Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2015 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting August 26, 2015 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Swearing in of New Member 4. Approval of Minutes June 24, 2015 5. Open Mike 6. Action Items A Borrow Pit/Century Farms B. AUAR Update C. Lino Lakes Free Store 7. Discussion Items A Recycling Updates B. Blue Heron Days Review 8. Adjourn CITY OF LINO LAKES ENIVORMENTAL BOARD MINUTES DATE : June 24, 2015 TIME STARTED : 6:33 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Steve Heiskary, Barbra Bor, Paula Andrzejewski, Nancy Klebba, John Sullivan MEMBERS ABSENT : Alex Schwartz STAFF PRESENT : Marty Asleson 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Heiskary called the Lino Lakes Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. on June 24, 2015. 2. APROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Andrzejewski made a MOTION to approve the agenda. Motion was supported by Ms. Klebba. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 27, 2015 Mr. Sullivan made a MOTION to approve the May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Ms.Klebba. Motion carried 4 - 0. 4. OPEN MIKE Mr. Heiskary declared Open Mike at 6:35 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Close Open Mike at 6:36 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES Enivornmental Board June 24, 2015 Page 2 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Proposed Ordinance 06-15 Mr. Asleson went through the background of the proposed Ordinance 06-15. The ordinance was updated to conform to the new RCWD rule changes. Katy Thompson, project manager in water resource from WSB, mentioned the six minimum measures that a stormwater ordinance must address: 1. Implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls on sites over 1/2 acre 2. Requiring construction site operators to control erosion and sediment 3. Controls for chemicals, solid wastes and other wastes on construction sites 4. Procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential water quality impacts 5. Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public 6. Sanctions to ensure compliance 7. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 8. Implementation of post -construction runoff controls to the extent allowable by state or local law The board would like to see the new changes highlighted in the hand-out so that the changes are easier to see. Ms. Andrzejewski MOTION to recommend the approval of the proposed ordinance 06- 15. Motion was seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Motion carried 5-0 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for Northeast Discussion Katy Thompson, is looking at a new outlet at Peltier Lake for entire drainage area. The northeast area is 1430 acres of land, and along 35E from Main Street at the southernmost point to almost 80th Street on the north side. There should be no adverse changes to Peltier Lake at all. 1. Preliminary design information for the conveyance system and outfall. 2. Allowable peak discharge rates and stormwater storage to be provided for each sub -watershed within the City. 3. Analysis and description of stormwater treatment BMP's to be provided. DRAFT MINUTES Enivornmental Board June 24, 2015 Page 3 4. Discussion demonstrating to downstream impacts will be mitigated or eliminated. 5. Anticipated plan to utilize or abandon existing public drainage systems. The proposed stormwater management plan for the NE area of Lino Lakes has been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed for comments. The board agrees that the need is there but has concerns about this plan: • Where is the water being rerouted and also what drain tile will be abandoned • Need to see better linkage between the AURA and this plan • Is there going to be cost sharing with the city of Hugo • Is there a change in the amount of stormwater discharged • The present outlet to the lake needs work —will anything be done • Other properties should not be impacted negatively in order for this development to happen The board would like to see a map with the Mattamy Development and the AURA boundaries. B. Updates Herons Mr. Asleson plans on getting out to the island and see what is happening with the herons. There seems to be an increase in activity from last year. Shenandoah Street Reconstruction With the street reconstruction about 50 Ash trees were taken out and will be replaced. Recycle Intern Just finished the interviews and the new intern has accepted job and will start soon. Also a summer intern is doing tree inventory in the city. Blue Heron Days Need volunteers to help collecting trash after the parade. Note - John Sullivan received an award for certification of master recycling DRAFT MINUTES Enivornmental Board June 24, 2015 Page 4 Reminder to bring Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for Northeast Discussion packet to next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Andrzejewski made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Motion was supported by Ms. Bor. Motion carried 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Mary Fogarty Office Tech DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson, Environmental Coordinator MEETING DATE: August 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: Borrow Pit/Century Farms BACKGROUND Century Farms North 6th Addition is a proposed project that was reviewed by the Environmental Board in March of 2015. The borrow pit is an area of land adjacent to Century Farms 6th Addition. Century Farms developer Gary Uhde wishes to move soil from the borrow pit area to Century farms 6th Addition for needed fill. ANALYSIS The project location is located east of Sunset Ave/CR53, adjacent to the proposed Century Farms 6th Addition. The disturbed area is approximately 1.1 acres and approximately 9,500 cubic yards of granular material is proposed to be excavated from this proposed borrow pit. The maximum depth of the borrow pit will be 14 feet with a 3:1 slope and a safety bench. There is no impervious area proposed. Since the disturbance area is greater than an acre, an NPDES permit will be required. Excavation of this borrow pit will run concurrently with the grading and fill needed for Century Farms North 6th Addition. The project will take 3-6 weeks and start in late September. The grading shall be in compliance with the approved grading plan for Century Farms 6th Addition. Access to the borrow area will be made through undeveloped park property. All materials will not be transported out of the Century Farms area. A temporary easement through the park will be required. Any and all project impacts to soil compaction will be have mitigated before the project is completed. There are no wetlands impacted by the borrow pit. Public ditch 10-22-32 is in the area. Rice Creek Watershed District is requiring that the project must maintain (buffer) a 16.5 foot setback from this ditch. There are no floodplain impacts imposed by this project There are no significant trees in the area so there is no tree preservation plan requirements. The proposed project will not result in the damaging or destruction of any natural features, including wetland soil/floodplain overlays that might indicate the presence of rare plant species. The nearest recorded species is approximately 1 mile away. Any proposed fill material for future refilling must be similar in nature to the existing conditions (sand, sand -loam). No garbage, building material, debris, clay, or any other non -desirable materials may be back filled into the borrow pit in the future. Since an NPDES permit is required, a SWPPP must be submitted. The SWPPP must include the name, phone number, and inspection credentials of the person that will be implementing the SWPPP. The implementation plan must include assurances that a weekly and post rainfall event inspection will be performed. These inspection sheets must be emailed to the City Engineer and the City MS4 inspector in a timely manner. Failure to do this will result in a stop work order. The project submittal has a "Grading, Drainage and ESC Notes" section in the submittal. This plan is incomplete. A complete plan must address all of the elements that the permit from the MPCA requires. RECOMMENDATION None. Staff is requesting any comments the board may have concerning this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map BORROW PIT GRADING, DRAINAGE & ESC PLAN LINO LAKES, MN l • Know what's below. Call before you dig. GRADING, DRAINAGE & ESC NOTES 1) PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OPERATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLAN. (CONTACT CITY AND RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO GRADING OPERATIONS.) ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MAY BE NECESSARY IF LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM SITE GRADING ON AN AREA—BY—AREA BASIS TO MINIMIZE UNSTABIUZED AREAS. AS EACH AREA IS COMPLETED, ALL EXPOSED SOILS MUST HAVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION OR PERMANENT COVER WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES AND MAKE SURE THE EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES INPLACE IN THOSE AREAS PREVENT MIGRATION OF SEDIMENT ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SILT FENCE, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT, THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION. 5) IF ANY SLOPES APPEAR TO BE FAILING, 1HE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE, BIOROLLS AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AS NEEDED. 6) ADJACENT STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, DIRT, AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE MATERIALS. WHEN MATERIALS OR DEBRIS HAVE WASHED/FLOWED ONTO ADJACENT STREETS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBIUTY TO SWEERP SC A PE STREETS AS NECESSARY OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY. / 7) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SOD, SEED, MULCH AND FERTUZER WHICH SHALL CONFORM WITH THE FOLLOWING MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS AS MODIFIED BELOW. ITE1A MNDOT SPECIFICATION/NOTES SOD 3878 SEED •. 3876 TEMPORARY FALL COVER SPRING/SUMMER SOIL—BUILDING COVER 1-2 YEARS COVER 2-5 YEARS COVER MNDOT MIX 21-112 (100 LBS/ACRE) MNDOT MIX 21-111 (100 LBS/ACRE) MNDOT MIX 21-113 (110 LBS/ACRE) MNDOT MIX 22-111 (30.5 LBS/ACRE) MNDOT MIX 22-112 (40 LBS/ACRE) MULCH 3882 (TYPE 1 — DISC ANCHORED) FERTILIZER 3881 WOOD FIBER BLANKET 3885 (CATEGORY 2) " SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE EITHER MULCHED OR COVERED BY FIBROUS BLANKETS TO PROTECT SEEDS AND OMIT EROSION. �a N./� 6wx wwsxrn 0 ► 2. \ ix 7 11 DEMEX1ILE WITH NO a.cxru 'MEMO. 1. 40 rucc CONFORM . 6.. (Of[MAO 11 6 �µ 10 coxrwxs Wil 11 tlP III ditg N ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENIRnNCE \ SILT FENCE GEN -17 / GEN-16 // LEGEND ..t 928- -930— EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED EDGE OF WETLAND PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE APPROX. HAUL ROAD LOCATION EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BASED ON NAVD 88 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 1) APPROX. DISTURBED AREA = 1.1 ACRES 2) APPROX. EXCAVATED VOLUME = 9,500 CUBIC YARDS 3) BORROW Piz EXCAVATION TO OCCUR CONCURRENTLY WITH "CENTURY FARM NORTH 6TH ADDITION" GRADING OPERATIONS 4) NO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PROPOSED 5) AN NPDES PERMIT IS REQUIRED (DISTURBED AREA GREATER THAN 1 ACRE) —ROBINSOMpRIVE 494.96 .800 901 76 1 89 -08ANOKA COUNTY DITCH 10-22-32 BRANCH1 NM1 895.2 ,_. 89,6 896. as • .69,.. �... V• ,WETLAND"\\•:+ 45 89 APPROXIMATE HAUL ROAD LOCATOR (TEMPORARY EASEIAENT OVER CITY PROPERTY REWIRED)__ .erase / .eszn ►.+V.. .esass 898.73 x898 98 x 899 15 4.1 K 4.7,72 099.16 89.99 .81857 89,86 DRAWN BY C.M. CHCKD BY: C.W.P. DESIGN BY: A.G. PROD. NO. 15-1529 ORIGINAL DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2015 1•• 0 m 0 CO LINO LANES, MINNESOTA GRADING, DRAINAGE & ESC PLAN PREPARED FOR: JEFF MORRELL SITE PLANNING & ENGINEERING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE SUITE 110 LIND LAKES, MN 55014 PHONE: (651) 361-8210 FAX: (651) 361-8701 NORTH 0 15 30 1 INCH = 30 FEET C1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson, Environmental Coordinator MEETING DATE: August 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: AUAR Update BACKGROUND In October of 2005 the City Council adopted the Final AUAR after comments were considered. The Lino Lakes Environmental Board discussed the AUAR at a special meeting on October 12th of that year and unanimously approved "the Environmental Board strongly supports the adoption of the final AUAR by the City of Lino Lakes. The mitigation plan within the document serves as an invaluable tool to identify & minimize environmental impact of developments. Adoption of the AUAR should not be interpreted or misconstrued as endorsing an aggressive development scenario." In 2010 the Environmental Board was updated on minor changes that were made to the AUAR. The update was approved by the City Council at that time. With another 5 years passing, the AUAR is again up for review and comment. Andie Moffatt of WSB Engineering has updated the 2010 document and it is before you for your comment. The document had to go out to government agencies for review and a ten day comment period on June 29th. Comments from the agencies are attached. ANALYSIS Changes made to the 2010 AUAR are indicated by strike -through, "deleted", and highlighted language. RECOMMENDATION Recommend proposed changes, and that any comments from the Environmental Board be forwarded on to the City Council for approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft AUAR Update 2. Comments from agencies Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Five Year Update Original AUAR 2005 Five Year Update 2010 Five Year Update 2015 June 29, 2015 1-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1 II. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 III. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 3 IV. UPDATE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 3 A. Traffic and Transportation System 3 B. Regional Sanitary Sewer 4 C. Regional Water System 4 D. Potential Environmental Hazards 4 E. Stormwater Management 4 F. Ecologically Sensitive Areas 4 G. Cultural Resources 5 IV. MITIGATION SUMMARY AND UPDATE 5 Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Agency Correspondence (DNR and SHPO) Appendix C: Potential Environmental Hazards Update Appendix D: Mitigation Plan Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The I -35E Corridor Final AUAR was prepared for the City of Lino Lakes in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 in 2005. The AUAR was subsequently updated in 2010. 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 October 2015, the purpose of this document is to update the AUAR pursuant to Minnesota Rules. The I -35E Corridor AUAR study area is approximately 4,500 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the city as shown in Figure 5-1, Appendix A. The AUAR included a review of three development scenarios. These three scenarios are being carried forward with this AUAR Update. 1. Scenario One was consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted in 2002 and allows for an additional 2,237 housing units, 2,985,733 square feet of commercial uses, and 11,175,035 square feet of industrial uses (see Figure 6-2, Appendix A). The city has subsequently adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2011. 2. Scenario Two is based on known development plans of property owners within the AUAR area and has a commercial and industrial emphasis (Figure 6-3, Appendix A). Scenario Two allows for an additional 5,715 housing units, 5,617,890 square feet of commercial uses, and 9,570,045 square feet of industrial uses. This scenario is more consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2011. 3. Scenario Three has a residential emphasis and allows for an additional 8,659 housing units, 4,141,554 square feet of commercial uses, and 5,829,722 square feet of industrial uses (Figure 6-4, Appendix A). Some elements of this scenario are in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. There has been some development since the 2010 update. A Park -and -Ride has been constructed in the northwest quadrant of I -35E and CSAH 14. A McDonald's restaurant has been constructed east of I -35E on CSAH 14. The NorthPointe development, located in the southern portion of the AUAR study area, has been approved. A few other developments were approved, but were not constructed. Appendix A has been updated to show these new developments. Other updates include that the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) updated their rules in November 2014. The 2010 AUAR Update included the addition of the Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan and the subsequent RMP -3 rule support the "Conservation Design Framework" that formed the foundation of the AUAR's Mitigation Plan. The November 2014 RCWD rules will assist in achieving the RMP goals. Additionally, the City of Lino Lakes adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in September 2011. This update is discussed further in Section II. Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Page 1 The original AUAR from 2005 and the update from 2010 are available on the City's website at http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp? SEC=581 A5670-E592-4178-B9B2- 7B0B72922A8E&Type=B BASIC. This report is intended to serve as an update of the 2010 AUAR Update and includes a review of the areas that have developed, an update to the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. Items in the original AUAR that have not changed are not discussed, and the information in the AUAR or the October 2010 AUAR Update for those items remains as written. II. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Lino Lakes adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2011. The Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan shows much of the AUAR area as "Urban Reserve", or not projected to be developed until after 2030. Scenario One of the AUAR has some similarities to the future land use plan map in the Comprehensive Plan showing the Urban Reserve area. In addition to the future land use plan map, the Plan also includes a "full build -out" future land use plan which describes the planned uses for the AUAR area (Figure 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B92EFCBF5-B800-4B28-AD6A- B8C3B7009FB0%7D/uploads/Chapter 3_Land_Use_Plan(1).pdf). The future full build out land use map generally includes elements of Scenarios Two and Three of the AUAR. This 2030 Comprehensive Plan incorporated land uses of the AUAR analysis and is substantially similar to Scenario Two. Both Scenario Two and the full build -out future land use plan show a mixture of medium density residential, commercial and industrial uses over most of the AUAR area. The differences between Scenario Two and the Comprehensive Plan relate to some residential areas that are shown as medium -to -high density residential in the AUAR and medium density residential or mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. These changes in the Comprehensive Plan appear to meet the intent of the AUAR. Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Page 2 III. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Figure 5-3 shows the location of the proposed, approved, and previously considered developments within the study area. The developments are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Development within Study Area Development Activity Status Parcel Size AUAR Update (Year) NorthPointe 228 single family; 88 -unit senior living facility In process (completing Phase 2 of 5) 94 acres 2015 McDonald's Restaurant Construction of fast food restaurant Developed 3.3 acres 2015 Park and Ride Large Metro Transit parking lot Developed 3.1 acres 2015 CSAH 14 Interchange Roadway improvements Developed NA 2010 Moon Marsh Rural PUD Did not develop 24.3 acres 2010 Main Street Village Commercial PUD Did not develop 47 acres 2010 Hardwood Creek Site Mixed Use (PUD) Did not develop 363 acres 2005 IV. UPDATE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A. Traffic and Transportation System The AUAR included preparation of a detailed traffic impact analysis to fully investigate the effects of the proposed land use scenarios on the local and regional roadway systems (AUAR Item 21, Traffic). The 2010 AUAR Update contained information about transportation projects that had been completed since the original AUAR. Since 2010, the I -35E Interchange at CSAH 14 has been completed. The mitigation plan has been updated based on implementation of the plan. A Traffic Impact Study was completed with the Northpointe development. The study updated the traffic data and evaluated the roadway system adjacent to and through the site. The study identified roadway improvements and access configuration consistent with the AUAR Mitigation plan. Therefore the analysis conducted with the 2005 AUAR and the 2010 updated AUAR remains valid for this AUAR Update. Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Page 3 B. Regional Sanitary Sewer The AUAR included preparation of a sewer analysis to fully investigate the effects of the proposed land use scenarios on the systems. Sewer capacity was noted as an issue in the original AUAR. The 2010 AUAR Update discussed the Lino Lakes Relief Interceptor (MCES 70-29) that was constructed to address capacity for the area. Additionally, the sewer was extended along 21st Avenue as well as other trunk improvements to serve development within the study area in conformance with the AUAR and the Comprehensive Plan. No other regional sewer projects have occurred since the 2010 AUAR Update. This study remains valid for this AUAR Update. C. Regional Water System The AUAR included an analysis of the city's water system as it related to possible development in the AUAR Study Area. The city is currently in the process of updating its Wellhead Protection Plan. Part 1 of the plan has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Health and Part 2 is currently under review. This update process is in conformance with the AUAR mitigation plan. D. Potential Environmental Hazards Item 9 in the original AUAR included a review of past land use in relation to potential environmental hazards. This section was updated and includes a review of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's "What's in My Neighborhood" database. The results are in Appendix C. No significant changes occurred and the mitigation plan remains valid for the AUAR Update. E. Stormwater Management On November 12, 2014, the RCWD adopted revised rules that affect the I -35E Corridor study area. These rules became effective December 1, 2014. These rules supersede past rules or requirements that were in the 2010 and 2005 AUAR and also incorporate the Resource Management Plan that was added in the 2010 AUAR Update. These rules are now in effect for development in the study area and the mitigation plan has been updated accordingly. F. Ecologically Sensitive Areas The AUAR included review and analysis of the ecologically sensitive areas within the study area. For this update, the DNR Natural Heritage Database information was updated and is included in Appendix B. This update contains additional known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within a one -mile radius of the study area as compared to the data from the original AUAR. The mitigation plan is adequate to address these sensitive ecological areas and the remaining AUAR analysis remains valid for this update. Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Page 4 G. Cultural Resources Information from the SHPO database was obtained to update the AUAR. There were more areas identified within the original AUAR than in the SHPO database update (Appendix B). The mitigation plan is adequate to address these resources and the remaining AUAR analysis remains valid for this update. IV. MITIGATION SUMMARY AND UPDATE The mitigation plan from the original AUAR and AUAR Update (2010) has been reviewed and updated based on changes since 2010. The mitigation plan is included in Appendix D. Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Page 5 APPENDIX A: Figures Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Appendix A Tpt r[ -15 IIIIIIII� Legend Project Location PROJ ECT LOCATION CITY OF LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA I -35E CORRIDOR AUAR UPDATE e 0 5,000 10,000 Feet FIGURE 5-1 f< CITYkt OF IN KE Columbus Lino Lakes •( ?SOW W+ SiTECF-.' H -� C sl• 1 1 • • -4. f'IJ fl �l tor _.t�`��� • � w> yt E CREED -C 1 C©UNTY'RExJYf1NAL PA IN 011,AKFS.. ' Watch Lake err 16 �c. 'Tr! 1-1. TUN .44fih RY • � ' 1.4ij [-!t / t`cGt;_II4.- Centerville Lake 22 ° I Fl>wln@ Xlel!t� fes. �' �•"Sril�aq N ", f n f { St O J r• 41-) {` 1 Project Locatio USGS MAP CITY OF LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA I -35E CORRIDOR AUAR UPDATE 0 0 1,500 3,000 Feet CITY. FIGURE 5-2 OF 11\1_101 Y"1KE. Hardwood'Creek Site Legend Project Location Developments ahmou DEVELOPMENTS MAP CITY OF LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA I -35E CORRIDOR AUAR UPDATE 0 0 1,500 3,000 Feet 2015 Update 2010 Update FIGURE 5-3 CITY ,`.`' OF IN •SES Scenario 1 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota I -35E Corridor MAR 0 2.OM 1000 0 2,010 Fa01 Minns., 11.1,m Smell. re14116.1. Ira 0,,,,l 1011 K.factimnrlgiscerordaditfeemaio 1 Str.recel AUAR Boundary Municipal Boundary IgOdunty Boundary Rural Land Use Low Density UnsaatredResidenNel Lad Density Semered Residential win Medium Denser,' Residential - High Dearly Residential Conynardel - Industrial MEI Chard, - PotkiSem•Pubk. (Rarts) Urban Reserve (1 -logo) Rural ResdaniatrAgreculture ICd01,. Lbw Density rtes1dentral 1. I110 (1-4100) Low lo °amity Readenbui (Centeralle) - MixedU ICesterville& Flugoi ComercialAndUatitat (Centerville) 2020 Urban Den/sweat (Hugo) Wands - Ruceis Future C1t0 Roads - County DrA11290 Infrastruetire Pipetine - Stream Will Stream 190 It Bultar Figure 6-2 Existing Trail Privamd Trail e Future Neighborhood Perk (Center of Service Area) May 31 2000 151 URS uNoL; 1 141 TKDA Scenario 2 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota I -35E Corridor GUAR z000 +.coo 0 000.Fesi nvseoni rany.n amao.. TWA. wny+.sr IfAckor,uo.Tem Al nsorrnAtsrws ma Aura exadary M nlcpal Boundary unty Boundary Rural Land Use Law Density Llnsewered Resrdenhal LOW Denaly Sew0red Fdesidan401 ' Low to Medan Dene1 y Rssidonhal MIMI Math. IDensay Ro00 ollal - Meduml to High hlensrly Residenlel - High Density Residential Cam.rciel _ 'Industria! - Church Putlx/Serni-Rub4c{F ttsr Waley Urban Reserve{FRr o1 Rural Rmidennalrhgnculhee (Caduraheda) Low Density Residentel 1-3 We (Hog} LOW to Med!. Density Residential (Canferville) Mtn,' Use onrville a Hugmj - CommercuiVlnduslnai (Centerville) WE 21720 Urban Pewell:anon (Hugo] ;21', Wellands O Parcels i Futuro Crty 00000 - Cour0y Drainage Inhash otore Ppolino - Stream SVeam 111001 Dula- Exishmg Trail Proposed Trail ` Future. Neighborhood Park 1Center o1 a"eryce AT 9 aj Figure 6-3 June , 2105 Columbus Twp. Scenario 3 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Ail AR iku ndaq I -35E Corridor AUAR Munkpal Boundary g:Maumy aoumivy Rural Land Use Lax Density Unser eyed Residential Lan Nosily garnered RWdental Lvnlo Mecism Density Reanlial - Mecium Dentlly Residential _ Me churn to High Densly Resden3al High Nosily ResideMo) - Cnmmercml Industrtal 2CO3 r.f/7U Church — PubicrSemi Pdbli: {Fades Mier 9w.ghrany.r SnrNw mdltan,l� eilege dmaMa+tmMliNlSavl>] SlN4cel lkban. Reasue (liugol — Exislmg Frail Rur& Res idenhaVAgn+:ullve (GallmLws) — — — Prop.ated Trail Low Density Resdentul 1-3 Lea {Hugo} a Flt Neighborhood Park Low to Medium Density Residenl®I (Centerville) lChntsr al service AMdy MN Mooed Use (Centerville a, How) - CammerclaP'Indualnar {G1ttrvA lel 2020 Urban Danalaymanl (Hugo] ▪ weltanda r� Parcels Future City Rae CIS County Dramags I nfnaabuctrre Ppeline — Stream - 9Ream 100 n Duller Figure 6-4 Jens 9. 2005 APPENDIX B: Agency Correspondence (DNR and SHPO) Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Appendix B MNDNR March 11, 2015 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 Phone: (651) 259-5091 E-mail: samantha.bump@state.mn.us Ms. Andi Moffatt WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Correspondence # ERDB 20150232 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed I -35E Corridor AUAR Update, T31N R22W Sections 1-3, 10-14, 24 & 25; Anoka County Dear Ms. Moffatt, The Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the proposed project. For the results of this query, please refer to the enclosed database reports (please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). As requested per the data request form, I am providing the database reports only and have not evaluated the potential for the proposed project to adversely affect these rare features. Please note that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect these rare features and, if so, the EAW should describe any measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts. Please note the following features are in the area of interested but are not represented on the reports: A portion of the area of interest is within a Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Area (RSEA) that is ranked Outstanding. The DNR Central Region (in partnership with the Metropolitan Council for the 7 -county metro area), identified these ecologically significant terrestrial and wetland areas by conducting a landscape -scale assessment based on the size and shape of the ecological area, land cover within the ecological area, adjacent land cover/use, and connectivity to other ecological areas. The purpose of the data is to inform regional scale land use decisions, especially as it relates to balancing development and natural resource protection. A GIS shapefile of this data layer can be downloaded from the DNR Data Deli at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. Additional information, including pdf versions of the RSEA maps, is available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsea/index.html. If you would like help interpreting the RSEA data please contact Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist for DNR's Central Region, at 651-259-5811 or hannah.texler@state.mn.us. For your information, I have attached a Blanding's turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. The first list is relevant for all areas inhabited by Blanding's turtles while the second list contains www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER additional protective measures for areas known to be of statewide importance to this species. Because the proposed project is within one of these areas, please refer to both lists of recommendations. In addition, if erosion control mesh will be used, I recommend that the mesh be limited to wildlife -friendly materials (see enclosed fact sheet). The Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) has identified two Sites of Biodiversity Significance 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. These particular Sites contains several high quality native plant communities and, as noted above, several rare plants. (Please see attached map; GIS shapefiles of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and MBS Native Plant Communities can be downloaded from the DNR Data Deli at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us.) 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 rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within 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. The enclosed results include an Index Report and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted. The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The Detailed Report is for your personal use only as it may include specific location information that is considered nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0872, subd. 2. If you wish to reprint or publish the Detailed Report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. 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 (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, So -vi/ Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report Rare Features Database: Detailed Report Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields Blanding's Turtle Fact Sheet and Flyer Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control Map cc: Brooke Haworth Page 3 of 3 Printed February 2015 Data valid for one year Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Index Report of records within 1 mile radius of: ERDB# 20150232 - I -35E Corridor AUAR Update T31N R22W Section 1-3, 10-14, 24, & 25 Anoka County Page 1 of 4 Rare Features Database: Element Name and Occurrence Number Vertebrate Animal Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper) #243 T31N R21W S18, T31N R22W S24, T31N R21W S19, T31N R22W S13; Anoka, Washington County Cygnus buccinator (Trumpeter Swan) #90 T32N R21W S15, T30N R23W S9, T31N R21W S28, T30N R23W S10, T [...]; Ramsey, Anoka, Washington County Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding's Turtle) #283 T32N R22W S34, T31N R22W S3; Anoka County Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding's Turtle) #493 T31N R21W S18, T31N R22W S24, T31N R21W S19; Anoka, Washington County Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding's Turtle) #862 T31N R21W S30, T31N R21W S29, T31N R21W S20, T31N R21W S19; Washington County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #1919 T31N R22W S3; Anoka County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #2154 T31N R22W S9, T31N R22W S10, T31N R22W S16, T31N R22W S15; Anoka County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #2194 T31N R22W S11, T31N R22W S10; Anoka County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #2250 T31N R22W S16; Anoka County Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) #2275 T31N R22W S2; Anoka County Sterna forsteri (Forster's Tern) #21 T31N R22W S36, T31N R22W S26, T31N R22W S35, T31N R22W S25; Anoka County Federal MN Draft SGCN State Global Last Obs EO ID # Status Status Status Status Rank Rank Date Watchlist SGCN S4B G5 1990-06-18 11507 SPC SGCN S3B,SNRN G4 2008 34447 THR SGCN S2 G4 1988-06-07 8824 THR SGCN S2 G4 1989-09-05 11219 THR SGCN S2 G4 1997-06-15 24989 Watchlist SGCN S3B,S3N G5 2005-05-06 26633 Watchlist SGCN S3B,S3N G5 2001 28106 Watchlist SGCN S3B,S3N G5 2001 22409 Watchlist SGCN S3B,S3N G5 2002 5275 Watchlist SGCN S3B,S3N G5 2009-06-07 31123 SPC SGCN S3B G5 1982 25152 Animal Assemblage Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site) #721 N/A SNR GNR 1989-06-11 9753 T31N R22W S14, T31N R22W S11, T31N R22W S10, T31N R22W S15; Anoka County Copyright 2015 , Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR Printed February 2015 Data valid for one year Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Index Report of records within 1 mile radius of: ERDB# 20150232 - I -35E Corridor AUAR Update T31N R22W Section 1-3, 10-14, 24, & 25 Anoka County Page 2 of 4 Rare Features Database: Element Name and Occurrence Number Federal MN Draft SGCN State Global Last Obs Status Status Status Status Rank Rank Date EO ID # Vascular Plant Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #5 T31N R22W S5, T32N R22W S32, T32N R22W S33, T31N R22W S4; Anoka County Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #7 T31N R22W S5, T31N R22W S4; Anoka County Botrychium rugulosum (St. Lawrence Grapefern) #92 T31N R22W S9; Anoka County Botrychium simplex (Least Moonwort) #230 T31N R22W S9; Anoka County Decodon verticillatus (Waterwillow) #10 T31N R22W S3, T31N R22W S2; Anoka County Decodon verticillatus (Waterwillow) #23 T32N R22W S35; Anoka County Echinochloa walteri (Walter's Barnyard Grass) #25 T32N R22W S35; Anoka County Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #26 T31N R22W S5, T32N R22W S32, T32N R22W S33, T31N R22W S4; Anoka County Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #28 T31N R22W S5, T31N R22W S4; Anoka County Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #29 T31N R22W S5, T31N R22W S4; Anoka County Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein -orchid) #73 T31N R22W S9; Anoka County Potamogeton bicupulatus (Snailseed Pondweed) #16 T31N R22W S4; Anoka County N/A SNR G5 2001-09-20 31062 N/A SNR G5 2001-09-15 31064 SPC S3 G3 2012-07-19 37243 SPC S3 G5 2012-06-01 37242 SPC S3 G5 1989-09-29 11638 SPC S3 G5 2001-08-25 30993 N/A S4 G5 2001-08-25 30994 SPC S3 G5 2001-08-22 30674 SPC S3 G5 2001-08-24 30990 SPC S3 G5 2002-08-22 30992 THR S2 G4?T4Q 2012-07-20 37241 END S1 G4 2008-08-15 35064 Copyright 2015 , Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR Printed February 2015 Data valid for one year Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Index Report of records within 1 mile radius of: ERDB# 20150232 - I -35E Corridor AUAR Update T31N R22W Section 1-3, 10-14, 24, & 25 Anoka County Page 3 of 4 Rare Features Database: Element Name and Occurrence Number Federal MN Draft SGCN Status Status Status Status Native Plant Community (This may not represent a complete list. Also see MCBS Native Plant Communities at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us.) Alder - (Maple - Loosestrife) Swamp Type #959 (NPC Code: FPn73a) N/A T31N R22W S3, T31N R22W S10; Anoka County Low Shrub Poor Fen Type #18 (NPC Code: APn91 a) T32N R22W S34, T32N R22W S35, T31N R22W 52, T31N R22W S10, T [...]; Anoka County Tamarack Swamp (Southern) Type #6 T31N R22W S10; Anoka County Tamarack Swamp (Southern) Type #7 T31N R22W S36; Anoka County Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp Type #910 T32N R22W S34, T32N R22W S33; Anoka County Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp Type #1319 T31N R22W S36, T31N R22W S35; Anoka County Records Printed = 30 An Explanation of Fields: (NPC Code: FPs63a) (NPC Code: FPs63a) (NPC Code: WMn82a) (NPC Code: WMn82a) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A State Global Rank Rank SNR GNR S5 GNR S3 GNR S3 GNR S4 GNR S4 GNR Last Obs Date EO ID # 1989-08-15 1976-09 1989-08-15 1990-09-26 1989-08-03 1990-09-26 9959 9573 9948 11535 9952 11534 Minnesota's endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. For plants, taking includes digging or destroying. For animals, taking includes pursuing, capturing, or killing. Element Name and Occurrence Number: The Element is the name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements it is solely the element name. Native plant community names correspond to Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0). The Occurrence Number, in combination with the Element Name, uniquely identifies each record. Federal Status: The status of the species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: LE = endangered; LT = threatened; LE,LT = listed endangered in part of its range, listed threatened in another part of its range; LT,PDL = listed threatened, proposed for delisting; C = candidate for listing. If null or 'No Status,' the species has no federal status. MN Status: The legal status of the plant or animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern; NON = tracked, but no legal status. Native plant communities, geological features, and colonial waterbird nesting sites do not have any legal status under the Endangered Species Law and are represented by a N/A. Draft Status: Proposed change to the legal status of the plant or animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern; Watchlist = tracked, but no legal status. Copyright 2015 , Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR Printed February 2015 Data valid for one year Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Index Report of records within 1 mile radius of: ERDB# 20150232 - I -35E Corridor AUAR Update T31N R22W Section 1-3, 10-14, 24, & 25 Anoka County Page 4 of 4 SGCN Status: SGCN = The species is a Species in Greatest Conservation Need as identified in Minnesota's State Wildlife Action Plan (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/index.html). This designation applies to animals only. State Rank: Rank that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the taxon or plant community in Minnesota. The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available. S1 = Critically imperiled in Minnesota because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled in Minnesota because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable in Minnesota either because rare or uncommon, or found in a restricted range, or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently secure in Minnesota, usually widespread. S5 = Demonstrably secure in Minnesota, essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SH = Of historical occurrence in the state, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, but suspected to be still extant. An element would become SH without the 20 -year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. SNR = Rank not yet assessed. SU = Unable to rank. SX = Presumed extinct in Minnesota. SNA = Rank not applicable. S#S# = Range Rank: a numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element. S#B, S#N = Used only for migratory animals, whereby B refers to the breeding population of the element in Minnesota and N refers to the non -breeding population of the element in Minnesota. Global Rank: The global (i.e., range -wide) assessment of the relative rarity or imperilment of the species or community. Ranges from Gl (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by NatureServe, an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers. Last Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was last observed to be extant at the site in format YYY-MM-DD. EO ID #: Unique identifier for each Element Occurrence record. Element Occurrence: An area of land and/or water in which an Element (i.e., a rare species or community) is, or was, present, and which has practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location. Specifications for each species determine whether multiple observations should be considered 1 Element Occurrence or 2, based on minimum separation distance and barriers to movement. Copyright 2015 , Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR ERDB# 20150232 - I -35E Corridor AUAR Update T31 N R22W Section 1-3, 10-14, 24, & 25 Anoka County GIS shapefiles of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and MBS Native Plant Communities can be downloaded from the DNR Data Deli at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. T31 NR22W Section4 -# 00.126.25 0.5 Miles Legend Project Line Native Plant Communities ▪ Alder - (Maple - Loosestrife) Swamp ▪ Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh ▪ RedOak-SugarMaple-Basswood-(BitternutHickory)Forest Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland Tamarack Swamp (Southern) En Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance ® Outstanding ® High Moderate ® Below Q PLS Section Copyright 2015, State of Minnesota, DNR Rare Feature, Prairie Railroad Survey, Native Plant Community, N and Sites of Biodiversity Significance data are from the Natural Heritage Information System. The absence of rare features Afor a particular location should not be construed to mean that the DNR is confident rare features are absent from that location. Archaeological Site Locations Site Number Site Name Twp. Range Sec. Quarter Sections Acres Phase Site Description Tradition Context Reports NR CEF DOE County: Anoka 21AN0003 31 22 11 C -S -S 18 2 EW, AS W-1 Ps -2, SO- AN -01-11 2 21AN0037 Paul 31 22 10 SE-NE-NW-SE,SE- 16 1 AS W-1 NE -SW -NE 21AN0040 Cartier 31 22 10 SW -SE -SE 60 1 AS A-2, W- AL -2, AN -02-03 HR -1, LW -2 21AN0041 31 22 10 SW -NE -SW 25 1 AS W-1 RA -1 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 21AN0049 Dupre 31 22 14 SW -NW -SW 21 1,2 AS PL -1,A- P1-1,AL- 1,W-1 1,HR- 2,SO- 1,Ka-2 Dupre 31 22 14 NW -SW -SW 21 1,2 AS PL -1,A- P1-1 ,AL - 1,W -1 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 21AN0091 31 22 2 S -NW -NE -NW, N- 5 1 AS W-1, 0 - SW -NE -NW 21AN0095 31 22 2 SE -SE; E -NW -NE- 24 1 AS W-1 LW -1 NE Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Site Number Site Name Twp. Range Sec. Quarter Sections Acres Phase Site Description Tradition Context Reports NR CEF DOE County: Anoka 21AN0095 31 22 11 24 1 AS W-1 LW-1 21AN0130 Iverson I 31 22 25 NE 0 5 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 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 Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 2 of 2 History/Architecture Inventory PROPERTY NAME COUNTY: Anoka CITY/TOWNSHIP: Centerville house CITY/TOWNSHIP: Lino Lakes Bridge 02803 Bridge 9830 Bridge 02802 ADDRESS Twp Range Sec Quarters USGS Report NRHP CEF DOE Inventory Number 7238 Main St. 31 22 14 SW -SW Centerville AN -2005-1H AN -CVC -009 CSAH 14 over I35 E 3.6 miles south of Junction 31 22 24 NW -SE Centerville AN-LKC-007 TH 35W CSAH 14 over I35 W 2.2 miles NE of Junctin 31 22 10 NW -SE Centerville AN-LKC-009 TH49 CR 140 over 135E 1.5 miles S of Junction TH 31 22 12 NE -NW Centerville AN-LKC-011 35W COUNTY: Washington CITY/TOWNSHIP: Hugo farmstead comer of Main St. and Otter Tail Rd. 31 22 24 NW -SW -NE Centerville XX -2002-2H WA-HGC-009 Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX C: Potential Environmental Hazards Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Appendix C WSB Inc, engineering • planning • environmental • construction Memorandum To: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. From: Ryan Spencer, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: January 29, 2015 Re: Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Contamination Review Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No.: 2029-950 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 WSB reviewed available public Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) database information to identify verified or potentially contaminated sites located within or adjoining the Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor located in Lino Lakes, MN (see Figure 1). The following regulatory databases were reviewed on January 28, 2015 as part of this investigation: • MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood?" website search • MPCA Storage Tank Leak site website search Project Area Listings Thirty five (35) total database listing were identified within the proposed project area (see Figure 2). The majority of these listings were for stormwater permits (17 construction and 2 industrial) indicating permits are in place to reduce surface water erosion and pollution during and after construction. Nine (9) of the project area listings were for small quantity hazardous waste generators, which means the site generates 0-1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per year and seven (7) project area listing were multiple activities indicating the sites are listed on more than one MPCA database. None of the identified project area listings indicate a hazardous material spill or release except for the following: • Site 1 — Eagle Trucking (7087 20th Avenue, Centerville, MN) was identified on the leak database. The identified leak (ID 13133) 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. • Site 15 — Clearwater Creek Convenience Center (7090 21st Avenue South, Lino Lakes, MN) was identified on the leak database. The identified leak (ID 13380) was discovered in 2000, consisted of gasoline type unknown, did not impact groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2003. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com • Site 16 — Rehbien Properties (6805 20th Avenue South, Centerville, MN) was identified on the leak database. The identified leak (ID 15707) was discovered in 2003, consisted of diesel, did not impact groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2006. • Site 27 — Acton Construction (2209 Phelps Road, Lino Lakes, MN) was identified on the leak and voluntary investigation and cleanup (VIC) databases. The identified leak (ID 1284) was discovered in 1989, consisted of fuel oil 1 & 2 and leaded gasoline, impacted groundwater, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 1992. The site was reportedly entering into the VIC Program (ID VP3340) from 1992 to 1997. Adjoining Property Listings Six (6) database listings were identified on sites adjoining the project area within 500 feet (see Figure 2). Three (3) of the adjoining listings were for small quantity hazardous waste generators, one (1) listing was for a construction stormwater permit, one (1) listing was for a leak, and one (1) listing was for a multiple activity. None of the identified adjoining listings indicate a hazardous material spill or release except for the following: • Site 17 — Mcneely Residence (6687 20th Avenue South, Lino Lakes, MN) was identified on the leak database. The identified leak (ID 15090) was discovered in 2003, consisted of fuel oil 1 & 2, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 2005. Site closure does not mean that the site is free of contamination. • Site 19— Jim Stevens Construction (7007 20th Avenue, Centerville, MN) was identified on the leak database. The identified leak (ID 9694) was discovered in 1996, consisted of diesel and gasoline type unknown, and was issued site closure by the MPCA in 1998. Conclusion Thirty five (35) database listing were identified within the project area and six (6) adjoining listings were identified within 500 feet of the project area. Based on the this review, all identified project area leaks (Sites 1, 15, 16, and 27) and adjoining leak/VIC listings (Sites 17 and 19) pose a contamination risk if future redevelopment involves excavation in the vicinity of these sites. Prior to redevelopment in the vicinity of the identified leak/VIC sites, it is recommended that subsurface environmental investigations be conducted to determine if contaminated soil and/or groundwater will need to be managed during redevelopment. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 763-231-4854 or rspencer@wsbeng.com. Enclosures: Figure 1 — Project Location Map Figure 2 — MPCA What's In My Neighborhood Search Result Map I Columbus s� -� Lino Lakes ---------- ei P 114 110 Rice Creek l Rondeau Lake j v r.," or / L PARK 35W'" Peltier r N z y I. 0 Lv 1 � I n I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 C ke o U ran il•Rfin API I_ ;iiACORN CREEK PA I 'K o'■.■� o� ;■ o��..._....d ■uI■+' �r 11I�.„.4i 10. 11 01 ��ift, & MCBRIDE MEMORIAL . ROYAL MEADOWS d [ARK PARK' 111111110 m• . i -- a ,LL■■11 I' ` g Lake =:. ►�_ ■gym T —111 ■■y�� ■:ItE-46.6114,1 �� - i — VII MI/ \ LAURIE EAGLE LAKE ��/�/� li LA1 �7OTTE _ -- LIP IA o MEMOFi!IAL PARK %Mk�■■■■■� .. �� 11 �_� AN TF 4IL TRAIL =i _*-4 _ l Sherman Lake i .lail NM all ---_--_"---------, - 7 S6 illUff We. Now ft PHEASANT HILL__v__n P_K ---------------- �� �_� tIrk714� I Project Buffer - 500 ft I_n.`��. j Project Location • �� 1 Z Miles 0 0.25 0.5 __-_� Municipal Boundary CLEARWATER CREEK P�4RK A C 1 T Y,,,i F WSB ee0 L�L KL & Associates. inc. i Marsh f Peltier r ount Hw 1- MEMEMENOMi. i 11111111r I wi;; 0,744111 1�� 4 �i ���� ���1�a, •11061 1MIN IIg �� �u� �:� mum '%Ii II 1� 111 • Lake 11': ■ . ■ mai n i'111i !rgill' ::::1 mu -W Mk Tfhp..IIi1 io 1. 8p�,nn 1 MNhippo� la SA ill ?err 1111�ee' 1111�� i17u■iiv oh. el ■■■1 'IV° ?_in •• —J-� - �...►G.� ■■■■111■■■■■■ ■■■ 01411 ACTIVITY Goo== u u u Project Buffer - 500 ft Project Location Municipal Boundary1 �I s a • Miles 0.5 WSB & associates. Inc. APPENDIX D: Mitigation Plan Five Year Update Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review WSB Project No. 2029-95 Appendix D MITIGATION PLAN The AUAR Mitigation Plan is outlined below. If mitigation items have been revised or updated, they are noted as such below. 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 Letter of No Wetland Jurisdiction To be Applied for Federal Highway Administration Interchange Access Request To be Applied for State Completed 2005 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Assessment (AUAR) Updated 2010 Updated 2015 Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval To be Applied for 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 Natural Resources Storm Sewer Discharge Permit To be Applied for Water Appropriations Permit To be Applied for Public Waters Work Permit To be Applied for 1 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 Unit of Government Type of Application Status General Permit 97-0005 for Temporary Water Appropriations (need if more than 10,000 gpd of water is appropriated To be applied for, if necessary Minnesota Department of Transportation Use of or Work within MnDOT right of way Drainage Permit To be Applied for To be Applied for Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Approval Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Approval Well Location and Construction Approval To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for Regional Rice Creek Watershed District Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval Stormwater Management Plan Approval Wetland Delineation Boundary Confirmation Drainage Authority Review and Approval — Mn. Stat. Section 103E.227 (impoundments & diversion) and/or Mn. Stat. Section 103E.805 (abandonment proceedings) Certificate of Wetland Exemption To be Applied for To be Applied for To be applied for upon completion of wetland delineation To be applied for To be Applied for Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Connection Approval To be Applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review To be Applied for County Anoka County County Roadway Access Permits Roadway Plan Approval on County Roads To be Applied for To be Applied for 2 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local City of Lino Lakes Site Plan Approval AUAR and Mitigation Plan Approval Planned Unit Development Approval Preliminary Plat Approval Final Plat (multiple) Approval Grading, Excavation and Foundation Permits (multiple) Building Permits (multiple) Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit (multiple) Municipal Water Connection Permit (multiple) Use Permit — Floodplain District City Roadway Access/Crossing Permits Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) To be Applied for Adopted To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for To be Applied for 3 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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. 4 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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 11.9A Added 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 Added 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. 5 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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. 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 6 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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 System Plan. This mitigation measure is ongoing 13.3 As necessary, amend the city's Comprehensive Water System 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 Prepare a Wellhead Protection Plan amendment for new wells and follow the adopted wellhead protection plans for Lino Lakes and Centerville. The City is in the process of updating its Wellhead Protection Plan. Part 1 has been approved by Minnesota Department of Health and Part 2 has been submitted and is pending approval. 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 Added 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 Measure was included in original AUAR within the text. 7 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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. 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 and MPCA, and Rice Creek Watershed District. This mitigation measure is ongoing 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 8 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 16.5 Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, Figure 10-3). This mitigation measure is ongoing ITEM 17. WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF Item No. Mitigation Description Update 17.1 DELETED Work to This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. with project proposers establish a regional stormwater management the Conservation Design Framework Figure 10 3) that system within (CDF, see in to consists of vegetated swales, wet prairies, and wetlands oriented series effectively retard runoff rates, reduce stormwater volume, and enhance water quality. 17.2 DELETED ' .. - - . - • -, -, •• - . This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. . ... ::•:- . . . _• throughout the AUAR through the of stormwater runoff as much as possible site bio infiltration use of swales, rain gardens, and areas. 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 that was added into the AUAR Update 2005. Updated to be inclusive of the current version of the rules. The RCWD rules are intended to meet the goals of the Resource Management Plan -3 that was included in the 2010 AUAR Update. 17.4 DELETED Require to design to This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers stormwater management areas (SMAs) below development support native vegetation and maintain runoff rates at or pre conditions. 17.5 - DELETED Require to design that This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers stormwater management systems can that less than 80% achieve proposed conditions runoff volumes are no and no than 150% greater of existing conditions runoff volumes. 17.6 DELETED Encourage to techniques that incr-ases in total This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers use produce no net to phosphorus content of proposed conditions runoff relative existing conditions 9 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 10 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 runoff. 17.7 DELETED Require to detailed topographic information This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers provide with a interval 1 foot drain tile contour of and mapping. 17.8 DELETED Require to disperse from This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers outflow stormwater management facilities to failure Make to prevent erosion and of outlet structures. attempts flow these locations to flows. simulate sheet at as opposed concentrated 17.9 DELETED Require to development design low This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers use conservation and/or impact development techniques, and ecological stormwater management techniques. 17.10 DELETED Require to limit the impervious This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers amount and connectedness of - - - - ' - . . .. . _ .. .. : , :. , and other infiltration. 17.11 DELETED Require to techniques that This measure has been removed as the RCWD rules supersede this mitigation measure. project proposers use stormwater management infiltration encourage of stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, whenever to the infiltration the possible, maximize potential of site. 10 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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 Added 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. Measure was included in original AUAR within the text. 18.6 Added 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. Measure was included in original AUAR within the text. 11 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 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. 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 - 2015 June 3, 2015 1 CSAH 14 Alternative Analysis Report — July, 2004, SRF Consulting Group, 13 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 21.2.2 Work with appropriate road authorities to reconstruct and provide additional capacity for CSAH 21. 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 (80111 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 • 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 This mitigation measure is ongoing 1 CSAH 14 Alternative Analysis Report — July, 2004, SRF Consulting Group, 13 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 14 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 impacts of a specific development proposal. 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. 14 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 21.12 Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable transportation authorities. This mitigation measure is ongoing ITEM 25. CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 11 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 This mitigation measure is ongoing. 15 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 investigation or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. ITEM 25. UNIQUE FARMLANDS 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 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 16 Mitigation Plan Update - 2015 June 3, 2015 Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor AUAR Update — 2015 Responses to Comments August 17, 2015 Summarized Comment Response Anoka County Transportation Division Traffic analysis section should be updated due to traffic analysis being done in 2005 and construction of new developments and roadway improvements While the traffic study is from 2005, there have not been significant developments in the area and traffic counts have not increased. Most of the infrastructure has been built when warranted. The Comprehensive Plan Update is due in 2018 so additional traffic modeling/review will be done overall for the City at that time. The City does not plan to update the traffic study at this time for the AUAR Update. Mitigation Description for 21.2.3 states that phase one CSAH 114, 35W to I.35E is funded and programmed for construction but the update states that it was completed in 2009 and noted in the 2010 AUAR Update The Mitigation Description is taken directly from the 2005 AUAR and is not updated for the 2015 update. The update column next to the mitigation description contains updated text about the Mitigation Description. The update column reflects the project's current status as of the 2015 update while the Mitigation description reflects the project's status when the AUAR was originally written in 2005. No change has been made to the AUAR. Transportation. 2010 1-35E Corridor Final AUAR report, referenced in 2015 1-35 Corridor AUAR update is not referenced correctly The 2010 Update is on this page http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=581A5670- E592-4178-B9B2-7B0B72922A8E&Type=B BASIC located in the brown box to the right and is linked here http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B92EFCBF5-B800-4B28- AD6A-B8C3B7009FB0%7D/uploads/AUAR_5_year_update.pdf August 17, 2013 Page 1 of 3 City of Hugo Land Use Scenario is most compatible with City of Hugo's 2030 comprehensive plan. Requests that this be further evaluated during upcoming comprehensive planning cycle Comment noted. No change has been made to the AUAR. Lino Lakes will continue to communicate with Hugo and the neighboring cities during the comprehensive planning cycle. Metropolitan Council 1. General Update is complete and accurate. Fits with regional concerns and council has no major issues Comment noted. No change has been made to the AUAR. 2. Land Use Any changes to land use, density, or intensity that deviates from the adopted comprehensive plan require plan update or amendment process independent of AUAR. An update or amendment will require additional Council review This is addressed in Item 27.1 in the Mitigation Plan Update August 17, 2013 Page2of3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments Recommendation that the Natural Heritage Database be re-evaluated due to April 2013 MN update of species status The NHIS database was reviewed on March 2015. Results from this review were included in Appendix B of the 2015 AUAR update DNR encourages the city of continue to require rare species surveys as development moves forward Comment noted. No change has been made to the AUAR. DNR suggests that the document include a stronger treatment of invasive aquatic and terrestrial species and notes that Peltier Lake is document as infested with Eurasian watermilfoil Comment noted. No change has been made to the AUAR. DNR recommends that the AUAR acknowledge the draft plan of the groundwater management areas where the AUAR is located and to have the AUAR reflect draft plan's objects about water conservation, aquifer recharge and quality of recharge water The City will review this plan and take this comment under advisement. No changes to the AUAR have been made. DNR noted that Peltier Lake is classified as Lake of high Biological Significance The original AUAR on Figure 11-1 notes Peltier as High Quality Minnesota Department of Transportation Planning Comments: Any new interchanged proposed must go through review process as described in MnDOT's HPDP If any future interchanges are proposed, it will go through the Interchange Planning review process. August 17, 2013 Page 3of3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Aubrey Fonfara, Recycling Intern MEETING DATE: August 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: Lino Lakes Free Store BACKGROUND In the hierarchy of waste prevention, "reduce" and "reuse" are considered even more important than recycling, as these behaviors prevent the manufacturing and consumption of raw materials. Creating opportunity for reuse within communities preserves non-renewable resources, promotes positive community interaction, and diverts waste from landfills or incinerators. There is sufficient opportunity for material exchange in Lino Lakes, as many items brought to our monthly drop-off days are reusable or repairable. While these items are usually donated to Bridging, Inc., it is also important to create an opportunity for Lino Lakes residents to conveniently reuse unwanted property within their own community. The City of Lino Lakes has considered implementing reuse programs such as "Trash to Treasures" in the past but this idea has not been initiated due to programming costs. ANALYSIS Eureka Recycling currently sponsors a Twin Cities Free Market website [http://twincitiesfreemarket.org/]. According to the site, its purpose is to "divert usable and repairable items from the waste stream" as part of Eureka's zero -waste mission. Using this website, residents from several counties in the metro area can post items they are seeking or items they would like to give away for free. Item categories include appliances, furniture, decorations, home renovation, pet equipment, and recreation. This provides a user friendly platform for Twin Cities residents to browse, network, and communicate — diverting one individual's unwanted property from the waste stream to be reused by someone else. Although anyone can browse the Twin Cities Free Market, Eureka's current model only allows residents to list items if their county has subscribed to the service. Individual municipalities are not allowed to subscribe. Unfortunately, Anoka County is not currently enrolled, preventing Lino Lakes residents from taking full advantage of this service. Environmental Department Staff proposes the City publish a website to help make reuse more convenient and desirable for Lino Lakes residents and to allow them to communicate their needs. A tentative website has already been created to illustrate this idea. It works by allowing residents to submit items they would like to get rid of or to post requests for items they seek, for free. The website emphasizes that it is "not a platform for selling - the purpose... is to divert still usable materials that you might otherwise throw away." The website administrator has full control of the website. Users submit their post through a contact form on the site or by email, which the administrator then uploads to the website if approved. This allows the City to filter out any inappropriate content and to track the weight/volume of material being diverted from the waste stream. The Free Store website would be administrated by the Recycling Intern. In the event of the Intern's absence, another City staff person would be appointed this task until a new Intern is hired. This is an extremely low-cost solution to promote reuse in the Lino Lakes community. A test - website has already been created using Wix.com, which can be operated for free using a prescribed domain name (i.e. http://LinoLakesReuse.wix.com/FreeStore). The City may also choose to pay $5-$10/month for a specific web address and premium features. Community members would be able to use and post on the site at no charge. The City could also choose to sponsor a Facebook page to promote reuse and allow residents to post items and requests; however, this is more difficult to control and may not allow us to track weights to report the amount of reuse happening as a result of our efforts. RECOMMENDATION Environmental Department staff recommend the City sponsor a Lino Lakes Free Store website and/or Facebook page to allow residents to post reusable or repairable items and advertise sought after items. The website and/or Facebook page would be managed by the Recycling Intern. Staff welcomes any comments the board may have concerning this project and requests a proposal be presented to the Lino Lakes City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Samples of the proposed website (website is not yet published) I4jc WM .1SnpW.ms. 4$..41crid....1.1.. a SEM 'WA! WY 1-1.1111fflik Lino Lakes Free Store '1111* HOME %IS AVAILABLE rrEr.1 31IGH51.3Mir A POST RES:WPC:ES (FX And You're LaalcIng What is the Lino Lakes Free Store? _ . .... .. • •;d or that oi•J dv.ter? Duel 1.111 - .- • • .1 1 - • - - - easy& oeusilg 'edu.c4i•E waER s-yAs rfir,wiAni avArA, Fru his Is a spa:e to ot rec you are scarrhine for or .xico,tisc sun-lel/wig yCill ...vole:. RREC. This is nut a piatfiamn for seiiins • pu.e of Iln%ite Lnel iidteridlL. LIatu niel t ye IA.. rt aow. 0;1r Fol LtIc.Ik1 inrtrir: Thio woo r mi et Ed wing 41411:Known.C o.,no 'pour 2M11FmP00E - •- pkr a 1 ot Jac L.hillgy kid early 61 won.. 90 :••• AL K. MUM. LI' I WirirdiM rrl Law CA Lino Lakes Free Store -11111111P HC,dE 1-E'1•T AVAILNELE [TEM 50LIGH- suBmn- A POT RE3URCE5 g Find WhatYaL'reuxildno Submit a Post irm .:r ru, Nania •r,rr En1LJ 1. Your name and run:a... 1. A t111111.0•10_" I....lull or ite-111.A:rel eL L. oL,FiL !tern Marie p f'Arp r ;MAI. !barn INaigl-ri PLEASE NOTE: your post must be approved thy the Rem Dettriplion lino Lakes Free• Stare administrator. This is to prevent plane- of the site and hely the City of Lima Lakes Ite.ep ',Ked or reme ood 11€41.11CL1Orlk. your post will not appear on (ha It until It Is )111(Thio ohs was m'adlod truing VAX.scn. Crorto vow own to...FREE t wIjpi Tti CI 0 5 41 V, 5, ri :.L,SPU1