The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/20/2006 Env Bd Packet• • City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting December 20, 2006 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES\ NOVEMBER 29, 2006 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS — THERE ARE NO ACTION ITEMS 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. EAW /Natures Preserve /Discussion /Number of Responses /Record of Decision Recommendation B. Stream Health Monitoring Program (SHEP) — Gary Averbeck to give Power Point presentation C Environmental Board Goals D Resource Management Planning /TMDL Study Update — Verbal update 7. ADJOURN • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 2006 : November 29, 2006 . 6:30 P.M. . 7:50 P.M. : Constance Grundhofer, Mary Jo O'Dea, Martha DeHaven, Kimberly Brouillet, Sarah Norman and Barbara Bor : Jeff McDowell : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 2, 2006 Ms. O'Dea had one change. Page 2, second paragraph. Add in addition to recommendations of staff to end of this paragraph. October, 4, 2006 Ms. Bor had a change on Page 2, under Description. Take out - so it is not just a big lump at end of paragraph. Ms. O'Dea had changes on Page 2, Actions Items, second paragraph. Add the word received after comments and take out the word going. Add the comments go after the word before. Same paragraph, second to last sentence. Change neighborhood to surrounding area and add of the EAW after receive a copy. Add the word one to very end of this paragraph. Ms. Grundhofer had a change on Page 3, sixth paragraph under Wetland Impacts. Change to read have the percentage of instead of have a percentage of. Ms. O'Dea had changes on Page 3, 4th paragraph. Add: on the importance of soils after comment now in first sentence. Page 3, 6th paragraph. Change first sentence to percentage of wetland areas instead of percentage of lots. Third sentence to read which wetland area stay and which wetland areas go instead of which lots stay and which lots go. Page 3, 8th paragraph. Add referenced in the documents to end of first sentence. Page 3, 9th paragraph. Stated that the school property 1 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2006 • located SE of the proposed instead of stated that a school property located SE of proposed... Ms. Bor had a change on Page 4, fifth paragraph. Add a sentence to say Mr. Stadums letter indicated the dates of the sightings in the EAW were incorrect. Mr. Husveth agreed to that. Ms. O'Dea had a change on Page 4, 4th paragraph. Ms. O'Dea wants to be given... change to read Ms. O'Dea asked if the document could identify... Ms. O'Dea had a change on Page 5, third paragraph. Add the work expected in between these things. Change Than to then. Page 5, eighth paragraph. Add to in between needs be. Ms. O'Dea had a change on Page 7, sixth paragraph. Take the word Lou out. Ms. Bor made a motion to approve the August 2, 2006 and October 4, 2006 meeting minutes with changes. Ms. Brouillet seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • There are no changes to the agenda. • Approval of agenda. Motion by Ms. Grundhofer to amend seconded by Ms. Brouillet to approve agenda as is. Motion carried unanimously 4. OPEN MIKE Open Mike closed at 6:36 p.m. 5. ACTION ITEMS No action items. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Stream Health Monitoring Program Mr. Asleson explained to the Board what SHEP (Stream Water Evaluation Program) is. Mr. Gary Averback, a Lino Lakes resident and volunteer, explained his experiences and accomplishment with SHEP. Ms. Bor also gave the board history about SHEP. 2 DRAFT MINUTES • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2006 The SHEP group did a spectacular reclamation project. The program has improved water banks and native vegetation. They collected habitat and insect samples from Hardwood Creek near the north and south ends of County Road 14 to see if and what the differences are. They are banking the information collected. There have also been evaluations done at Clearwater Creek and Rice Creek. Friends of the Mississippi chose where to sample. Mr. Asleson said we could give the information from the samples to other boards and maybe publish in the Lino Lakes Newsletter. Ms. Bor stated the data collected may help evaluate our Storm Water Management. Mr. Averback gave a short history of a certain type of parasites and tape worms in raccoons that could transfer to humans, etc. B. Environmental Board Goals Mr. Asleson explained what progress the board has made. Mr. Asleson stated building has slowed down considerable this year. Mr. Asleson said one goal should be a review and comment on the Resource Management Plan. The planning process is going to be a collaborative process between Rice Creek Watershed and City of Lino Lakes. There will be a 60 day comment period in the future. 2007 Environmental Board Goals: Promote Environmental stewardship, B., add: Inventory, current participants and work to expand program. Blue Heron Days — leave as is. - Earth Day — leave as is. Monitor any activity in AUAR, add: onto other proposed development areas to end of first sentence. Perform an evaluation paragraph, add: Review a sampling of a variety of projects ..... Continue to collate information — delete this goal off. Collaborate with Kim Sullivan — delete this goal off. - Next three goals — leave as is. Add new goal — Participate in comp plan and process. - Add new goal - Review and comment on the RMP planning process for the City of Lino Lakes, JD4 and TMDL study for the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes. Ms. O'Dea stated the Environmental Board reviewed a couple of development projects. The biggest project reviewed was Stoneybrook. We have not written a report, as we are still in the process of completing our goal. Letters were sent out 3 DRAFT MINUTES • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2006 to many residents to fix their conservation easements by Mr. Asleson. Ms. O'Dea would like a list of what has been done and where we are, that the board can submit to the city council. Ms. Brouillet and Ms. Norman will prepare the list. Ms. Bor stated that the Board should have a standard evaluation format. After the board is finished with reviewing Stoneybrook, the board will come up with a standard format. Mr. Asleson encouraged anyone to initiate a standard format. C. EAW Discussion /Number of Responses Deadline was November 22nd for responses. It will take awhile to put together the responses. The agencies that had comments were EOR, Rice Creek Watershed, a resident, Columbus Twp. Met Council, PCA and a few others. We will hopefully look at the responses by our next meeting on December 20th. After the Board's review, the document will go to council. D. Environmental Board Members The deadline for submissions of applications is December 4. Ms. Bor presented her application to Ms. Hogstad, Community Development Secretary, to deliver to the Administration Department November 30. Ms. Grundhofer will not reapplying for her term on the Board unless there are not enough people to fill vacancies. E. Peltier Island Management Activities Mr. Asleson stated that 4 raccoons and 15 opossums have been removed from the island. Mr. Asleson is concerned about the Blue Heron's nesting trees that are coming down. He stated we are going to loose most, if not all, of the Ash trees on the island due to disease. There are a few Hackberry's coming up. We should plan an Arbor Day project on the island. Mr. Asleson will talk to the county regarding this. There have been 32 Blue Herons who have fledged this year. Last year there were two. F. Earth Day Earth Day will not be canceled as discussed at a previous meeting. Mr. Asleson will share more information with the board when we are closer to the event. The event is held the third weekend in April. This event is hosted at Wargo Nature Center. 7. ADJOURN 4 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2006 It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on November 20, 2006. There being no further business, Ms. Norman has moved to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. Ms. DeHaven seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Lisa Hogstad Community Development Secretary • • 5 DRAFT MINUTES • • AGENDA ITEM 6 A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser ENV. BOARD MTG DATE: December 20, 2006 TOPIC: Record of Decision Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Nature's Refuge BACKGROUND An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for the Nature's Refuge conservation development project as prescribed by state environmental review requirements. The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality board (MEQB) and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on October 23, 2006. The thirty -day comment period closed on November 22, 2006. We received a number of written comments from agencies and citizens. The City must respond to every substantive comment. The City must decide, based on the EAW information, if an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the project. In doing so, we must prepare a record of decision that includes information supporting the decision. The attached draft Record of Decision document includes findings, comments and responses, and conclusions. The comments we received and our responses are summarized in the section "EAW Comment and Responses ". The actual commenting letters and e -mails are included as well. You will see some blank spaces for responses to specific comments. Unfortunately, the ecologist on the project has been ill and could not provide all responses before this document was printed for distribution to the Environmental Board. We will forward additional responses as we get them or bring them to the Board meeting. I apologize for the incomplete document, but sometimes this happens. OPTIONS 1. Review draft Record of Decision and provide comment to staff 2. Recommend adoption of Record of Decision. 3. Return to staff with direction RECOMMENDATION •Options 1 and 2 • RECORD OF DECISION NATURE'S REFUGE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Findings of Fact Responses to Comments Conclusions • City of Lino Lakes Jatittiry 2007 DRAFT DECEMBER 14 2006 DRAFT 1 • DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 FINDINGS OF FACT ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND The City of Lino Lakes is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for this project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for this project as prescribed by Environmental review requirements. Lino Lakes prepared the EAW. The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality board (MEQB) and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on October 23, 2006. The thirty -day comment period closed on November 22, 2006. Written comments received from agencies and citizens are summarized and responded to in this report in the section "EAW Comment and Responses ". PROJECT DESCRIPTION Nature's Refuge is a proposed conservation development that will create a new residential subdivision combined with a wetland conservation area in the City of Lino Lakes. The subdivision will provide additional housing capacity in the form of an infill development. The conservation area will restore and preserve valuable natural resources by combining residential development with a large, high - quality existing wetland complex containing rare plant species and communities. The project relies upon a strategy to create a nature preserve by enhancing (through restoration and active management) a large area of higher - quality wetland as compensation for filling a smaller acreage of lower - quality wetland. The proposed project includes 278 single family residential lots. Sanitary sewer and water supply will be extended from existing infrastructure to service these new lots. The streets will wind through the development, avoiding the majority of wetlands. The typical lot will be rectangular and approximately 80' by 120', but the winding, irregular nature of the streets will mean that many lots will have different dimensions and shape, though their sizes will be similar. The project will include restoration and management activities for the majority of the property's wetland area in order to create conservation areas and to offset wetland impacts created by the project. Based in part on the presence of rare plant species and communities on the project site, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has already given verbal approval to apply the "Exceptional Natural Resource Value" (ENRV) provisions of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) to the wetland impact mitigation plans for the project. Under these provisions, the applicants will gain extra mitigation credits for properly restoring the wetlands that support rare species and unique vegetative wetland communities. This will provide enhancement and • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 2 protection for a valuable natural area, while providing wetland mitigation credit to offset the proposed wetland impacts created by the project, and excess mitigation credits that will be used as wetland mitigation bank credit. The proposed conservation areas will consist of non - impacted wetlands and adjacent forested upland areas. The conservation areas will be placed under conservation easement, and will be restored according to a formal restoration plan. The plan will include initial restoration activities, plus a 5 -year maintenance and monitoring plan. Following this establishment period, the conservation areas will be preserved, and managed in perpetuity. The specifics of the funding plan for this ongoing management has not yet been determined, but will include a combination of sources such as escrow earnings and homeowner fees. The City has not received a formal application for the project, which will include specific design details. While the actual design has not been completed, a significant amount of information has been gathered to allow for completion of the EAW. The intent of preparing the EAW based on the concept plan is to utilize information gathered through environmental review to inform and improve on project design. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF • ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT Minnesota Rule 4410.170, Subp. 7 specifies the following criteria to be used in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not considered necessary for this project based on the criteria listed below. 1. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects The EAW and this Findings of Fact summarize the type and extent of impacts to the surrounding environment. Alternatives to avoid potential impacts on the environment were considered and evaluated during the development of the site plan and prior to the preparation of the EAW. The proposed site plan also includes design features to mitigate potential social, economic, and environmental impacts The following is a summary of the major findings of the EAW regarding potential social, economic, and environmental impacts as a result of the proposed mixed -use development project. • • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 3 Compatibility with Local Plans The project is consistent with local and regional plans, which includes the following: • City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan o Land Use Plan o Sanitary Sewer Plan o Transportation Plan o Surface Water Management Plan o Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the project area for Low Density Sewered Residential development. The City's Zoning Ordinance provides for conservation development through the use of the Planned Unit Development process. The Parks Plan designates this area for natural resource protection and conservation as well as a city trail. These goals would be fulfilled with the Nature's Refuge project. Conservation Development The project will combine residential development conservation of a valuable wetland complex. This rare wetland type and its rare plant species will be restored to higher - quality conditions and managed to remain a high - quality system dominated by native plant species, while maintaining its present suite of wetland services and values (e.g. flood retention, protection of downstream public waters). The revenue generated by the development of the residential subdivision will allow for the full funding of the restoration and management plan. A small percentage of wetland area and a quantity of forested upland will be lost as a result of the development, in exchange for creation of the high - quality conservation reserve including the remaining wetlands and surrounding forested uplands. From the ecological perspective, the project will result in a net gain in environmental quality. This plan has been given initial provisional support by several regulatory agencies. Wetland Impacts The project will result in filling of 7.5 acres of wetland, and in the restoration, management, and preservation of 132 acres under a conservation easement with an ongoing management plan in perpetuity. Most wetland area to be filled is presently in a disturbed, degraded condition. All wetland acreage to be put under conservation management will be restored to higher - quality conditions with greater floristic diversity and reduced abundance of exotic invasive plant species. The conservation plan will also include restoration and management of upland wooded areas and other vegetated buffers along wetland boundaries. Wetland losses are expected to be mitigated by wetland credits generated through the establishment and management of the conservation area. It is hoped that this area • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 4 will be designated as an area of Exceptional Natural Resource Value (ENRV) based on the existence of several rare (state - listed) plant species and a rare wetland community. The BWSR Wetland Committee has expressed initial approval of this approach for this site (April 2006 meeting). This designation will allow greater wetland credit generation. It is expected that the conservation plan will allow accumulation of excess wetland credit, which will be banked for future off -site wetland mitigation needs within the city and/or watershed. Forest and Tree Impacts The project will cause the conversion of 51 acres of forest, resulting in the loss of forest wildlife habitat and a large number of trees. The development is designed to preserve forested upland buffers wherever possible. Remaining forest patches will be restored and maintained as part of the conservation area. Rare Species Impacts Blanding's turtles and five rare plant species have been recorded on the site. At present, it is unknown how many turtles use the site, but they are most likely to occur in and around the larger, deeper wetlands, which will be protected from loss or impact by the project. By including upland wooded buffer zones in the planned conservation areas, upland foraging and nesting habitat for Blanding's turtles will be maintained, though there may be some permanent reduction in this type of habitat. As recommended by DNR, signs will be installed to inform residents and visitors of the need for caution around turtle habitat. The installation of ribbon curbs in some places will reduce barriers to turtle movements. Flyers will be given to all contractors working in the area, and future residents will be informed of the presence of the turtles and their habitat needs. Silt fencing will exclude the turtles from construction areas, but will be removed after construction and revegetation to allow free turtle movement. Culverts connecting wetlands and ponding areas will be of recommended size and shape to allow turtle passage. The runoff and sedimentation controls, and restriction on fertilizer use, will help maintain habitat quality for the turtles. In general, the placing of the conservation areas under easement and long -term management will maintain habitat quality. The rare plant species found on the site are all native wetland plants that respond well to wetland restoration measures that are planned for the conservation areas. However, a minority of populations of these plants presently occur in wetlands that would be filled by the project. This will constitute a taking of rare plant populations which will require a permit from the DNR. The DNR has expressed initial support for this approach on condition that the conservation areas be fully restored and maintained as improved habitat for these plant species. Also, attempts will be made to transplant existing populations from those wetlands that will be filled into wetlands that will be restored. Because future active restoration and management activities are • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 5 primarily aimed at restoring and maintaining native plant communities, the populations of rare species are expected to continue and possibly expand. Floodplain A portion of the site lies within a Zone A 100 -year flood plain, though the flood elevation has not been established. The project will result in a re- grading of part of the site, so changes to the flood elevation contour will be required. Construction and re- grading in the present flood zone will be minimized, because only one street will cross the flood plain and no houses will be located within it. The 100 -year flood elevation will be established as part of the project design and compensatory storage will be created for any floodplain fill. The FEMA floodplain map revision will be prepared as needed. Water Quality and Stormwater Management The project will be designed to avoid altering drainage conditions and protect water quality. Runoff will be directed to vegetated swales, rain gardens, and infiltration ponds. Sedimentation ponds and rain gardens will be designed to treat storm water runoff before discharge. The ponds will be designed to retain a 100 -year storm event and control the discharge rate to pre- development conditions. Drainage from residential areas and impervious surfaces will be directed into infiltration areas in order to prevent sedimentation or contamination of wetlands, to control inflow rates, and to maintain present hydrology as well as possible. Infiltration ponds will be protected from soil compaction by construction equipment, and any compacted areas will be disked to de- compact the soil, which will ensure water infiltration and successful re- vegetation. Erosion Control Erosion control measures will be implemented in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed for this project to mitigate the potential for adverse surface water and air quality impacts from runoff and wind erosion during construction. The SWPPP will incorporate Best Management Practices prescribed by the MPCA. These measures, including silt fencing, ditch checks, stone exit pads, and prompt turf restoration (including de- compacting, mulching, seeding) in graded areas. The phasing of construction will minimize the area of soil exposed at any given time. Construction- Related Noise, Dust Standard Best Management Practices will be employed to minimize dust Water will be applied to exposed soils during dry weather to mitigate dust movement. The dust and wind erosion BMPs will be employed to minimize inconveniences to them. • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 6 Noise generation will be typical of any residential construction activity and will cease after the construction phase. Construction hours will be limited according to City policy: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday — Friday; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday; no work Sundays or holidays. The elementary school building has air conditioning, so the windows will be closed much of time during hot weather and during cold weather heating months. Traffic The project will generate a new traffic, primarily on CSAH 14. Completing the recommended improvements will mitigate the additional traffic volume to minimize impacts on adjacent roadways. These improvements include signalization of the CSAH 14 /CSAH 23 intersection and additional right of way for turn lanes on CSAH 14. The timing of the installation of a signal will need to be an important consideration in the review of the Nature's Refuge project application. In addition, the City is working with the developer, Anoka County, and Forest Lake School District 831 regarding combining the school's access with the new development. To date, all entities have expressed support for this option. This option of a combined access to CSAH 14 will comply with and further the implementation of the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study. Air quality will not be significantly impacted by the traffic increase and proposed residential land use. 2. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects The EAW and this Findings of Fact address the impacts related to the proposed development, based on existing conditions and post - development conditions. The City of Lino Lakes is not aware or any other large -scale development plans that are contingent upon the completion of the Nature's Refuge Development 3. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and would be subject to plan approval and the permitting process. An extensive list of permits and approvals that may be required for the proposed development are listed in Item 8 of the EAW. An additional approval would be the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that is needed for the Section 404 Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to the approvals listed, ongoing implementation of the conservation management plan prepared for the specific site and project will be an important regulatory and mitigation measure. Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 7 4. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposers, Including EIS's Previously Prepared on Similar Projects The RGU, City of Lino Lakes, has extensive experience in the planning and review of residential and commercial development projects. Specifically, this will be the third conservation development management plan to be implemented in Lino Lakes. The management plan for the conservation areas of the project will describe management activities such as invasive species removal, restoration, and rare species habitat protection. This management plan must be prepared and included in the approvals of the project prior to earth work or logging of the site. The City of Lino Lakes finds that the environmental effects of the proposed mixed - use development have been anticipated and will be controlled as a result of environmental review and experience with other residential developments prepared as conservation developments within the City. EAW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The EAW for the Legacy at Woods's Edge Development was distributed for public comment on October 23, 2006 to agencies and organizations on the official distribution list of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), as well as additional agencies /organizations that had either requested a copy of the document, and /or that could be affected by the proposed project. The comment period for the EAW officially expired on November 22, 2006. Consistent with state and federal environmental review rules, substantive comments are responded to in this Record of Decision/Findings of Fact. Comment summaries and the City's responses are listed below. The full comment letters are included at the end of the list. Transportation • Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) comments that CSAH 14 is a principal arterial roadway, one of the few continuous east -west routes in Anoka County. Safety and mobility are of primary concern. • • ACHD comments that the City and County adopted the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study to ensure and enhance safety and mobility. Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 8 o The study does not identify a full access location for the Nature's Refuge site. o Replacing the Wood Duck Trail full access with one for the Nature's Refuge development would not conform to the study. o It is not necessarily true that changing the access would provide access for a higher volume cross street. o It is not true that combining the access with the school would combine two separate full access points into one full access point because the new development would only be allowed a partial access. A combination would result in one full access from one full and one partial access. o Nor is it correct that the appropriate time for reviewing access in detail would be during planning for the CSAH 14 upgrading to four lanes: access has been studied in detail already with the Access Management Study. o ACHD does not support a full access for the project alone. • ACHD comments that Lino Lakes Elementary school is expected to keep its (full) access locations for bus circulation as long as safety is not an issue. In the future, the school is likely to have its access change as traffic volumes increase. There is no guarantee that the school will continue to have full access; it may end up with 3/4 access depending upon safety concerns. • The Metropolitan Council comments that CSAH 14, as a principal arterial, is an element of the Metropolitan Highway System. The Met Council supports the access alternative that will not compromise the roadway's function and that is consistent with spacing and management guidelines. Response: The City of Lino Lakes agrees that CSAH 14 is a vitally important element of the transportation system. The City also fully supports and has been implementing the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study. In retrospect, the EAW may not be clear on the City's preference for access for the Nature's Refuge project. The traffic study prepared for the developer by Wenck Associates includes a number of statements that generated comments by ACHD. Some of the statements do not represent the City's approach to planning the access for the project. The text in Item 21 of the EAW includes the City's positions. The City does not support a new, full access serving only the Nature's Refuge project. The City is proposing the option of combining the access with the elementary school. As explained in the EAW, the school's full access driveways are labeled "rio change" in the Access Management Study. The City initiated discussions with Anoka County and the Forest Lake School District 831 regarding combining access with the new development. To date, all entities have expressed support for this option. In the past, Anoka County prepared a similar combination of a school access and a public road to provide access to Main Street for Roosevelt Middle School in Blaine. • • • • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 9 Because of the spacing required by the Access Management Plan, an additional full access solely for the Nature's Refuge development would not be allowed. The other option is a partial access (right - in/right -out). The City does not support the partial access option because it would not allow an east turn onto CSAH 14. Most drivers leaving the development would want to turn east on CSAH 14 then south on CSAH 23 to the I -35W interchange. A partial access would not meet the needs of the development. The City will continue to work with the developer, Anoka County, and Forest Lake School District 831 toward designing an access road that will maintain a full access for the school, improve safety and circulation for the school, and provide a safe, full access for the Nature's Refuge development. • ACHD comments that it will want a full complement of turn lanes for project access as part of the project design because funding has not been identified for upgrading CSAH 14 into a four -lane facility (with medians). Response: The City concurs that turn lanes constructed with this project would be appropriate. The City will work with ACHD and the developer to design appropriate improvements to CSAH 14 at the project access point. This would include the dedication of the additional right of way for CSAH 14 to accommodate roadway needs. The City also needs to consider the potential need for a local trail on the north side of CSAH 14 that would provide access to a future regional trail that would be constructed on the south side. • ACHD comments that Pine Street is not a county road and so county spacing guidelines do not apply. Response: The City concurs with this. The traffic study applied the County's guidelines to Pine Street as an exercise only, since the City does not have comparable spacing guidelines. • The City of Columbus wishes to explore the paving of Pine Street, possibly during early stages of the Nature's Refuge development rather than in the last phase. Response: As noted in the EAW, Lino Lakes and Columbus have discussed improving Pine Street in the past. Pine Street should be paved to the access point of the Nature's Refuge access. The timing needs to be worked out with the developer and the two cities. • Columbus recommends that Pine Street not be used as a construction road for the project. • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 10 Response: The site is large and there are two possible accesses. Pine Street is one of them. The route of construction vehicles has not been specified, but it is likely that Pine Street would be needed for access during construction. Lino Lakes will discuss possibilities with the developer. Lino Lakes does enforce requirements for mitigating dust during construction and limits work times on construction sites. • Columbus notes that if the improvements on CSAH 14 are not completed prior to the development, the traffic analysis will not be accurate and Pine Street will be affected. Response: The traffic analysis assumed signalization of the CSAH 14 /CSAH 23 intersection when concluding the intersection would function at Level of Service C or better. Without a signal, the LOS would be F for many movements. As noted in the EAW, the timing of the installation of a signal will need to be an important consideration in the review of the Nature's Refuge project application. Municipal Utilities • The City of Columbus is interested in discussing the possibility of extending sewer and water service further north on Lake Drive to serve Columbus. Response: Lino Lakes has not previously planned to oversize sanitary sewer facilities to serve property outside of Lino Lakes. Several issues arise when considering doing so. Columbus should discuss the situation with the Metropolitan Council to see if the Council's system plans allow for utility service. We would need to determine the capacity of Metropolitan Council facilities into which the Lino Lakes system flows. Next, the capacity of the Lino Lakes system is not endless, and planning studies to date indicate there is not excessive capacity. The feasibility of extending the Lino Lakes pipe would need to be examined. The cost of the feasibility study as well as construction would need to be examined as well. Lino Lakes would need to ask if serving land in Columbus should preempt providing service for land within Lino Lakes along Lake Drive. While Columbus' proposal may be feasible, it raises larger questions that would need to be resolved. Water Quality, Wetlands, Stormwater Management • The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) asks for clarification of the statement in EAW Item 6 that "The goal will be to cause no net change to existing drainage patterns in remaining wetlands ". Does this refer to rate and /or volume? Changes in volumes could impact the wetland resources. Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 11 Response: It is the goal to minimize the impact of development on the annual runoff loading (volume). • RCWD notes that the wetland delineation for this property has not been formally approved and at this point is considered preliminary. Response: This statement is correct. Many, though not all of the wetlands have been delineated, but there has been no formal approval by the Watershed District. The delineation will need approval by the RCWD. • RCWD notes the approximate proposed wetland impacts of 7 acres will be subject to WCA sequencing and mitigation through the RCWD permitting process and should be considered as only an initial estimate at this time. < Jason et al to address> • RCWD notes that wetlands serve both hydrologic and water quality functions. The RCWD strongly encourages the project proposer to conduct a functional assessment of both the water quality and hydrology of the existing wetland to ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts to these functions. <Jason et al to address> • RCWD notes that there is an indication of some floodplain fill. The RCWD is concerned about how this will affect the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands in complex 7. Response: The City and project proposer share the understanding that minimizing the impact to the hydrology of the wetlands is a critical component to maintaining the integrity of the wetland complexes. Floodplain fill will be minimized in recognition of this project goal. • RCWD notes that no comparison of quantity and quality of runoff pre- and post - construction was constructed. Because the project site ultimately discharges to Marshan Lake which is an impaired waterbody under the MPCA 303(d) list, such an assessment needs to be conducted. • • • • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 12 Response: Site - specific data has been collected including infiltration parameters using a double -ring infiltrometer for existing and impacted portions of the property. In addition, surface water and groundwater data has been collected throughout 2006. This data is being used in the development of a hydrologic model of the project site. The proposer has met with the RCWD to discuss the model development and looks forward to continuing collaboration with the RCWD in finalizing the model to represent the existing and constructed environment. The model results will be an important component of the required RCWD permit process. • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) notes that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the MPCA is needed for the issuance of a Section 404 Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 401 Certification should be included in the list of permits and approvals in Item 8 of the EAW. Although the MPCA will likely waive its 401 authority, an application for the certification is still necessary. Response: The City thanks the MPCA for this clarification and acknowledges the need for the 401 Certification as one of the needed approvals. • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) comments that to be effective, infiltration areas should not be compacted during construction or receive construction runoff. Soil ripping may be necessary if soil compaction occurs. • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) comments that it is a state requirement that three feet of separation be provide between the bottom of the infiltration bsins and the seasonally saturated groundwater table. This may be difficult to achieve give the relatively shallow groundwater table. • MPCA recommends that information be provided to homeowners at the time of sale to ensure they understand what a rain garden is, how it works, and why they are important. • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 13 Land Use • The Metropolitan Council notes that the density of 2.78 units per acre is below the Metropolitan Council standard for sewered, urban development. The Met Council also notes that a portion of the project currently is not within the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area so some of the City's undesignated MUSA must be applied. Response: The Metropolitan Council density standard of 3.0 units per acre for sewered urban development is a citywide average for new development. It is correct that this project's density is lower than that. Development of higher density elsewhere in the city will be included in the citywide average. The City allocates MUSA reserve acres at the time of preliminary plat approval. If this project reaches the approval stage, MUSA will be allocated then. Parks and Open Space • The Metropolitan Council comments that the majority of the site is withing a Metro Wildlife Conservation Corridor and a Regionally Significant Ecological Area of Outstanding Quality, while the eastern portion of the site is a Regionally Significant Natural Resources Area of High Quality, as designated by the DNR and the Metropolitan Council. • The Metropolitan Council notes that the south portion of the property lies along the proposed Central Anoka County Regional Trail. The City should coordinate with Anoka County Parks to define the relationship of this trail with the development. Response: The EAW describes the trails through the development and how they implement the City's System Plan. It was an oversight that the EAW did not mention this important transportation trail along CSAH 14. The Lino Lakes Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan includes a "proposed designated bike route" along CSAH 14, the route of the Central Anoka County Regional Trail. The Central Anoka County Regional Trail is tentatively planned along the south side of Main Street. When funding becomes available the County will consider funding and trail needs when comparing an off road trail vs. a paved roadway shoulder. The regional trail may fulfill the City's desire for a bike route. Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 14 The Nature's Refuge site is on the north of CSAH 14. There is a crosswalk for the elementary school immediately east of the Nature's Refuge project site. Residents of the development could cross CSAH 14 in the crosswalk to access the regional trail on the south side of the road. In the future, CSAH 14 likely will be improved to four lanes. Conveying pedestrians and bicyclists to the signalized intersection of CSAH 14 /CSAH 23 would be the best way to cross CSAH 14 for access to the regional trail. For this reason, the City may consider a local trail on the north side of CSAH 14 to complement the regional trail on the south side. The City agrees that continued coordination with Anoka Parks and the Anoka County Highway Department should continue for the planning of the County's and City's trail systems to optimize the coordination of the two systems. Wildlife Habitat • Rod Kukonen comments that the suggestion that the bird population contains various songbirds such as the American Gold Finch and robin is extremely weak. He list numerous other species he has observed on the site. Response: While Item 11 of the EAW cites some examples of species observed, it does not pretend to be a complete list. Long term residents of the area surely have observed many more species than could be noted during site visits. The City recognizes the extensive wildlife diversity in this area of the community. It is the richness of habitat and ecological resources in the area that make it a good site for a conservation development project. • The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) comments that there will be substantial reduction of forest and grassland areas due to the project. To provide Blanding's turtle habitat, some protected upland grassland area adjacent to the wetland would have to be left undeveloped and protected. It may be necessary to create more buffer adjacent to the wetland and manage it as dry prairie. • The DNR comments that the EAW mentions a restoration and management plan but does not include it. Nor does the EAW identify an entity that would be responsible for implementing the management plan. Without this information, DNR cannot be confident that the project will in fact result in an acceptable level of habitat benefit. • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 15 • The DNR comments that the project could be a candidate for implementation under the "exceptional natural resource value" provision of the Wetland Conservation Act, which allows credit for projects that restore exception natural resource values. Before the DNR would agree to the use of thes provision or permit the taking of state - listed plant species, the City would have to assure us that it would put in place adequate regulatory and management mechanisms to protect and sustain these resource values well into the future. Other • The DNR notes that the project will result I the removal of a significant amount of wood from the site. Depending on the condition of the wood, the developer may elect to market it as sawlog, landscaping material, firewood, or bio -fuel for the production of energy. The DNR strongly recommends that the City contact the DNR for advice on this subject. Response: The City will convey this advice to the developer and follow up on the possibilities of utilizing the wood as suggested by the DNR. • Rod Kukonen comments that buffering between existing neighborhoods and new development should be included in the design of new development so existing residents can still view natural settings from their backyards instead of a garage or shed.. Response: The City recognizes that changes on nearby property that has long been undeveloped is disturbing to many people, and the EAW acknowledges this. Buffering and greenspace are important design elements. Greenspace buffers surround all developed areas in the Nature's Refuge concept plan analyzed in the EAW, and will be included in any final design on the site. It may be unrealistic to expect that existing residents will not see any evidence of new homes on new development sites. • Frederick and Melanie Hedervare comment that it is inaccurate to call the project a `conservation development'. They comment that the developer is trying to avoid an environmental impact study by proposing a number of units just under the number that would make an environmental impact study mandatory. They comment that the City should abide by the growth limits that are on the books. Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 16 Response: The proposed project includes 278 detached dwelling units. The threshold for a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is 250, and that is why the EAW was prepared. The threshold for a mandatory environmental impact statement is 1000, which is well above what is proposed. There is some misunderstanding about conservation developments. Lino Lakes Ordinance No. 24 -04 defines conservation development as a collaborative process which results in a development plan, typically a planned unit development, in which certain stipulated public values are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined in the ordinance. Lino Lakes Ordinance No. 24 -04 allows the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in excess of the stipulated growth limits when a project would result in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. The Nature's Refuge project design includes all the public values listed in the ordinance, which includes: a. Preserving more natural open space than required under current ordinances and development policies b. Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint c. Restoring /enhancing ecological systems on the site as part of the development process d. Protecting off -site ecological systems through increased buffering e. Ensuring long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer f. Providing public park and trail opportunities consistent with or in excess of the System Plan g. Managing stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration and ecologically -based approaches h. Preserving the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed i. Maintaining natural buffer between established and new developments As proposed and analyzed in the EAW, the Nature's Refuge project clearly meets the definition of a conservation development. CONCLUSIONS 1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2. The EAW processes has generated information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. • Nature's Refuge DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision page 17 3. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from project construction and operation of the site. Mitigative measures are incorporated into the project design and the restoration and management plan for the conservation areas, and have or will be coordinated with state and local agencies during the permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules 4410, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An EIS is not required on the proposed Nature's Refuge development project. 6. The City of Lino Lakes passed Resolution No. 07- on , 2007, stating its approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and its acceptance of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions for the Nature's Refuge Development. (See Attached Resolution). • • • 11/09/06 Mr. Jeff Smyser City Planner 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 862 -4200 FAX (763) 862 -4201 2006 Nov � /, caNt Re: Comments on the Nature's Refuge Residential Subdivision EAW Dear Mr. Smyser: Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Nature's Refuge Residential Subdivision EAW for approximately 232 acres in the City of Lino Lakes. The following comments have been gathered from the Highway Department: • CSAH 14 is one of the few continuous east -west routes in Anoka County. It is a Principal Arterial roadway that is expected to carry a significant amount of traffic as the communities in the area develop because it connects to other major freeway facilities and other principal arterials. Because CSAH 14 is a Principal Arterial roadway, safety and mobility are of primary concern to the County. • Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes adopted the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study to ensure and enhance safety and long -term mobility on the TH 242 /CSAH 14. As part of the study, a general access strategy was developed and applied to the corridor. Within the study area for Nature's Refuge, no full access location has been identified. Full access locations with traffic signals have been identified for Lake Drive (CSAH 23) and for Wood Duck Trail. Lino Lakes Elementary, which presently has direct driveway access to CSAH 14, is expected to keep its access locations for bus circulation as long as safety is not an issue. Right - in/right -out access has been identified for other locals streets (Aenon Place and Nancy Drive). • Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes also agreed to a future "full build" of CSAH 14 that will realign the CSAH 14 corridor north of its present condition and provide interchange access NOV ?006 crry c ::._ EKES to both I -35W and I -35E in the future. These planned improvements to the CSAH 14 corridor further enhance its status as a Principal Arterial roadway and result in significantly higher traffic volumes on CSAH 14 within the project area in the next 20 years (see attached exhibits). • Replacing the full access at Wood Duck Trail with a right - in/right -out so that a full access could be used for the Nature's Refuge development is not in conformance with the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study. Spacing between Lake Drive (CSAH 23) and the new proposed access would still be too close. Mobility for a majority of the traffic using both CSAH 14 and Lake Drive would be negatively impacted with the closer spacing. • The logic for the premise that changing the access would combine two separate full access points into one full access point is not sound. The proposed development would only be given a right - in/right -out under the TH 242 /CSAH 14 Access Management Study guidelines and the Anoka County Highway Department Access Spacing Guidelines. Thus, at best, a full access combined with a right - in/right -out. In the future, the school is likely to have its access change as traffic volumes increase. There is no guarantee that the school will continue to have full access, it may end up with three - quarter access depending upon safety concerns as traffic volumes grow. • The comment that changing the access would provide access for a higher volume cross streets is not necessarily true. Wood Duck Trail serves a couple of subdivisions on both the north and south sides of CSAH 14. There are a number of homes on the south side of CSAH 14 that currently depend on full access at Wood Duck Trail. These individuals have purchased a home in the area with an understanding that an access study had been completed for the area and that they are to have full access at Wood Duck Trail. Changing that access to serve roughly the same number of residences does not necessarily provide any advantage, it goes against an adopted plan, and it changes public expectations. • Funding has not been identified for upgrading CSAH 14 into a four -lane facility in this area. The proposed development would be in place before such funding could be obtained. Because of the proposed amount of traffic that will be added as a result of this project, the County is likely to want to see the geometries of the proposed access to CSAH 14 to have a full complement of turn lanes to ensure driver safety and promote mobility. This is true whether or not the access would be right - in/right -out or full. • County Access Spacing Guidelines do not apply to access to Pine Street as it is a local facility and not a County facility (Page 4 -4). • The conclusion that planning during the upgrading of CSAH 14 to a four -lane facility is the appropriate time to review access in detail is not correct. An access study that took into account considerable detail arrived at the conclusion that a right - in/right -out access in this location is appropriate to serve the long -term safety and mobility needs on this corridor. • The traffic analysis indicates that vehicles from the proposed development will contribute to the • poor level of service at Lake Drive (CSAH 23). It will also add a number of additional trips onto both CSAH 14 and CSAH 23. While we agree to continue to work with City staff and the developer on access issues and improvements to the County Highway System as a condition of access (CSAH 14 mainline and the CSAH 14 /CSAH 23 intersection), we cannot support the proposed full access on CSAH 14 as described in the EAW. Again, we would like to invite city staff and the developer to discuss access to the site and potential additional traffic analyses to address safety and mobility concerns presented by the development. Thank you again for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the Nature's Refuge EAW. We hope we can further discusses the issues highlighted in our letter and come to an understanding of how access to the site will be provided. We hope to continue coordinating our efforts with the City of Lino Lakes to improve transportation as the area continues to grow. Please contact me to set up a time when we can continue our discussions on access to CSAH 14 and the implications of the EAW. Sine J . ck Corkle, AICP • Senior Multimodal Transportation Planner cc: Douglas W. Fischer, P.E. Lyndon Robjent, P.E. Kate Garwood, AICP Jane Rose • County Engineer Assistant County Engineer Multimodal Transportation Manager Traffic Engineering Manager LL BUILDOUT • ption 4 Includes ▪ Additional regional access provided at I-35E. • Additional regional access provided at I-35W. • A local connection on the north between County Road 14 and County Road 21 (20th Street). • Full Buildout land uses. XX = PROJECTED 2030 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) COUNTY ROAD 14 PROJECT AREA PLANNED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS REGIONAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE 28,000 RICE CREEK. - CHAIN OF LAKES REGIONAL PARK RESERVE SAmnon �'S% mold` Full Build - Option 4 Option 1 Includes XX = PROJECTED 2030 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) COUNTY ROAD 14 PROJECT AREA PLANNED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS REGIONAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE COLUMBUS TOWNSHIP 2000 POP. 3,957 PIK ST. PLAT n. G LINO LAKES N' 1 2000 POP. 16,791 11,100 3,300 3,300 LINO LAKES 2000 POP. 16.791 OPTION 1 RICE CREEK - CHAIN OF LAKES EXISTh0 ALIGNMENT REGIONAL PARK RESERVE COMORO, 4.1-04 CENTERVILLE 2000 POP.3.202 m Regional Access Alternatives - Option 1 • • • Message Jeff Smyser Page 1 of 2 From: Insook, Chai [Chai.lnsook @state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:36 AM To: Jeff Smyser Subject: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Nature's Refuge Residential Subdivision Development Project in Lino Lakes, Anoka County Attachments: Section 401 Water Quality Certification.pdf Dear Mr. Smyser: Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has the following comments: Item 8 indicates the project will require a Section 404 Wetland Permit from the U.S. Army Core of Engineers ( USACE). Please note that an MPCA Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also needed for the issuance of the USACE Section 404 Permit. Although the MPCA will likely waive its 401 authority, an application for a 401 certification is still necessary. The attached Fact Sheet explains the MPCA's Section 401 Certification Program and explains how to apply. Item 16 indicates that stormwater runoff management infiltration and rain gardens is proposed. To be effective, it is important that these areas are not compacted by construction activities and do not receive construction runoff. The MPCA recommends that these areas be created near the final phases of construction, and soil ripping may be necessary in areas where soil compaction was unavoidable during construction. It is a state requirement that 3 feet of separation be provided between the bottom of the infiltration basins and the seasonally saturated groundwater table. This may be difficult to achieve given the relatively shallow groundwater table in the proposed project area. Finally, the MPCA recommends that information be provided to homeowners at the time of sales to ensure they understand what a rain garden is, how it works, and why they are important. These comments address matters of concern to MPCA staff reviewing the EAW and is submitted for consideration by the responsible governmental unit in determining the need for an EIS. It does not constitute approval by the MPCA for any element of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action by the MPCA. We have attempted to identify and consult with interested program staff to identify the MPCA permits that may be required. Additional comments or requests for information may be submitted in the future to address specific issues related to an MPCA permit that is required. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this EAW. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to obtain the required permits and comply with permit conditions. If you have questions about these comment, please contact Todd Smith with our Stormwater Policy and Technical Assistance Unit at (651) 215- 6008. If you have other questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at (651) 296 -7718. Sincerely, 11/20/2006 • Message Page 2 of 2 Chai Insook Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Review and Operations Section 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-44194 http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-c.html 11/20/2006 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency November 2001 Facts about MPCA reductions to the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Program Introduction The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has experienced a three -year trend in decreased staff funding, and has lost about nine percent of its former staffing level. Therefore, we've had to reduce service in a number of programs so that the state's highest environmental priorities can still be met. This fact sheet describes the effect of this downsizing on the agency's Section 401 Certification program for water quality. Background Under the federal Clean Water Act, any time a federal permit is needed for activities which may result in a discharge into waters of the United States, an applicant for the permit must obtain a Section 401 Water - Quality Certification. The purpose of the certification is to ensure the quality of the waters in question will not be adversely affected. In Minnesota the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has done all Section 401 certifications. Examples of projects that require 401 certifications include: • Activities authorized by the Corps of Engineers, such as flood control projects, habitat restoration projects, emergency stream -bank protection, modifications to local and dam structures, and river and harbor dredging and channel maintenance • Activities permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, such as FERC permitting of hydropower dams and other similar activities • Coast Guard - permitted activities, such as bridge crossings of navigable waters, dumping septic tanks in navigable waters, treatment of bilge waters on Great Lakes, and pipeline or other utility crossings of waters or wetlands. While the number and type of activities can vary quite broadly, the majority of the MPCA's 401 certification activity has been focused on wetlands. How will downsizing affect 401 certifications? As part of the agency's current downsizing, the MPCA proposed in the 2001 Legislative session to eliminate the staffing required to operate the 401 certification program. The agency made this decision based mainly on overall priorities, but also because of the program's success in creating successful working relationships with a number of other public partners to protect water quality. These partnerships have diminished the need to continue the same level of oversight of other governmental entities that was needed in the past. The Legislature concurred with this view. This change will result in a reduction in level of effort from two full -time equivalents to 0.1 FTEs. Because staff are no longer assigned to evaluate 401 applications for conformance with water - quality standards, the MPCA has decided to waive its 401 authority in most cases. When a project is required to undergo environmental review and that review has not been completed, the MPCA will deny certifications until the review process has been completed. Regardless, these changes at the MPCA do not in any way relieve applicants of the obligation to meet water - quality standards. Determination of environmental review still needed The application for a 401 certification requires the applicant to state whether or not the project is subject to environmental review. If not, the project is eligible Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N., Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194 (651) 296 -6300, Toll -free (800) 657 -3864, TTY (651) 282 -5332 Or (800) 657 -3864 This material can be made available In alternative formats for people with disabilities. • • • for a waiver. When environmental review is required and has not yet been completed, the MPCA will issue a denial without prejudice. If environmental review is required and has been completed, the Agency will issue a waiver. This change in procedure promotes better up -front environmental planning by emphasizing the importance of environmental review in the earlier stages of the project planning process. Furthermore, because the underlying 401 certification authority is not changing, the MPCA will always reserve the right to proceed differently if extreme or unique situations merit a different approach. Minn. Rules 7001.1420, regarding the issuance of 401 certification, requires that determinations, including waivers, must be made only in response to an application for 401 certification. Therefore, formal applications for 401 certification must still be sent to the MPCA (care of Regional Environmental Management Division, attn: 401 Certification) as they have been in the past. For projects, this application would consist of a completed copy of the Minnesota Local /State /Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects or the Minnesota Local /State /Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects - Public Transportation and Linear Utility Projects (found on the Board of Water and Soil Resources Web site, www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/maioriprompt.html. For more information For more information about current reductions in MPCA program service, please visit the MPCA's Web site at www.pca.state.mn.us /about /changes. • MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Jeff Smyser City Planner The City of Lino Lakes Marcey L. Westrick Mandatory EAW for Nature's Refuge Conservation Development EMMONS & OLIVIER RESOURCES Date: November 21, 2006 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide comments of concern on behalf of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on the Mandatory EAW for the Nature's Refuge Conservation Development located in the City of Lino Lakes. The comments listed below are with reference to the pertinent section in the EAW. #6 Drainage. Please define "no net change in existing drainage pattern in remaining wetlands ". Does this refer to rate and/or volume? Changes in volumes could impact the wetland resources. #9 It should be noted that the wetland delineation for this property has not been formally approved and at this point is considered preliminary. #10. The approximate proposed wetland impacts of 7 acres will be subject to WCA sequencing and mitigation requirements through the RCWD permitting process and should be considered as only an initial estimate at this time. #12. Wetlands serve both hydrologic and water quality functions. The RCWD strongly encourages the project proposer to conduct a functional assessment of both the water quality and hydrology of the existing wetlands to ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts to these functions. #14. There is indication of some floodplain fill. The RCWD is concerned about how this will affect the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands in complex 7. #17. No comparison of quantity and quality of runoff pre- and post- construction was conducted. Because the project site ultimately discharges to Marshan Lake which is an impaired waterbody under the MPCA 303(d) list, such an assessment needs to be conducted. The RCWD commends and encourages the City of Lino Lakes in their efforts to integrate development with conservation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments. c: RCWD Board of Managers • RCWD District Office, ATTN: Steve Hobbs • COLUMBUS • • Phone: (651) 464 -3120 • Fax: (651) 464 -5922 November 21, 2006 City of Lino Lakes Attn: Jeff Smyser, City Planner 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Lino Lakes EAW "Nature's Refuge" Conservation Development Dear Mr. Smyser, Thank you for providing the City of Columbus with a copy of the EAW for the "Nature's Refuge" Conservation Development for our city's review and comment. The City of Columbus would like to express their interest in cooperative planning with the City of Lino Lakes and offers the following suggestions and/or comments related to the proposed development: • The City would like to explore the opportunity to evaluate /discuss any common improvements to Pine Street. Would the developer be willing to complete improvements on Pine Street prior to the last phase of the project? • We strongly recommend that Pine Street not be used as a construction road or haul road for the project. • If the improvements are not completed on CSAH 14 prior to the development, we believe that the traffic flow analysis would not be accurate and could impact Pine Street. • Columbus is interested in discussing the future possibility of extending sewer and water utilities further north on Lake Drive on a cooperative basis perhaps through a Joint Powers Agreement and/or alternate joint arrangement. Should you have any questions, please contact me at the City Hall Offices. Sincerely, Elizabeth Mursko City Administrator City of Columbus 16319 Kettle River Boulevard Columbus, Minnesota 55025 tMetropolitan Council • • • November 20, 2006 Jeff Smyser, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Nature's Refuge Residential Subdivision Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Metropolitan Council District 11 Metropolitan Council Review No. 19884 -1 Dear Mr. Smyser: This EAW is for a residential development on an irregularly- shaped 232 -acre property. It is proposed as a conservation development under the City's recently enacted conservation design ordinance. The resulting site plan would have 278 single - family lots on about 100 acres of the site with the remaining 132 acres of mostly wetlands restored and preserved through a permanent conservation easement. Metropolitan Council staff review of the EAW finds that it is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Council staff suggests the following advisory comments for the City's consideration before final project approval. Land Use (Bob Mazanec, 651- 602 -1330) The EAW indicates the net residential density of the development will be 2.78 units per acre. Since this density is below Metropolitan Council standards for sewered, urban development, it will be important for the City to include the final project density in future plat monitoring reports to the Council. Also, the EAW indicates a portion of the project site is lies outside the currently designated Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) but is within the City's Growth Area 1, 1998- 2010. While this part of the site is outside the already designated MUSA, it is within the City's undesignated MUSA area previously approved by the Council and will need to be added to the current MUSA as the project proceeds. It will be important for the City to include this transfer of undesignated MUSA area to the City's current MUSA area in its annual MUSA status reports to the Council and on future growth staging maps. Parks and Open Space (Jan Youngquist, 651- 602 -1029) Staff notes that the majority of the site is within a Metro Wildlife Conservation Corridor and a Regionally Significant Ecological Area (RSEA) of Outstanding Quality, while the eastern portion of the site is a Regionally Significant Natural Resources Area (RSNRA) of High Quality as designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Metropolitan Council. The Council, in partnership with the DNR and others, conducted the inventory and assessment of natural resources in the metropolitan area. The www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer • • Page Two Jeff Smyser November 20, 2006 RSEA and RSNRA are tools that can be used by local governments to assist in identifying areas for the protection of priority natural resources. The south portion of the property lies along the proposed Central Anoka County Regional Trail as identified in the Council's 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Final design and development of this subdivision should be coordinated with the Anoka County Parks Department in order to define the interrelationship between the subdivision's trails and the regional trail. John VonDeLinde, Anoka County Parks Director, can be contacted for further information at 763 - 767 -2860. Transportation (Ann Braden, 651- 602 -1705) The development is located north of CSAH 14, which is designated a principal arterial and therefore is an element of the Metropolitan Highway System. Full access from CSAH 14 has been requested but would not satisfy Anoka County's current access spacing guidelines for a full- movement intersection. According to the EAW, the County, City and developer are continuing to study access options for the site. The Council supports whichever access alternative does not compromise the highway's continued function as a principal arterial and is consistent with County guidelines for access spacing and management. If you need further information about the Council's review, please contact Bob Mazanec, Principal Reviewer, at 651 602 -1330. Sincerely, Phy Hanson, Manager Loc. Planning Assistance cc: Georgie Hilker, Metropolitan Council District 11 Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator Bob Mazanec, Sector Representative & Principal Reviewer John VonDeLinde, Anoka County Parks Jack Jackson, MultiFamily Market Analyst, MHFA Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division V:\REVIEWS \Communities\Lino Lakes\Letters\Lino Lakes 2006 EAW Nature's Refuge 19884 -1.doc Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 1200 Wamer Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.772.7900 November 21, 2006 RE: Nature's Refuge Residential Subdivision Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Smyser: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the EAW prepared for the Nature's Refuge residential development in the City of Lino Lakes. The document describes the project as a 250 -acre "conservation development." We compliment the City for taking a conservation approach to development. At the same time, however, we are concerned that the proposed ecological improvements rest on a management plan that we have not seen. Without knowing the details of that plan, we cannot determine whether the City will be able to accomplish those improvements. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources (Item No. 11) The EAW provides an excellent description of good quality, diverse habitat occupying a large portion of the site and notes the occurrences of five state - listed vascular plant species and one state - listed animal species, the Blanding's turtle. Direct impacts resulting from the proposed project, particularly to the forest and grassland habitats, are substantial. As noted in the EAW, the project would result in a 56% deduction of forest area and a 66% reduction in grassland, and expose the remaining habitat areas to the effects of adjacent development. If this site is to provide any Blanding's turtle habitat, then some protected upland grassland area adjacent to the wetland would have to be left undeveloped and protected. It may be necessary to create more buffer adjacent to the wetland and manage it as dry prairie. The EAW also states that preservation, restoration and the long -term management of the remaining habitat areas will result in a positive effect, i.e., higher quality wildlife habitat. The EAW mentions a restoration and management plan, but does not include it. The City's cover letter (October 20, 2006) suggests that the City has not yet approved that plan. Additionally, the EAW does not identify an entity that would be responsible for implementing the plan. Without that information, and considering the extent of the project impacts, we cannot be confident that the project will in fact result in an acceptable level of habitat benefit. This is not a minor concern. An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651 - 296 -6157 1- 888 - 646 -6367 TTY: 651 - 296 -5484 1- 800 - 657 -3929 • Nature's Refuge EAW November 21, 2006 Page 2 This project could be a candidate for implementation under the "exceptional natural resource value" provision of the Wetland Conservation Act (Rule 8420.0541, subpart 4), which allows credit for projects that restore exceptional natural resource values. Before we would agree to the use of this provision or permit the taking of state - listed plant species, the City would have to assure us that it would put in place adequate regulatory and management mechanisms to protect and sustain these resource values well into the future. Cover types (Item No. 10) The table shows the conversion of fifty -one acres of wooded /forest cover. As mentioned above, this is a substantial reduction in woodland cover. If the City approves this project, it will result in the removal of a significant amount of wood from the site. Depending on the condition of this wood, the project proposer may elect to market it as sawlog, landscaping material, firewood, or bio -fuel for the production of energy. We strongly recommend that the City contact Jean Mouelle, Regional Forest Utilization and Marketing Specialist (651 772 - 7567), for advice on this subject. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision at the conclusion of environmental review. Additionally, we would be pleased to review and provide guidance on the restoration and management plan. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Wayne Barstad, regional environmental assessment ecologist, at 651 772 -7940. Sincerely, • M. Kurcinka gional Director c: Wayne Barstad, Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Hannah Texler, Tom Hovey, Bob Welsh, Dave Zappetillo, Doug Norris Jean Mouelle, Heather Tetrault, Sarah Wren (DNR) Jon Larsen (EQB) Nick Rowse (USFWS) ERDB# 20060543 -2 LL06NaturesRefuge.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 1- 888 - 646 -6367 TTY: 651 - 296 -5484 1- 800 - 657 -3929 • • • Page l of l Jeff Smyser From: fnm1001 @usfamily.net Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 6:39 PM To: Jeff Smyser Subject: Development Mr. Smyser, Consider this our formal objection to the "proposed" development on Cty. 14 west of Cty. 23. It is truly profane for city leaders to circumvent the peoples' will by calling the development a "conservation development." Calling a duck a turkey does not make it fit for Thanksgiving dinner. It is quite obvious that the developer is trying to avoid an environmental impact study by proposing a number of units just under the minimum to make the study mandatory. We strongly suggest that the city order the environmental impact study and reconsider the vision of filling every open space in Lino Lakes with developments as rapidly as possible. City leaders should abide by the growth limits that are on the books. Sincerely, Fredrick W. Hedervare Melanie Marie Hedervare Lino Lakes 11/22/2006 - -- USFami1y.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! - -- • Page 1 of 1 Jeff Smyser From: RKEACBIRD @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:23 PM To: Jeff Smyser Subject: EAW for Natures Refuge Dear Jeff In the EAW it states " Views for local residence will include new houses in places that presently have no buildings. The appearance of new homes is a common change in any outer suburb in a metropolitan area ". It has been a recommendation and goal of the Environmental Board, endorsed by members of staff, that the impacts of new developments on older established existing neighborhoods be greatly reduced through creative and well planned use of buffering, wildlife corridors and /or open space so these residents can still enjoy viewing nature or natural settings from their backyards instead of a garage or shed. The suggestion that the bird population contains various song birds such as the American Gold Finch and Robin is extremely weak. I would be glad to send my "Life List" of birds I have viewed from my deck to anyone that would like a copy. Some examples are: Great Blue and Green Herons, various ducks including Wood Ducks and Teal, various Hawks and Falcons, Pheasants, Grouse, Wild Turkey, Quail, Doves, Various Owls, Humming Birds, various Wood Peckers and the Northern Flicker (year around), Chickadees, Red and White Breasted Nut Hatches, Blue Birds, Thrushes, Thrashers, Cat Birds, Scarlet Tanager, Cardinals, Evening and Rose Breasted Grosbeaks, Indigo Buntings, Juncos, various Sparrows, Orioles, Purple and House Finches and Red Polls. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Rod Kukonen 11/22/2006 (0C__ • Memorandum CIT OF To: Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 12/15/06 Re: 2007 Goals Please find attached the revised goals for 2007. • • Council Member its adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD GOALS FOR 2006 WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes has an established Environmental Board, AND WHEREAS, ; The purpose of the Environmental Board is to provide aid and advice to the council in its efforts to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment ; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the city; to advise the City in the use and management of its natural resources in order to preserve and enhance the environmental amenities for present and future residents, and to ensure a lasting quality of life within the city, • AND WHEREAS: The Environmental Board approved the following 2007 goals at their December 20, 2006 meeting: • Promote environmental stewardship with the citizens of Lino Lakes by: A. Communicating environmental initiatives in the city using various means of communication, i.e., City WebPages, newsletter, homeowners association meetings, the information kiosk, and press coverage. Pursue providing articles and information to the Quad Press. B. Promote individual Backyard Wildlife Habitat through the National Wildlife Federation. Inventory, current participants and work to expand program. • • Participate in Blue Heron Days, providing educational material to the public. • Participate in Earth Day activities in the community, promoting environmental awareness and collaboration with other environmental focused organizations. • Monitor any activity in the AUAR onto other proposed development areas, focusing on the values Lino Lakes citizens have expressed in the vision for our city and the unique ecological aspects of our wetlands, lakes and streams and subsurface waters. Apply mitigation plan as defined for that area. • Perform an evaluation of past Environmental Board recommendations for development projects. Review a sampling of a variety of projects by site visits, discussion with city staff, and landowners, neighbors, on the outcomes of the Boards recommendations. Submit a summary of significant findings resulting from the review in writing to the Community Development Director . • • Promote conservation development within the City incorporating the Open Space/Trail Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. • To meet or exceed our City recycling goal of 50 percent or greater of our Municipal solid waste. Find innovative ways to promote and encourage recycling as a city. Add recycling materials to kiosk. • Continue to monitor the Heron rookery and water quality in the northern one third of Peltier Lake and to support the protection of resources in that area. • Participate in comp plan and process. • Review and comment on the RMP planning process for the City of Lino Lakes, JD4 and TMDL study for the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. That the 2007 goals of the Lino Lakes Environmental Board be adopted. • John Bergeson, Mayor Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this _th day of , 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. •