environmental assessment worksheet (eaw) anton …...sep 09, 2019 · the anton village s...

Anton Village Residential Development September 2019

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) ANTON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

CITY: ST. MICHAEL COUNTY: WRIGHT

Responsible Government Unit (RGU)

City of St. Michael 11800 Town Center Drive NE

Suite 300 St. Michael, MN 55376

www.ci.st-michael.mn.us

September 2019

http://www.ci.st-michael.mn.us/

11800 Town Center Dr. NE St. Michael, MN 55376

Phone: 763-497-2041 www.ci.st-michael.mn.us

Memo To: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board From: Marc Weigle, Community Development Director Date: September 9, 2019 Subject: Anton Village EAW As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), the City of St. Michael is issuing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Anton Village. The public comment period on this EAW begins when the notice is published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on September 16, 2019. A press release and public notice will be published in the Crow River News. Public comments on this EAW will be accepted by the City of St. Michael until 4:30 pm on October 16, 2019. Please contact me at 763-416-7932 or [email protected] with any questions.

http://www.ci.st-michael.mn.us/mailto:[email protected]


i

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1. PROJECT TITLE: ANTON VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT IN ST. MICHAEL, MN ................................ 1

2. PROPOSER: EXCELSIOR GROUP .................................................................................................. 1

3. RGU: CITY OF ST. MICHAEL ........................................................................................................... 1

4. REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 1

5. PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................... 2

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2

7. COVER TYPES ............................................................................................................................... 5

8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED.................................................................................. 5

9. LAND USE ........................................................................................................................................ 6

10. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY/LAND FORMS .................................................................. 8

11. WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 10

12. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES .......................................................... 20

13. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE FEATURES) ....................................................................................................................... 23

14. HISTORIC PROPERTIES ............................................................................................................... 26

15. VISUAL........................................................................................................................................... 27

16. AIR ................................................................................................................................................. 27

17. NOISE............................................................................................................................................. 28

18. TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 28

19. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS..................................................................................... 30

20. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: .................................................................... 32

St. Michael Residential Development September 2019

ii

T A B L E S

Table 1. Parcels within the Project Site for Residential Development .................................................... 3 Table 2. Project Magnitude Data ................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. Land Cover of the Project Site Before and After the Proposed Development .......................... 5 Table 4. Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project ...................................................... 5 Table 5. Soil Classifications on the Project Site ......................................................................................... 9 Table 6. Wetlands and Water Resources ................................................................................................. 11 Table 7. Domestic Water Wells Located Within the Project Area ......................................................... 12 Table 8. Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Wastewater Generation ............................................... 14 Table 9. City of St. Michael Wetland Buffer Strip and Setback Requirements ...................................... 19 Table 10. What’s in My Neighborhood Sites within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site ................................. 21 Table 11. Rare Wildlife and Plant Species Listed for Wright County, Minnesota ................................ 25 Table 12. Traffic Forecast Summary ........................................................................................................ 29

F I G U R E S

Figures • Figure 1: Site Location map • Figure 2: Proposed Concept Plan • Figure 3: Pre-Development Land Cover • Figure 4: Post-Development Land Cover • Figure 5: Prime Farmland • Figure 6: City of St. Michael Zoning Map • Figure 7: City of St. Michael Future Comprehensive Land Use Map • Figure 8: National Wetland Inventory • Figure 9: Public Waters Inventory • Figure 10: Soil Types • Figure 11: Delineated Wetlands • Figure 12: Wells and Geological Hazards • Figure 13: Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Waste

A P P E N D I C E S

Appendix A. Figures Appendix B. Wetland Approvals Appendix C. Minnesota Department of Health Well Index Log Appendix D. MN DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) Review and USFWS IPaC

Review Appendix E. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Database Review Appendix F. SRF Traffic Study


1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. PROJECT TITLE: Anton Village Development in St. Michael, MN 2. Proposer: EXCELSIOR GROUP

Contact person: Paul Thomas Title: Vice President Address: 1660 Highway 100, Suite 400 City, State, ZIP: St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: 952-525-3208 Fax: N/A Email: [email protected]

3. RGU: City of St. Michael Contact person: Marc Weigle Title: Community Development Director Address: 11800 Town Center Drive NE, Ste 300

City, State, ZIP: St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: 763-416-7932 Fax: 763-497-5306 Email: [email protected]

4. REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION: (CHECK ONE)

Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): 4410.4300 Subp 19. Residential Development

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm


2

5. PROJECT LOCATION

County: Wright County City/Township: St. Michael PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE ¼, NW ¼, SE ¼, and SW ¼ of NE ¼ of Section 10, Township 120N, Range 24W

Watershed (81 major watershed scale): #18 - North Fork Crow River GPS Coordinates: 93⁰41’24.66” W, 45⁰13’16.68” N Tax Parcel Number: 114500101200, 114500101400

At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries

(photocopy acceptable); and • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and

post-construction site plan. 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words).

The Anton Village subdivision is proposed on an approximately 159 acre parcel of existing agricultural land in St. Michael, Wright County, Minnesota. The project includes 328 proposed detached single family homes with approximately 0.2 to 0.3 acre lots arranged around stormwater ponds and existing wetlands and ditches. The project will include new roads, trails, a recreational park, stormwater ponds, and the installation of municipal sewer and water systems.

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including

infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.

The Excelsior Group (the project proposer) proposes to develop an approximately 159 acre parcel of agricultural land in the northwestern part of the City of St. Michael, Wright County, Minnesota into detached single-family homes. The project is located at the intersection of 45th Street NE (County Road 119) and Jamison Ave NE (Figure 1). The development will consist of 328 single-family residential homes that will each have approximately 0.2 to 0.3 acre lots (Figure 2). In order to avoid and minimize impacts to the existing wetland features, the homes will be arranged around these natural resources and around constructed stormwater ponds. The development will consist of single family homes, new roads, a recreational park, stormwater ponds, and municipal sewer and water systems. Of the 159 acre site, approximately 94 acres will be developed, and 65 acres will consist of stormwater ponds, existing wetlands and wet ditches, lawn/landscaping, a trail, and a recreational park.


3

The site currently consists of a majority of agricultural lands, including crop fields and a farmstead. In addition to agricultural lands, the site consists of wetlands, lawn/landscaping, a small patch of forested area near the farmstead, and wet ditches that borders the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the project site. The project site is comprised of two parcels which are summarized below (Table 1).

Table 1. Parcels within the Project Site for Residential Development

Parcel ID Parcel Size (Acres)

Current Use Project Details

114500101200 75.44 Agriculture No existing infrastructure 114500101400 84.00 Agriculture Existing farmstead to be

removed The majority of the existing wetland areas and portions of the forested areas around the farmstead will be avoided and preserved per the development plan (Figure 2). The project area currently includes approximately 1.2 acres of disturbed wetland along the northern and southern portions of the project site and about 4 acres (5,742 linear feet) of wet ditch located along the northern, eastern, and southern edges of the site. The wetlands and wet ditch that are avoided will be protected by buffers. Those wetlands that cannot be avoided will be excavated and filled, with mitigation provided through the purchase of wetland replacement credits to be approved by the City. It is estimated that approximately 0.6 acres of the wetlands, including a few areas of wet ditch, will need to be excavated and filled. The acres of impact to water resources in the project area is an estimate that is subject to change based on final design drawings. The development will require mass grading over the agriculture areas and the majority of the lawn/landscaping area in order to properly prepare the site for construction of roads, utilities, residential building pads, and stormwater features. There is an existing farmstead located in the southern portion of the project area on parcel 114500101400. This farmstead will be demolished and removed prior to beginning construction of the project. The current access point to the site is from 45th Street North, where the existing driveway to the farmstead is located. The proposed development will have three access points: one on the south side from 45th Street North, one on the west side from Jamison Ave NE, and one on the east from 49th Street NE. A fourth entrance is proposed on the northeast side when the parcel north of the proposed site (Fieldstone Passage) becomes developed. The main entrance will be located near the current site access (Figure 2). The second entrance will be located off of Jamison Ave NE and will allow residents another point of entry into the residential development. The third entrance from 49th Street NE connects the existing residential development to this proposed development. There is an existing telephone line that runs east/west along the southern project boundary that will not be disturbed by the proposed development. In addition, there is an existing powerline that runs north/south near the eastern project boundary that will not be disturbed by the proposed development.


4

Stormwater will be managed on site through the construction of stormwater ponds, infiltration basins, existing ditches, and storm sewer infrastructure. Wastewater from the residential development will be routed to the Albertville and St. Michael Wastewater Treatment Facilities to be treated. The wastewater system will include a neighborhood-wide sewer collection system to serve the entire development. Water will be supplied to homes through a new connection to the Joint Powers Water Board (JPWB). Development of the project area will involve installation of public and private infrastructure, including streets, trails, municipal water and sanitary sewer, stormwater systems, electrical lines, and telephone poles. The project area will be served by the City of St. Michael fire and police services and by St. Michael-Albertville School District. It is anticipated that the construction of the development will start in the summer of 2020 and be phased over the following 5 to 7 years, depending on market conditions. The number of phases will be determined by market demand and absorption. Infrastructure will be installed at the initiation of each construction phase. In most cases, streets, water main, and sanitary sewer will only be installed to serve the upcoming phase of construction. It may be necessary to initiate stormwater system construction at the start of each construction phase to obtain borrow material, properly treat stormwater, and minimize potential effects of stormwater runoff.

c. Project magnitude:

Table 2. Project Magnitude Data

Total Project Acreage 159 acres Linear project length NA Number and type of residential units 328 (single-family detached) Commercial building area (in square feet) NA Industrial building area (in square feet) NA Institutional building area (in square feet)

NA

Other uses – specify (in square feet) Stormwater ponds: 19 acres Park dedication: 15 acres Wetlands: 1.2 acres

Structure height(s) 20-35 *See Figure 2 in Appendix A

d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.

The project purpose is to fulfill a need to provide more residential housing within the City based on the City of St. Michael’s 2012 Comprehensive Plan.

e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or

likely to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No


5

If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review.

There are no future stages of this development that are planned or likely to occur.

f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.

The project is not a subsequent stage of an earlier project. 7. COVER TYPES: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:

Table 3. Land Cover of the Project Site Before and After the Proposed Development

Land Cover Type Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands 1.2 0.87 Wet Ditches 4 3.7 Cropland 141 0 Lawn/Landscaping 10.7 25.3 Developed/Residential 1.9 74.6 Stormwater Pond 0 17.8 Road Right-of-Way 0 19.5 Recreational Park 0 14.8 Trail 0 1.7 TOTAL 159 159

*See Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix A 8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for

the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.

The permits listed below in Table 4 are the permits required for the proposed project. Table 4. Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project

Unit of Government Types of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Wetland Delineation Concurrence/Jurisdictional Determination

To be applied for, if needed

Section 404 Wetland Permit To be applied for, if needed


6

Unit of Government Types of Application Status State Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Watermain Extension Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Water Appropriation Permit

To be applied for, if needed

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) General Permit To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for

Local Wright County

Access Permit(s) To be applied for Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for

City of St. Michael

EAW Decision To be applied for Grading Permit To be applied for Building Permit To be applied for Municipal Water Connection Permit To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Rezoning To be applied for Concept Plan Approval To be applied for PUD/Plat Approval To be applied for Wetland Boundary/Type Determination To be applied for Wetland Replacement Plan Decision To be applied for

Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19 9. LAND USE

a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including

parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.

The proposed project site is located in a rural area of St. Michael, which is also close to several developing communities including Albertville, Monticello, Otsego, Rogers, and Hanover on the northwest side of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The dominant land use on the project site is agricultural land. In addition, there are wetlands interspersed throughout the landscape and an existing farmstead in the south that has grass lawn interspersed with trees. The land use surrounding the site consists of primarily agricultural land to the north and west of the site and single-family housing to the south


7

and east. The major roads that border the site are Jamison Ave NE to the west and 45th Street NE (County Road 119) to the south. There are three main parks that are within close proximity to the site which include Gutzwiller Park (approximately 0.01 miles south), Maple Woods Park (approximately 0.06 miles east), and the Villas Park (approximately 0.30 miles east). Additionally, there are three trails that are within close proximity including the Meadow Pond Trail directly to the south that follows the single-family residential development to the south (approximately 0.01 miles), a trail that follows 45th Street NE (County Road 119) southeast of the site (approximately 0.50 miles), and a trail that follows Jason Ave NE (County Road 18) northeast of the site (approximately 0.50 miles). Fieldstone Elementary School and STMA High School are located a quarter mile to the north. The entire site is considered prime farmland and/or farmland of statewide importance based on the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (see Figure 5). Further discussion about soils within the project area is provided in Item 10.

ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and

any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.

The current plan the St. Michael City Council adopted is the 2012 Updated Comprehensive Plan that became effective on November 12, 2012. The 2012 plan has undergone revisions and the most updated plan was revised in September 2018. The Comprehensive Plan shows the planned land use for the project site is Low Density Residential (1 to 3 units/acre). Additionally, the Parks, Trails, and Open Space System Plan shows greenway/trail corridor along the east side of the project site.

iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and

scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.

The 2018 City Zoning Map currently indicates that the project site is located in the General Agriculture (A-1) zoning district (Figure 6). According to the 2012 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the future land use of the project site is determined to become Low Density Residential development which is consistent with the project site plans (Figure 7). The site is not located within or immediately adjacent to a shoreland, floodplain, or wild and scenic river, critical area, or agricultural preserve.

b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a

above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.

The proposed project site is compatible with surrounding land uses, zoning, and plans in the developing area of St. Michael. Surrounding land uses include rural residential and


8

agriculture land to the north and west of the project site and large single family residential developments are primarily located to the south and east of the project site. The proposed project is expected to have a density of 2.5 units/acre. As outlined in the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project site will be rezoned as low density residential. The existing undeveloped land surrounding the project site to the west will remain primarily in agriculture. Land use conflicts in this area are not anticipated. The proposed development will incorporate mitigation measures to minimize environmental effects as discussed in the following sections of this EAW.

c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.

The proposed project site will be rezoned from General Agriculture (A-1) to Single Family Residential (R-1). Since land use incompatibility is not anticipated on this project, no land use mitigation measures are proposed.

10. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY/LAND FORMS

a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. The bedrock geology of the site consists of a majority of Eau Claire Formation and Mt. Simon Sandstone. These formations are common across the north central and south central portions of Wright County, MN and consist of fine to very fine grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale and medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone. In the northeastern portion of the project area, there is a small component of Keweenawan Supergroup and Midcontinent Rift Intrusive Supersuite at the boundary of the site that consists largely of sandstone with minor amounts of siltstone and shale (Tipping, 2013). The surficial geology consists of till and generally contains shale, typically composing 30 to 60 percent of very coarse-grained sand fraction (Tipping, 2013). Wright County is located above the Cambrian-Ordovician, Cretaceous aquifer, Crystalline-rock aquifer, and a confining unit. Specifically, the project is located above the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer (Olcott, 1992). Based on the MN DNR County Geologic Atlas program, there were no karst features or sinkholes identified within the project area. Well records from the MDH County Well Index indicate that one domestic well is located within the project site near the existing farmstead. This well was drilled to a depth of 141 feet and had a static water level of 35 feet below the land surface. This well is discussed further under Item 11.a.ii. There are no limitations or effects the project could have on these features, and therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.


9

b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey indicates that the project area includes 8 soil mapping units that consist mostly of loams and clay loams with a mixture of hydric and non-hydric soils (Table 5). The soils have varying levels of limitations for single family dwelling units, local roads, and recreational areas that include factors such as depth to saturation zones, slow water movement, shrink-swell potential, ponding, frost action, low strength and dust. The depth to saturation and ponding limitations are often associated with wetlands, which are discussed under Item 11.a.i. The Web Soil Survey indicates that the soils in the area are generally considered moderately susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, as indicated by K factors that range between 0.24 to 0.32. There is only one small soil area, Nessel loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, in the southeast corner that has higher susceptibility to erosion with a K factor of 0.37. The grading operations during construction is expected to affect approximately 159 acres and will involve the movement of approximately 700,000 cubic yards of soil to construct new roads, building residential pads, stormwater ponds, and the residential park. Construction grading is expected to avoid disturbance of three wetlands, which cover approximately 0.9 acres of the project area, some existing trees, which cover about 2.5 acres of the project area, and approximately 3.7 acres of wet ditch. This area will be predominately maintained in its existing condition.

Table 5. Soil Classifications on the Project Site

Symbol Soil Name

% of Project

Area % Hydric Hydric

Category Farmland Category

1094B

Angus-Cordova complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 55 35

Predominately non-hydric

All areas are prime farmland

1408B

Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1 5



1901B

Angus Le-Sueur complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes 9 10



1156 Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 24 95

Predominately hydric

Prime farmland if drained


10

Symbol Soil Name

% of Project

Area % Hydric Hydric

Category Farmland Category

114

Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6 100 Hydric

Prime farmland if drained

539 Klossner muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 2 100 Hydric

Farmland of statewide importance

106C2

Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 1 2


Farmland of statewide importance

235 Nessel loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1 10



Topography in the project area ranges from 938 to 970 feet above sea level with the majority of the contours ranging from 950 to 960. Review of the two-foot contour mapping shows that the highest elevation occurs within the central portion of the project area and the lowest areas generally occur near the existing wetland and wet ditch features. Review of the two-foot LiDAR contour mapping and soils mapping does not classify any parts of the site as having slope of 12% of more

The development of the area will disturb more than one acre of land and therefore will require application for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prior to initiation of earthwork. In compliance with the General NPDES Permit for construction activities, the project proponent and construction contractor will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sedimentation and stabilize exposed soils after construction. Erosion and sediment control BMPs related to stormwater runoff are discussed in greater detail within Item 11.b.ii.

NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.

11. WATER RESOURCES

a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial

ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the


11

current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.

The project area includes five wetlands that comprise approximately 1.2 acres of wetland located along the northern and southern portions of the project site and 5,742 linear feet (4.6 acres) of ditch located on the northern, eastern, and southern edge of the site. The wetlands were delineated by Alliant Engineering on May 2, 2019 (Table 6, Figure 11). The northern wetland (Wetland 1) corresponds to National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping and is mapped in hydric soil. The southwestern wetland (Wetland 2) and the wetland located at the northwest corner of the farmstead lawn (Wetland 5) is mapped in hydric soil, and the two other southern wetlands (Wetland 3 and 4) that exist around the farmstead are mapped in partially hydric soil (Figure 8 and Figure 10, Table 6). There are no listed or mapped trout streams/lakes, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or outstanding resource value waters in or near the project area. The delineated wetland boundaries have been approved by the City of St. Michael, which administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the project area, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) concurrence letter is pending. The wetland boundary approval is included in Appendix B. The ditch that borders the eastern edge of the site corresponds to Wright County Ditch 9 and the four other ditches on site are unnamed. The site does not include any MN DNR public waters, public waters wetlands, or public watercourses. The MPCA impaired waters listed one impaired water approximately 0.83 miles southeast from the project site boundary. This impaired water, Regal Creek, is located southeast of the project site. Table 6. Wetlands and Water Resources

Map ID Acres /Linear Feet Onsite1

Classification Dominant Vegetation Circ. 39 Cowardin

Eggers and Reed

Wetland 1 0.19 Type 2 PEMB Fresh (wet)

meadow Reed canary grass









WD-01 1.47 (2,288 LF) Ditch Ditch Ditch

Excavated channel, water and some reed canary grass

WD-02 2.11 (2,020 LF) Ditch Ditch Ditch Excavated channel, water

WD-03 0.16 (357 LF) Ditch Ditch Ditch Excavated channel, reed canary grass


12

Map ID Acres /Linear Feet Onsite1

Classification Dominant Vegetation Circ. 39 Cowardin

Eggers and Reed



1Wetlands are in acres and the ditch is in acres/linear feet. These areas and lengths are approximations. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project

is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.

The depth to groundwater varies across the project area. In general, the surficial groundwater was found to be 1 to 2 feet in the wetlands and ditch areas and did not occur within a foot in the upland areas. The depth to static groundwater level according to the domestic well on site is 35 feet (Table 7, Appendix C).

Municipal water service for the project area is provided by the Joint Powers Water Board (JPWD) of Albertville-Hanover-St. Michael. The JPWB drift aquifer well field is located in the City of Albertville, about 1.2 miles east of the project area. The JPWB wellhead protection area overlaps with the northeast portion of the project area and the project area falls within the Drinking Water Supply Management Area vulnerability zone for the well field. The Drinking Water Supply Vulnerability for this site is moderate meaning that the likelihood for a potential contaminant source within the drinking water supply management area to contaminate the public water supply well is moderate for the project site. According to the MDH’s Well Index, the project area includes one registered domestic groundwater well located near the farmstead in the southern portion of the project area. In order to mitigate for potential groundwater contamination, this well will be sealed and removed using the MDH regulations prior to the development of the area. In addition, there are eight wells that are located within 0.5 miles of the project area, seven of which are domestic and one of which is used for irrigation (Figure 12). For further details on the wells within and near the project area, see Table 7 below. Within the project area, there are no new wells that are proposed to be installed.

Table 7. Domestic Water Wells Located Within the Project Area

Well No.

Surface Elevation

(ft) Use Depth (ft)

Cased Depth

(ft)

Depth to Static Water

Level (ft) Aquifer Within Project Area?

647354 954 Domestic 145 141 35 Quaternary

buried Yes


buried No, 0.5 miles

outside


13

Well No.

Surface Elevation

(ft) Use Depth (ft)

Cased Depth

(ft)

Depth to Static Water

Level (ft) Aquifer Within Project Area?



outside



outside



outside



outside

719404 936 Irrigation 155 105 25 Quaternary


outside



outside



outside

* Data was taken from the MDH’s Well Index (https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/)

b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and

composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any

pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.

The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater that is typical of residential developments. The project will not include any industrial wastewater production and there will be no onsite wastewater treatment. The sanitary wastewater production coming from the project was estimated using the methods described in the Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual (Metropolitan Council, 2019). The Metropolitan Council has established that the maximum potential daily wastewater flow from an individual property is defined as 274 gallons per day (GPD). Based on this definition, this residential development is anticipated to generate approximately 90,694 gallons of wastewater per day. As shown in Table 8, the St. Michael and Albertville wastewater treatment plants have accounted for the increase in wastewater to their facilities and have factored in surplus capacities for the continued growth of the area. Wastewater from the project area will be treated at the City of St. Michael and Albertville facilities. The project proponent will need to coordinate sanitary sewer routing, capacities, and flow rates with both municipalities.


14

Table 8. Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Wastewater Generation1

Facility2 Total Capacity

Average Flow Current Surplus Capacity

Predicated Generation

St. Michael 2.44 1.07 0.45 0.063 Albertville 0.93 0.52 0.41 0.063 1Numbers are in millions of gallons per day (MGD) 2St. Michael numbers based on 2019 data, Albertville numbers based on 2018 data. Wastewater will flow approximately 2.2 miles northeast towards the City of Albertville wastewater treatment facility and 1.85 miles southeast to the City of St. Michael wastewater treatment facility. The City of Albertville wastewater facility uses an activated sludge treatment system and discharges to Mud Lake. The wastewater facility has recently proposed a project to construct a 5.5 mile discharge pipe to convey treated water to a point on the Mississippi River north of the City of Otsego which would eliminate the discharge into Mud Lake. The City of St. Michael wastewater facility uses an activated sludge process for secondary treatment and reed beds for solids handling. After it goes through the treatment process, the water discharges to the Crow River. The existing sanitary sewer systems of Albertville and St. Michael are limited in some locations by their depths and capacities. The proposed project is expected to be served by gravity sewers. Depending on the onsite sanitary sewer system timing, configuration, and depth, the project might include excavation of one or more deep ponds and creation of higher elevations that allow the site to be served by gravity-flow sewers. Since the City of St. Michael and City of Albertville have planned for the anticipated increase in sanitary wastewater flows, the proposed project is not expected to require expansion of wastewater treatment infrastructure and will not raise any wastewater treatment capacity concerns. Therefore, there are no additional wastewater treatment mitigation measures proposed.

2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system.

The wastewater from the project site will not be discharged to a subsurface sewage treatment system.

3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.

Wastewater from the proposed project will be treated at the City of Albertville and St. Michael’s Wastewater Treatment Facility and then sent through activated sludge and reed bed treatment before discharging into Mud Lake (City of Albertville) and the Crow River (City of St. Michael). According to the MPCA, Mud Lake is listed as an impaired water. In addition, the Crow River is listed as a delisted impaired waterbody which indicates that the


15

river was previously listed as impaired but now the river meets water quality standards. The wastewater facility meets the discharge criteria set forth in the City’s MPCA NPDES permit, and the City has anticipated the increase in sanitary wastewater flows as a result of continued development.

ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior

to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.

Pre-Construction Site Runoff The existing runoff from the project area likely contains sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, and other nutrients from the existing agriculture land. The majority of the runoff drains into the existing wetlands and ditches on the northern, eastern, and southern areas of the project site and some of the water drains into the wetland in the southwest corner of the property. This runoff then drains through a series of ditches and wetlands approximately 0.8 miles from the site’s boundary south to Regal Creek. Regal Creek then flows east approximately 2 miles until it reaches the Crow River. Post-Construction Site Runoff The land use in the project development will change from agricultural to residential use. Therefore, the land use is expected to have mixed effects on runoff rates and water quality. During construction, there will likely be an increase in runoff from suspended solids, heavy metals, and oil/grease. After construction, the runoff from the residential site will be typical of suburban development with the increase in impervious surfaces and maintained lawn/landscape areas. Therefore, the runoff from the site will be slightly degraded due to the increase in roadways, roofs, driveways, maintained lawns, and vehicular traffic. Although it is anticipated that there will be an increase in urban runoff pollutants and an increase in the volume of runoff leaving the site during stormwater events, it is anticipated that the constructed stormwater ponds and basins will aide in limiting the increase in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport. Therefore, the stormwater ponds and basins will help mitigate potential adverse effects resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces and added pollutants. The project will increase approximately 19 acres of stormwater ponds and basins that are in compliance with the City of St. Michael Surface Water Management and Stormwater Systems Ordinance and Engineering requirements (Figure 2) (City of St. Michael, 2017). This ordinance requires that the stormwater ponds be designed to meet NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program) standards. Temporary sediment basins and stormwater discharged


16

during construction will follow the guidelines laid out in the MPCA General Construction Permit for Construction Activity.

Stormwater and Erosion Control BMPs Prior to construction, the project proponent will be required to submit an application to the MPCA for coverage under the NPDES/SDS General Permit since the project will involve the disturbance of more than one acre of land. In addition, the City of St. Michael will review and accept these plans prior to the start of construction. Best management practices (BMPs) will be installed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading into stormwater runoff. To ensure that the BMPs are effectively reducing erosion and sediment loading, the BMPs will be inspected once a week or within 24 hours after each rainfall event that exceeds 0.5 inches. The BMPs that will be implemented on the construction site include:

• Installation of silt fence and other perimeter controls prior to initiation of earthwork and maintenance of these controls until ground cover has been established on exposed areas.

• Construction of temporary sediment basins in areas proposed for stormwater ponds. The development of these basins for permanent use will follow construction.

• Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce tracking of dirt onto public streets.

• Stabilization of exposed soils within the time limits specified in the General NPDES permit

• Inlet protection around any stormwater inlets on site • Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls • Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed

surface soils after final grading. With the installation of construction BMPs, potential adverse effects from construction-related sediment and erosion on the surrounding water quality in the area will be reduced.

iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or

groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.

Surface/Groundwater Appropriations and Dewatering The project is expected to require dewatering and groundwater appropriation to facilitate the installation of sanitary sewer and excavation of one or more deep ponds, but the project will not involve the installation of new wells. The project area includes one existing domestic water well that currently serves the residence located in the southern part of the


17

project area. This well will be sealed and removed in accordance with the MDH regulations prior to construction. The development of the project area will require a MN DNR water appropriation permit if dewatering required for installation of utilities exceeds 10,000 galloons/day or 1 million gallons/year. If construction dewatering does not exceed 50 million gallons in total and a duration of one year from the start of pumping, the project proponent is eligible for coverage under the amended MN DNR General Permit 1997-0005 for temporary water appropriations. Even though the extent and duration of construction is not currently known, construction dewatering is expected to be unnecessary or temporary. Groundwater appropriated for construction dewatering will be discharged to temporary sediment basins within the project area. It is not anticipated that construction dewatering will be extensive or continue long enough to affect nearby domestic water wells. Well Abandonment As mentioned in Section 11.a.ii., the Minnesota County Well Index indicated that there was one domestic well located in the southern part of the project area near the existing farmstead. In order to mitigate for potential groundwater contamination, this well will be sealed and removed using the MDH regulations prior to the development of the area.

Connection to a Public Water Supply System The City of St. Michael draws its public water supply from the Ironton and Galesville aquifer as well as drift aquifers. These ground water sources have historically provided ample water supply to the growing area. St. Michael’s municipal water supply and treatment is managed by the Joint Powers Water Board (JPWB) which serves as the municipal water utility for the Cities of St. Michael, Albertville, and Hanover (City of St. Michael, 2012). The JPWB currently maintains eight wells, ranging from 221 to 504 feet deep, in the vicinity of the water treatment plant located in Albertville (JPWB, 2017). Seven of these wells are production wells and one of these wells is an aquifer storage and recovery well. The production wells have a total well capacity of 14.616 million gallons per day, and a combined permitted capacity to appropriate 850 million gallons of groundwater per year. The proposed project has surplus capacity to serve the proposed project. The City of St. Michael maintains and manages the water distribution system and treatment coming from JPWB. The JPWB established a Wellhead Protection Plan that explains land use policies that protect these wells against potential underground or surface pollution dangers (City of St. Michael, 2012). In order to plan for future development, the JPWB has proposed to add additional wells within their well field areas. Reserve water supplies are also provided for emergency backup needs and provide extra capacity during peak usage periods. The City of St. Michael has two water towers and understands the need to plan for an additional number of water towers to satisfy the growing needs of the city.


18

iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland

features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.

Wetlands within the project area and the City of St. Michael are generally regulated by the City of St. Michael and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City of St. Michael administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates wetlands through Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). As mentioned in Item 11.a.i., the project area includes five wetlands and five ditches, which are identified in Figure 11. The ditch that flows into the northeastern corner side of the project area and continues south corresponds to Wright County Ditch 9. The other four ditches in the project area are unnamed. Within the project area, there are no MN DNR public waters, public waters wetlands, or public watercourses. Buffers Wetland and water resource buffers are required under the St. Michael City Ordinances (155.340) and Minnesota’s Buffer Law. The City of St. Michael’s Wetland Systems District Ordinance evaluates wetlands in regards to their function ratings based on the results of the MnRAM (Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functions) analyses. The project proponent will coordinate with the City to complete MnRAM analyses and assign management classifications to existing wetlands. Based on the MnRAM results, wetlands are assigned classifications that range from exceptional to low quality. Based on wetland functions such as wildlife habitat structure, and vegetation diversity, management classifications of the wetlands in the project area are likely low. The dominance of reed canary grass in the wetlands limits the vegetation ranking component of the MnRAM score sheet. The City of St. Michael Wetland Systems District Ordinance requires wetland buffers and setbacks as summarized in Table 8 and Minnesota’s Buffer Law requires a 16.5 foot minimum buffer width for Wright County Ditch 9. The City requires monumentation where lot lines cross wetland buffer strips and performance bonds to assure that construction complies with these standards. Precise wetland buffer locations will be determined during preliminary and final design phases. Easements and covenants will be recorded over wetlands and wetland buffers so that property owners are aware of their presence and protected status.


19

Table 9. City of St. Michael Wetland Buffer Strip and Setback Requirements

Requirement (FT)

Management Classification Exceptional

Quality High

Quality Moderate

Quality Low

Quality Wetland Buffer Strip (Min.

Width) of Vegetation 20 20 10 10 Structure Setback from Buffer Strip

Principle 30 30 30 30 Deck 15 15 15 15

Total Buffer and Setback

Principle 50 50 40 40 Deck 35 35 25 25

*Table taken from City of St. Michael Ordinance 155.344 Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks

Physical Effects and Alterations

Based on the concept plan and wetland delineation, it is anticipated that the construction of the development may result in up to 0.6 acres of wetland, including portions of a few wet ditches, impacted. The use of wetland buffers may allow the avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts in certain locations. If the project will impact jurisdictional wetlands, the project proponent will be required to demonstrate compliance with the WCA and Section 404 sequencing process by evaluating site design alternatives and avoiding and minimizing effects on wetlands. In addition, the project proponent will also be required to implement BMPs or other management practices that help reduce and eliminate wetland impacts over time. Wetland impacts will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated by:

• Avoiding approximately 70% of the delineated jurisdictional wetland and wet ditch acreage in the project area.

• Aligning roadways to avoid wetlands wherever practicable • Setting residential lots back from wetlands wherever practicable • Implementing sedimentation and water quality protection BMPs to reduce

and eliminate secondary wetland impacts over time • Treating stormwater from impervious surfaces to remove sediment and

nutrients prior to discharging into wetlands • Defining upland buffers adjacent to wetlands, seeding disturbed buffers with

native vegetation, and making wetland buffers with monuments to protect wetlands in compliance with the City of St. Michael Wetland Systems Ordinance.

• Provide compensatory wetland mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland impacts and replace wetland functions


20

Compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same major watershed, county, and bank service area as wetland impacts, if practical. Compensatory mitigation will most likely be purchased from an existing wetland bank that is recognized by the permitting authorities. b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to

surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.

The proposed project is not expected to affect other surface water features such as lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, or county/judicial ditches.

12. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES

a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.

The project area has been used as cropland and a feedlot since at least the 1930s. The site is not known to include environmental hazards and the agricultural and feedlot land use history suggest a low potential for environmental contamination. From the MPCA’s “What’s in my Neighborhood” (WIMN) search, one feedlot registration exists within the proposed property. The feedlot registration is associated with the Steve Berning Farm who is the current landowner of the project area. Within 0.5 miles of the proposed project site, there are nine sites that include five construction stormwater permits, two registered feedlots, one underground storage tank site, and one small quantity hazardous waste location. The five construction stormwater permits are associated with existing residential development projects that border the proposed project and a proposed residential development directly north of the project site. The two registered feedlots refer to livestock confined on neighboring farms. The underground storage tank includes a 10,000-gallon fuel oil tank at the St. Michael Albertville Elementary School. The hazardous waste located at a residential home in the Royal Meadows neighborhood includes a very small quantity generator that produces 220 pounds or less of hazardous waste, and less than 2.2


21

pounds of acute hazardous waste per month. Information on the MPCA’s website indicates that these sites have been properly investigated and managed. Therefore, these sites are not expected to affect the project area.

Table 10. What’s in My Neighborhood Sites within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site

Number Type Name Status Within Project

Area?

3974 Construction stormwater Royal Meadows Inactive No, 0.5 miles outside

6232 Construction stormwater

Maple Ridge Estates 3rd Addition Inactive No, 0.5 miles outside

7432 Construction stormwater

Maple Ridge Estates 2nd Addition Active No, 0.5 miles outside

55077 Feedlot Steve Berning Farm Active Yes

55079 Feedlot Norman John Arns

Farm Active No, 0.5 miles outside

55226 Feedlot Marvin Company

Farm Active No, 0.5 miles outside

190494 Underground tanks

St. Michael Albertville

Elementary School Active No, 0.5 miles outside

140714 Construction stormwater 45th Street NE Trail Active No, 0.5 miles outside

228446 Construction stormwater Fieldstone Passage Active No, 0.5 miles outside

228510

Hazardous waste, very small quantity

generator Got it Covered LLC Active No, 0.5 miles outside Source: MPCA’s “What’s in My Neighborhood” Database https://pca-gis02.pca.state.mn.us/wimn2/index.html

b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.

The construction activities will generate waste typical of residential development operations. The construction process and the proposed residential development is not anticipated to generate substantial solid or hazardous waste. During construction, the construction contractor will be required to dispose of waste generated at the site using approved methods and facilities. The contractor will minimize and mitigate adverse effects from solid waste generation and storage by recycling construction waste to the extent that’s practical


22

After the residential development construction is complete, solid waste generation will be typical of residential and commercial developments. The majority of the solid waste generated is expected to include organics, paper, plastic, and other unclassified waste (Burns & McDonnell, 2013). The proposed project area is expected to generate approximately 1,208.12 tons of solid waste per year after full development. This estimate is based on 3.23 persons per household, as indicated in the City of St. Michael 2017 census data, and 1.3 tons of solid waste generation per capita per year, as indicated in the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan for 2016-2036 (MPCA, 2017). The residents of the City of St. Michael contract with commercial solid waste haulers that pick up waste and truck it to nearby disposal facilities such as the Rolling Hills Landfill in Buffalo, the Elk River Landfill, or the Elk River Energy Recovery Station. In addition, the City of St. Michael has a curbside recycling program for paper, plastic, glass, and metal. The participation in the recycling program by future residents of the project area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal and to help mitigate adverse effects of solid waste.

c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials

used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.

The development of the project area is not expected to use or require storage of substantial amounts of hazardous wastes or materials. The proposed residential development is expected to result in the storage and/or generation of small amounts of household cleaners, paints, lubricants, and small engine fuels over time. There will not be any petroleum storage tanks located on the project site.

d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.

The project is expected to generate typical construction-related waste and small amounts of household hazardous waste. Hazardous materials such as fuel for construction equipment and materials used in the home construction (paint, adhesives, stains, contaminated rags, herbicides, and pesticides) will likely be used during site preparation and home construction. Contractors and builders will be responsible for proper management and disposal of wastes generated during construction and homeowners will be responsible for management and disposal of household hazardous wastes after development. Although substantial spills are not expected, should any occur, this may prompt the notification of the Minnesota Duty Officer. By properly managing hazardous wastes on the construction site during construction and properly


23

disposing of household hazardous waste, contractors and homeowners can avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects posed by hazardous waste.

13. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE FEATURES) Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.

The project area falls within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province of the MN DNR Ecological Classification System and the North Central Hardwoods Big Woods Level IV Ecoregion of the U.S. EPA (MN DNR, 2000, U.S. EPA, 2007). This region is generally defined by rolling plains that consist mostly of row crops with pasture, suburban development, and some lakes interspersed throughout the landscape. In the pre-settlement era, the region was covered extensively by hardwood forests (U.S. EPA, 2007). The fish and wildlife resources that are within or near the project site are related to the composition, quality, size, and connectivity of the plant communities such as woodlands, grasslands, wetlands, and cultivated crops. The plant community cover types were mapped based on aerial imagery and the wetland delineation. The existing cover types in the project area include approximately 141 acres of cropland, 1.2 acres of wetlands, 4 acres of wet ditch, and 11 acres of lawn/landscaping (Figure 3). Since the majority of the project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of decades of agriculture production and is surrounded by fragmented habitat, the project site offers little suitable habitat for wildlife species. The majority of the wetlands delineated in the project area are dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The two wet ditches that enter the project area in the north are dominated by reed canary grass and their banks are interspersed with staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis). The three southern wet ditches are surrounded by reed canary grass and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). The lawn surrounding the farmstead includes smooth brome (Bromus inermis), quakgrass (Elymus repens), Kentucky bluegrass, and reed canary grass. The tree species surrounding the farmstead included a mixture of living and dead/decaying trees. The dominant tree species include basswood (Tilia americana), American elm (Ulmus americana), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, common wildlife species adapted to agricultural and suburban environments, such as white-tailed deer, songbirds, small mammals, and amphibians, are likely to occur within the project site.


24

a. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,

native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _____________) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.

State The MN DNR ran a query of their Natural Heritage Inventory System (NHIS) to assess whether known locations of rare plant, animal species, or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project site (Appendix D). Based on the query, the MN DNR found that only one rare species, the Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), occurred within a one-mile radius of the project area. The Blanding’s turtle is a state threatened reptile that needs both wetland and upland habitats in order to complete its lifecycle. Wetlands areas such as ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches as well as slow-moving streams provide necessary habitat during the winter and during drought periods. For nesting, the turtle needs open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands and frequently use undeveloped land to nest (MN DNR, 2008).

Federal

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online tool was used to obtain information on federally listed threatened and endangered species in the project area (USFWS, 2019). The only federally listed species that occurs within the project area is the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). In addition, no critical habitats are listed to occur throughout the project area. The northern long-eared bat hibernates in caves and mines during the winter and spends the summer roosting in cavities and crevices of both live trees and snags (dead trees). At dusk, the bats usually fly through the understory of forested areas and feed on a variety of insect species (USFWS, 2015). As of April 1, 2018, Minnesota DNR does not show documented maternity roost trees or hibernacula entrances of northern long-eared bats occurring within the project or within the immediate project vicinity (MN DNR & USFWS, 2018). Although the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) did not show up in the IPaC results as occurring in the project site, the USFWS range map for the bumble bee shows that the project site occurs within a low potential zone for bumble bee dispersion. The low potential zone considers the maximum dispersal potential of the species to occur from high potential zone sites. The rusty patched bumble bee occupies grasslands and tallgrass prairie areas and feeds on a variety of flowering plants throughout the spring to fall until it goes into hibernation in the winter (USFWS, 2018a). The USFWS species profile indicates that the nearest high potential habitat the bumble bee occupies is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the proposed project site. This high potential zone is located in the Three Rivers Park District Crow Hassan Park Reserve (USFWS, 2018b).


25

Table 11. Rare Wildlife and Plant Species Listed for Wright County, Minnesota

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Key Habitats

Potential Suitable Habitat Federal1

State2 (Rank3)

Mammals

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis LT

Forests during spring and summer, caves and mines during winter N

Insects

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis LE

Grasslands with flowering plants, underground and abandoned rodent cavities, clumps of grass above ground, undisturbed soil N

Reptiles Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii N/A S2 (T)

Wetlands and sandy upland areas N

1 Federal Status Codes: LE = Listed Endangered; LT = Listed Threatened 2 State Status Code: T = Listed Threatened 3 State Rank: S2 = Rare and Imperiled 4Habitat Codes: N = No, no records of species within study area and no suitable habitat is present

b. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species.

The project is expected to convert approximately 141 acres of cropland and 0.6 acres of wetlands, including a few wet ditches, to residential development that includes roads, homes, maintained lawns, landscaping, and stormwater ponds. During construction, the mobile wildlife present on the project site would likely disperse to adjacent and/or similar habitat. However, less mobile species may likely experience more adverse effects from construction. Once construction is completed, the project will likely displace those wildlife species that depend on agricultural cropland for food, however, it will increase open water habitat and lawn/landscaped habitat for wildlife species that may increase those certain types of wildlife (e.g. waterfowl species) to the project area. Those species dependent on the wetland habitats present throughout the site will likely not be affected since the majority of the existing wetlands will be left in place. In addition to common wildlife species, the development of the project area is not expected to have a substantial effect on rare species and sensitive natural environments. Field investigations revealed that the project site does not include any caves. In addition, existing trees surrounding the farmstead on site may possibly provide suitable habitat or suitable foraging conditions for the northern long-eared bat since several of trees were dead/decaying.


26

While there is potential for the northern long-eared bat to occur on the project site, no known roost trees or hibernacula are shown to occur within the project area (MnDNR & USFWS, 2019). Since the majority of the site occurs in agriculture production and is heavily disturbed, it is unlikely that the rusty patched bumble bee would occur within the project area. Due to the disturbed land use and the dominance of clay loam and loam soils on the project site, it is unlikely that the Blanding’s turtle exists on the project site. In addition, the wetland and drainage features on site are small in acreage and degraded due to years of agriculture production, thus they do not provide substantial habitat for the Blanding’s turtle. Although the construction of the residential development is expected to slightly increase the potential for the spread of invasive and weedy species, the majority of the project area has been disturbed by agriculture production for several years and already contains several invasive and weedy species. BMPs consisting of erosion control measures, listed under Item 11.b.ii., will be installed on the project site during construction to control invasive species and weeds to the extent practicable. After construction and grading are complete, the exposed soil will be planted with approved, non-invasive seed mixes designed to establish desirable vegetation in order to mitigate the risk of invasive species.

c. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,

wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.

Measures taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources include the preservation and creation of wetlands and wet ditches, buffers, stormwater ponds, lawn/landscaping, and trees covering approximately 50 acres. Since some trees surrounding the existing farmstead are to be removed as part of the development plan, the site will be evaluated for potential bat roost suitability and the trees will be removed in accordance with established USFWS guidelines. This guidance requires tree removal to occur only from November to March when migratory songbirds and bats are not nesting or reproducing. Although some trees will be removed as a result of this project, there will be a number of trees that are preserved and planted that will provide habitat to migratory songbird or bat species that may have originally been displaced during construction.

14. HISTORIC PROPERTIES Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted to determine if any known historic and cultural resources exist within the project area. The report generated by the SHPO (Appendix E) from the search of the Minnesota Historic Structures and Archaeological Inventory indicated that there are no archaeological sites within or near the proposed project site.


27

Since no historic or cultural resources were found within or immediately adjacent to the project site, the project is not anticipated to impact any historic or cultural properties. If historic and/or cultural resources are found on site during construction, the SHPO will be contacted immediately and the artifact will be left in place until it is dealt with by the appropriate personnel.

15. VISUAL

Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. There are no scenic views or vistas within or near the proposed project site, and substantial effects on visual resources are not anticipated in conjunction with the development of the project area. This proposed project area will be consistent and compatible with other established low density residential land uses in the area, and therefore the development is expected to result in routine effects on visual resources. The development will add lighting to the area with the establishment of street lights and residential lighting that currently has limited artificial light. However, this artificial lighting will not cause intense glare on the surrounding developments and roadways. Mitigation measures will include landscaping the project site and creating and/or maintaining vegetation buffers.

16. AIR

a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.

The proposed development does not include heavy industrial facilities or stationary sources of air emissions. Therefore, there will not be any stationary source emission effects resulting from the proposed development.

b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.

Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.

There will be an increase in traffic both during and after construction of the residential development which will lead to a relatively small corresponding increase in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other vehicle-related air emissions. However, the project development is expected to have a negligible effect on the air quality in the surrounding area based on the site and type of low intensity residential development. Therefore, the project will not include baseline air monitoring, predictive air quality modeling, or measures to mitigate air quality impacts.


28

c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust

and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.

The construction of the development is not expected to generate dust or odors at levels that exceed those normally emitted during a typical suburban and development construction. Dust and odors produced during construction are expected to be consistent with applicable regulations of the MPCA and local governments. Construction BMPs will be used including the watering of dry, exposed soils to reduce dust in the surrounding area and maintaining construction entrances and exits to limit the tracking of soil onto the local roadway. The construction machinery on the site will be properly maintained to reduce odors such as exhaust from the diesel and gasoline powered machinery. Therefore, impacts from dust and odors during construction are anticipated to be minimal.

17. NOISE

Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.

During construction it is anticipated that local noise levels will temporarily increase, but the noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels after construction is complete. The noise levels on and adjacent to the project area will vary considerably during the construction process. Factors affecting the noise levels include the amount of construction that occurs simultaneously, time of operation, and distance between construction equipment and receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project area include the City of St. Michael Elementary School to the north, residential developments to the east and south, and rural residential developments and agriculture lands to the west. The noise generated by construction equipment and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours when noise levels are commonly higher.

18. TRANSPORTATION

a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.


29

SRF Consulting completed a Traffic Study to estimate the trips generated by the proposed residential development and evaluate the potential need for transportation or roadway improvements. The complete Traffic Study is included in Appendix E. Existing and Proposed Parking Spaces The project area does not include any parking stalls for the concept plan. The proposed 328 single-family lot homes will include off-street par