trails, greenways and open space acquisition and development. • Alternatives to direct acquisition of property, such as conservation easements, shall be used where appropriate to set aside land for park and open space purposes. Please see comments provided for Land Use Goal 1 and Goal 3 above. The proposed open spaces would be placed under conservation easements. Goal 7: Identify important existing natural resources for protection and work cooperatively with developers and landowners to encourage healthy natural resource systems to retain the existing natural character of the community through education. • Encourage the preservation of natural vegetation including plants of oak savannas, prairies, woodlands, wetlands and aquatic vegetation to be a design consideration for new subdivisions. As mentioned above, this plan will restore and preserve 2.44 acres of wetlands, preserve trees, and create new open spaces for natural vegetation to grow. Schedule Land development work (grading) would begin in Summer 2025 with utility/street construction getting started in Fall 2025. The overall project will likely be developed in four phases. Lennar estimates full occupancy of the community will occur approximately 5 to 6 years from the date sales begin. Lennar has a long-standing history of building successful communities throughout the Twin Cities, including similar such as Watermark (Lino Lakes), North Meadows (Blaine), and Willowbrooke (Oakdale). We invite you to visit any of these communities and our website at lennar.com/new- homes/minnesota/minneapolis-st-paul. We look forward to this opportunity to continue working with the City of Lino Lakes and thank the City for its support. Regards, Josh Metzer Land Entitlement Manager Lennar Minnesota PROJECT COORDINATES N45° 10' 48.79" W93° 02' 45.60" Know what's below. before you dig.Call R EOF 900.0 TP-1 SB-1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll SB-1 MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND MAP LEGEND DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 04042025 CAD FILE 24205SS1.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 C2.0 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . Parcel 1 The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. AND The North Half of Lot 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 47 REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the following described real property: That part of the North Half of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 14; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 06 seconds West along the North line of said Section 14 a distance of 148.88 feet to the Meander corner and the centerline of Town Road; thence South 5 degrees 57 minutes 00 seconds West along said centerline of Town Road a distance of 331.55 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be hereby described; thence continuing South 5 degrees 57 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 84.40 feet; thence South 15 degrees 18 minutes 48 seconds West along said centerline a distance of 251.26 feet to its intersection with the South line of said North Half of Government Lot 1 as monumented; thence South 88 degrees 58 minutes 52 seconds East along said South line a distance of 354.76 feet; thence North 0 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 330.56 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 282.00 feet to the actual point of beginning. Also known as a part of Lot 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 47 REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 2 The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota AND The South Half of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 47 Revised, Anoka County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that certain part of the South Half of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, now known as the South Half of Lot 1, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 47 Revised, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 14, as the same is marked by a stone monument; thence West along the Section line for 156 feet to a point near the centerline of a public road; thence South 6 degrees West, following the general line of said public road, for 662.95 feet to the centerline of said Government Lot 1, and the point of beginning of the tract hereby described; thence East, along said Government Lot centerline for 200.29 feet; thence South, at right angles for 180 feet; thence West at right angles for 261.71 feet, more or less, to the centerline of aforesaid public road; thence North 12 degrees 21 minutes East, along said road centerline, to aforesaid centerline of Government Lot 1; thence East along said Government Lot centerline for 22 feet to the point of beginning. Abstract Property PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 04042025 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . C2.1 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.2 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.3 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.4 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.5 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.6 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.7 DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PL0 CAD FILE 24205SS2.GZJ PROJECT NO. 2420500 PE L T I E R P O N D S LI N O L A . E S  0 I N N E S O T A PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FO R LE N N A R 16 3 5 5 3 6 T + A V E N  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  P L Y 0 O 8 T +  0 N 5 5 4 4 6 2   W E S T C . R . 4 2  S 8 I T E 1 0 0  B 8 R N S V I L L E  0 N 5 5 3 0 6 P+ O N E   5 2 . 8  0 . 6 0 4 4 P K D P S W R Q # M U K L Q F . F R P PL A N N E R S  E N * I N E E R S  S 8 R V E Y O R S ZZ Z . M U K L Q F . F R P Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . 04042025 C2.8