Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-12-20 PACKET 06.1.
STAFF REPORT CASE: M2021-077 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 12/20/21 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 1/19/21 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Pulte Homes REQUEST: An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for development of land guided Transition Area, which is generally located at the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course site. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE: South of 103rd Street and North of the Mississippi River R-1, Rural Residential Transitional Planning Area LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED NORTH: Rural Residential Medium Density Res. EAST: Rural Residential Trans. Planning Area SOUTH: Mississippi River Mississippi River WEST: Agricultural Parks/Open Space SIZE: Approximately 165 Acres DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION Receive comments on the Mississippi Dunes Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Cottage Grove COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION � here Pride and Prosperity Meet Planning Staff Contact: Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; 651-458-2874; eschmitz(o-)_cottagegrovemn.gov Application Accepted:. N/A 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Mississippi Dunes EAW — Case EAW2021-077 December 20, 2021 Proposal Pulte Homes has submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a pro- posed residential development to be called Mississippi Landing on 164 acres of land located south of 103rd Street and north of the Mississippi River. The proposed development includes 499 units, including 369 single family detached units and 130 senior units in a multi -family building. The EAW is attached as Exhibit A. Development Location Map Background 4 Palle Dunes Concept Plan State Statutes require residential developments within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) with 250 unattached units or greater to prepare an EAW prior to development. The pur- pose of the mandatory EAW is to determine if the preparation of an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) is necessary. The environmental review must be complete before the City may issue any permits for the project (MN Statutes 116D.04. Subd. 2b and MN Rules 4410.3100, Subpart 1). The applicant has not Planning Staff Report Mississippi Dunes EAW —Case EAW2021-077 December 16, 2021 Page 2 of 5 filed any land development applications at this time, and there has been no permitted activity or other activities occurring on the site. Any future development applications will be processed through the normal development procedures. The Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules is attached as Exhibit B. The City of Cottage Grove has the greatest authority over the project as a whole. As a result, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) assigned to the Mississippi Dunes EAW. Swanson Haskamp Consulting was hired by the applicant to prepare the EAW. The City hired Bolton & Menk, Inc. to review the information submitted by the applicant and to distribute the EAW. The draft EAW must be published with the Environmental Quality Board for a 30-day public review and comment period. The Mississippi Dunes EAW document was published on November 30, 2021, and distributed to relevant governmental agencies at that time. The official comment period for the Mississippi Dunes EAW ends December 30, 2021. After the official comment period closes, the comments, including those provided at the public hearing, will be collated by category and relevancy by Bolton & Menk. The City will make a determination on the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement within 30 days of the close of the comment period. The record of decision will include the responses to comments. This action is currently scheduled for the January 19, 2022, City Council meeting, although the City may postpone action for an addi- tional 30 days if it determines further information is needed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PROCESS 30 CALENDAR DAYS —. R EAW PREPARATION - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - 111R.- RGU Proposer RGU pro-mptty reviews Data submittal RGU RGU completes RGU distributes EAW RGU determines submits EAW's submittal for complete notifies EAW and to distribution list issues EAW is completed data completeness; returns to proposer approves it for press necessary portions to RGU proposer f incomplete IIF distribution release PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EIS WEED DECISION Notice published in EPP Monitor 30-day RGU decides if project 30 calendar day RGU distributes Notice published in EQ8 7 to 21 days after receipt of EALV, comment needs EIS, prepares judicial appeal notice of Monitor 7 to 21 days 30-day comment period begins period findings of fad; and period beings decision after receipt of decision ends responds to comments con rinuer7 i CALENDAR DAYS . DAYS TO 30 . •YS* 7 TO 21 CALENDAR DAYS u Crrvr lwa it depending osv RGI EAW Content The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information about the potential environmental impacts of a project. It is not a process to approve or deny a project. The information included in the EAW has two functions: 1) to determine if additional environmental review is needed; and 2) to indicate how the project can be modified to lessen any potential environmental impacts. Planning Staff Report Mississippi Dunes EAW —Case EAW2021-077 December 16, 2021 Page 3 of 5 The EAW form is a standard form including 20 items to be addressed. As noted by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), not all items or questions may be applicable to a given project. Below is a brief description of the items included in an EAW. Project Information Items 1-5 included general project information, such as the project title, proposer, RGU, reason for the EAW, and project location. Project Description Item 6 requires a detailed project description. The EQB guidance notes this is one of the most important components of the EAW and must completely and accurately describe the project. This section includes details about the project area and the proposed development of the site. It iden- tifies project area improvements, including transportation and utilities. Finally, this section de- scribes the anticipated schedule of construction and development, as well as other stages of the project. Item 7 requires a description of the land cover types both before and after development. Land cover includes wetlands, forests/woodlands, brush/grassland, lawn/landscaping, open space/ natural area, stormwater ponds, and impervious surface. Item 8 is an inclusive list of all the permits required for this development and the status of those permits. Item 9 provides a detailed description of both existing and future land use on the site. This section also discusses the zoning on the site and the project's consistency with the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan. The section notes this project requires an amendment to the Comprehen- sive Plan to include the project area in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and to allow urban densities. Specific Environmental Impacts Items 10-18 address the specific impacts of the projects in several categories. Item 10 provides a description and basic understanding of the geology, soils, and topography on the site. Much of this information is used in other sections of the EAW to understand potential environmental impacts. Item 11, Water Resources, addresses the water -related aspects of the project. This section in- cludes a description of the surface and groundwater features on the site. It provides a detailed explanation of the effects of the project and mitigation strategies for wastewater, stormwater man- agement, water appropriation, public water supply, and surface water. Item 12 addresses contamination, solid waste, hazardous materials and hazardous wastes for existing conditions, and project -generated wastes. Because this is a residential project served by public sewer and water, it is expected to generate standard household hazardous waste. Item 13 is divided into four sections. The first two sections are meant to describe fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources within or in close proximity to the site. The third section is meant to provide a discussion on how the project will affect these features. The Planning Staff Report Mississippi Dunes EAW —Case EAW2021-077 December 16, 2021 Page 4 of 5 fourth section is meant for identification of measures or mitigations that have been incorporated into the project to avoid or minimize effects to these features. The Minnesota Department of Nat- ural Resources (DNR) prepared a Natural Heritage Review letter (NHIS) forthis project. The NHIS identified several rare species within a one -mile radius of the project site. As a result, the applicant will work with the DNR to develop a plan and an ecological survey to determine which, if any, of the identified species are located on the specific project sites. At that time, the developer will be required to identify specific mitigation measures, including construction timing and practices, use of pesticides, and other practices. Item 14: Historic properties are addressed in this section of the EAW. The Minnesota State His- toric Preservation Office (MNSHPO) identified the William Cowan/Herb Fritz house, located in the northeast portion of the project area, as a historic structure. The proposed project does not dam- age or demolish this structure. The city commissioned New History to complete a historical eval- uation of this structure (see Exhibit C). This report concluded the structure is associated with the history of Cottage Grove as a rural, agricultural community, and is an example of limestone build- ing construction. The structure has experienced several alterations since its construction, which may impact its integrity. Item 15 addresses the visual impact of the project on scenic views or vistas. This site is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA) and must comply with the MRCCA overlay requirements. Item 16: Air quality impacts are described in Item 16. This item addresses stationary source emis- sions, vehicle emissions, and dust/odors. There are no industrial uses proposed on the site that will generate stationary source emissions. Vehicle emissions are expected to increase as a result of the increase in passenger vehicle trips. Dust and odors associated with construction will likely occur. The applicant proposes to mitigate these impacts with watering trucks and other manage- ment practices. Item 17 is intended to describe any major noise, including information on their levels (dBA) and hours of duration. Existing noise on this site is generated by the BNSF railroad, which borders this site and generates significant noise from the 37 trips per day. The site is also within the MSP Flyway, which generates considerable noise several times throughout the day. Noise generated by this project will primarily occur during construction of the project. The applicant must comply with the Cottage Grove City Code limiting construction hours. Item 18 requires the EAW to provide a reasonable estimate of the impacts on transportation and traffic associated with the proposed project. The EAW includes a traffic impact study which esti- mates the number of trips generated by the project and the potential need for improvements. The report estimates this project will generate 3,953 average daily trips. The report also studied the existing conditions on nearby roadways and analyzed the impact of the additional trips on these roads. The study concluded all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, so no improvements are suggested. Cumulative Potential Impacts Item 19 of the EAW form requires an analysis of impacts that are not only those of the project under review but also other projects that could contribute similar effects. The EAW notes the City's Planning Staff Report Mississippi Dunes EAW —Case EAW2021-077 December 16, 2021 Page 5 of 5 2040 Comprehensive Plan has planned for residential growth in and adjacent to this site. The Comprehensive Plan identified this area as part of the 2030-2040 phasing for the extension of municipal services. Other Potential Environmental Effects Item 20 is intended to address any additional environmental impacts not addressed in previous items. The EAW notes this project will increase greenhouse gas emissions as a result of devel- opment. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice was mailed to 31 properties within 500 feet and published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on December 8, 2021. Planning Commission Action Minnesota Rules require a 30-day comment period on an EAW. During the 30-day comment period, anyone may review and comment on the EAW. All comments must be submitted in writing, unless the RGU chooses to hold an optional public meeting. The City of Cottage Grove has elected to hold this public hearing to receive comments about the EAW. The Planning Commission's role is to provide a forum for the public to make verbal com- ments on the contents of the EAW. The comments will be compiled in the Planning Commission minutes and responses to the comments will be included in the final record of decision. The Plan- ning Commission is not required to respond to any comments or to take any action on the EAW. The City Council is responsible for making a final determination on the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The EAW is not the final action on this potential project. Once specific development applications are submitted, the Planning Commission will conduct at least one public hearing on that develop- ment application and will be responsible for providing a recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by Jane Kansier, AICP Bolton and Menk Senior Planner Emily Schmitz City of Cottage Grove Senior Planner Attachments - Exhibit A = Mississippi Dunes EAW Exhibit B = Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Exhibit C = New History Historical Evaluation of 10301 Grey Cloud Trail Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota November 22 , 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Project: Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Location: City of Cottage Grove, MN November 22, 2021 Table of Contents 1. Project title: Former Mississippi Dunes golf course.................................................................... 3 2. Proposer: Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC................................................................................. 3 3. RGU:....................................................................................................................................... 3 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one): ............................................................................ 3 5. Project Location: ..................................................................................................................... 4 6. Project Description: ................................................................................................................. 5 Table 1: Dunes Project Existing Parcel Areas...................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Dunes Development Summary Yield and Description........................................................... 7 Table 3: Anticipated Project Schedule Summary................................................................................. 8 Table4: Project Magnitude..................................................................................................................... 9 7. Cover types: ........................................................................................................................... 10 Table5: Cover Type..............................................................................................................................10 8. Permits and approvals required: ............................................................................................ 11 Table 6: Required Permits and Status.................................................................................................11 9. Land use: ............................................................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Dunes Project Parcel Zoning.................................................................................................14 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: ........................................................................... 15 Table 8: NRCS Soil Classifications; Dunes Project Parcels..............................................................16 11. Water resources: .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 9: PWI in Proximity to Project....................................................................................................18 July 2013 version Table 10: Estimated Sanitary Sewer Flow Rates (SAC).....................................................................19 Table 11: Estimated Water Supply - GPD........................................................................................... 22 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:....................................................................... 24 Table12: Estimated Municipal Waste.................................................................................................. 24 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):......... 26 Table 13: NHIS Rare Species or Significant Natural Features within -1 Mile of Project Area ........ 27 14. Historic properties: ................................................................................................................ 31 15. Visual:....................................................................................................................................31 16. Air: ......................................................................................................................................... 31 17. Noise......................................................................................................................................32 18. Transportation........................................................................................................................33 20. Other potential environmental effects:.................................................................................. 36 RGUCERTIFICATION............................................................................................................... 36 Attachments Appendix A: Figures Figure 1: Project Location in Washington County Figure 2: USGS Topography Map Figure 3: Project Parcels Figure 4: Mississippi Dunes Master Plan, City of Cottage Grove Figure 5: Concept Sketch Plan Figure 6: Existing Conditions Figure 7: Zoning Map with MRCCA & FEMA Floodplain Figure 8: Existing Land Use/Future Land Use Figure 9: Existing Water Trail & Planned Regional Park Figure 10: Planned Regional Park & Transportation Trail, City of Cottage Grove Figure 11: What's in My Neighborhood (MPCA) Figure 12: Soil Classification (MRCS) Figure 13: Well Site Locations (MDH) Figure 14: Karst Site Locations Figure 15: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System Appendix B: Agency Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Impact Study (TIS) 11-22-2021 2 July 2013 version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board's website at: 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 Former Mississippi Dunes golf course 2. Proposer Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC Contact person: Paul Heuer Title: Director of Land Planning and Entitlement Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC ("Pulte") Address: 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670 City, State, ZIP: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952.229.0722 Fax: N/A Email: paul.heuer@pultegroup.com 3. RGU Contact person: Emily Schmitz Title: Senior Planner City of Cottage Grove Address: 12800 Ravine Parkway South City, State, ZIP: Cottage Grove, MN, 55016 Phone: 651.458.2800 Fax: N/A Email: eschmitz@cottagegrovemn.gov 4. Reason for EAW Preparation (check one) Required: ❑ EIS Scoping ✓ Mandatory EAW Discretionary: ❑ Citizen petition ❑ RGU discretion ❑ Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): EAW, Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 19. Residential Development. 11-22-2021 3 July 2013 version 5. Project Location County: Washington County City/Township: City of Cottage Grove PLS Location (1/4, 1/4, Section, Township, Range): (NE, NE, 31, 27, 21) & (E, 30, 27, 21) GPS Coordinates: 44.796561,-92.971227 Watershed (81 major watershed scale): South Washington Watershed Tax Parcel Numbers: See below The Project comprises 11 existing parcels that will be platted and subdivided for redevelopment. Existing Parcels and addresses are provided below. Figures 1 and 2 locate the Project within Washington County and on a USGS topography map. Figure 5 shows the existing conditions of the Project Area. Figure 3 illustrates the Project Area's existing surveyed parcels and identifies parcels within the development Project Area. All Figures are found in Appendix A. Parcel 1: Parcel 7: PID:3002721440001 PID:3002721310014 Existing address: 6511 103rd Street South Existing address: 10477 Grey Cloud Island Trail South Parcel 2: Parcel 8: PID:3002721140001 PID:3002721420001 Existing address: 10351 Grey Cloud Island Trail South Existing address: no address Parcel 3: Parcel 9: PID:3002721130004 PID:3002721420003 Existing address: 6511 103rd Street South Existing address: no address Parcel 4: Parcel 10: PID:3002721130002 PID:3002721430001 Existing address: 10301 Grey Cloud Island Trail South Existing address: 10525 Grey Cloud Trail South Parcel 5: PID:3002721130001 Existing Address: no address Parcel 6: PID:3002721420002 Existing address: no address Parcel 11: PID:3102721110001 Existing address: no address Attachments: Three appendices are attached that support the information and analysis contained in the following Items of this EAW. Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Agency Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Impact Study (TIS) 11-22-2021 4 July 2013 version 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Project is a new neighborhood in Cottage Grove that is planned for a mix of market rate single-family detached homes, senior living opportunities, parks and open space. Located adjacent and north of the Mississippi River corridor, the neighborhood will provide a maximum of 239 new detached single-family homes, 130 age -targeted active 55+ detached townhomes and an approximately 130-unit Senior Living Building. An extensive network of open spaces and trails is planned and will provide public access to the river and the surrounding community. 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. Pulte Homes ("Project Proposer") is proposing the development of the neighborhood in the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota. The Proposed Project ("Project") will redevelop 11 existing parcels into a new residential neighborhood including up to 369 single-family detached lots, 130-attached senior living units and a network of private and public parks and open space. The amount of open space to be included in the area is yet to be determined. Any improvements to publicly dedicated open space will be at the discretion of the governmental organization with ownership of the area and such potential future improvements are outside the scope of this EAW. Located adjacent to the Mississippi River Corridor, the Project Area has been primarily used as a golf course in the recent past. The transition of the land to a residential development will involve mass regrading of the site so that a network of roadways, trails, open space and lots can be constructed to support the new residential subdivision. The Project Area is generally constrained by Grey Cloud Trail S on the northwest, the BNSF Railroad Track on the northeast border and the Mississippi River along the southern border. The Project Area is not connected or contiguous to any nearby development and no further geographic expansion in the future is planned given the physical constraints that bound the Project Area. Some offsite infrastructure will be constructed to serve the property such as sanitary sewer, water main, and realignment of streets. All construction operation methods will be consistent with industry standards. Project Area Development The Project will redevelop the existing Dunes golf course and vacant parcels with a mix of market rate single-family detached homes, detached townhomes for active 55+ seniors, a senior living building, public and private open space, roadways and surface water management ponds. The Project is located on 11 individual parcels that will be replatted as part of the proposed development. The Parcels contained within the Project Area are identified in Table 1 and the portion/acreage of each Parcel contained within the Project 11-22-2021 July 2013 version Area are identified. As noted, the most significant exception is that approximately 38.8-acres of Parcel 2 lying northeast of the BNSF right-of-way will not be developed as part of the Project. There are no known development plans for the exception parcel and the potential timing of any activity or development is unknown. The City guided the parcel for Medium Density Residential in its 2040 Comprehensive Plan which plans for residential development at densities between 5 and 13 units per acre. Table 1: Dunes Project Existing Parcel Areas Parcel 1 3002721440001 6511 103,d Street South 50.7 50.7 Parcel 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3002721140001 10351 Grey Cloud Island Trail South 121.0 82.2 : ................................... Parcel 3 ............................................... 3002721130004 .............................................................................................................. 6511 103rd Street South ................................... ............................................ 4.9 4.9 : ................................... Parcel 4 ............................................... 3002721130002 :.............................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. 10301 Grey Cloud Island Trail South ................................... ............................................ 2.8 2.8 Parcel ............................................... 3002721130001 unaddressed ................................... ............................................ 3.4 <................................... 3.4 Parcel ............................................... 3002721420002 .............................................................................................................. unaddressed ............................................ 5.0 5.0 : ................................... Parcel 7 ............................................... 3002721310014 :.............................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. 10477 Grey Cloud Island Trail South ................................... ............................................ 6.8 6.8 ; ................................... Parcel ............................................... 3002721420001 unaddressed ................................... ............................................ 2.0 1.5 Parcel ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3002721420003 unaddressed .9 <................................... .9 Parcel 10 ............................................... 3002721430001 .............................................................................................................. 10525 Grey Cloud Trail South ............................................ 4.0 4.0 : ................................... Parcel 11 ............................................... 3102721110001 .............................................................................................................. unaddressed ................................... ............................................ 1.8 1.8 TOTAL *Acres are based on Washington County Parcel Data. Concept Sketch Plan (Figure 5) The City has been working to prepare a Master Plan for the subject Parcels and the vision, goals and objectives of that process are required to be addressed with any development of the Subject Parcels (See Figure 4 for Mississippi Dunes Master Plan, City of Cottage Grove). The Project Proposer's Concept Sketch Plan of the Project is attached in Appendix A as Figure 5 and conceptually is consistent with the Master Plan. The Concept Sketch Plan shows a mix of 50-foot detached townhome lots and 60-foot-wide single- family lots connected by a curvilinear road network. Surface water management including ponding and wetland areas are generally located along the BNSF Railroad right-of-way bordering the northeast edge of the site. Approximately 7.7 acres is dedicated to a future senior living building with attached units and is generally bordered by the realignment of Grey Cloud Trail South, Mississippi River Trail and the BNSF Corridor. An extensive open space network surrounds the Project and will include a mix of public and private open space, as well as public parks and trails. A Public Trail is planned around the perimeter of the Project providing connections through the dedicated City Park area abutting the Mississippi River corridor. This trail network is intended to connect users with the Mississippi River Trail and may include a small boat launch and other recreational activities. 11-22-2021 6 July 2013 version Table 2: Dunes Development Summary Yield and Description Senior Living 7.7 Ac 130 units Attached senior living building. Product and design to be determined. Attached Ponding/ Open space, ponding and wetland areas are generally located around open space/ 23.7 Ac. NIA the perimeter/edges of the proposed development area. wetland ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ River Buffer/ NIA The river buffer and park area are adjacent to the Mississippi River Park Area 25.3 Ac. Corridor and meets the MRRCA ordinance standards. ................... ......... ......... .......................................................................................................................................................................... The City park will be publicly dedicated to Cottage Grove and will meet City Park 6.8 Ac. N/A the park dedication requirements. Infrastructure and Project Area Improvements The Project proposes to redevelop a former golf course that comprises approximately 143 acres and adjacent undeveloped land on approximately 17.8 acres. The Parcels are not currently served within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the subject Parcels in the 2040 Staging Area for municipal services. For the Project Area to be developed, the extension of municipal water and sanitary sewer is required. The existing sanitary and water infrastructure are located northeast of the Project Area and will require extensions that are sized adequately to serve the Project and surrounding areas. During the recent decennial 2040 Comprehensive Plan' update the City identified the southwest quadrant of the City as a growth area to accommodate anticipated population and household growth over the next 10-20 year planning period. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a full analysis of the extension of the municipal water supply and sanitary sewer system to this quadrant of the community to ensure the availability of services as development progresses. To serve the Project Area the sanitary sewer must be extended approximately 4,500 feet and the water supply must be extended 600-feet. The Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan (CDWSP) 2 was prepared in 2020 as part of the settlement between the State of Minnesota and 3M regarding PFAS contaminates in the east metro water supply. The City of Cottage Grove is part of that settlement, and a specific action plan was prepared to address the contaminants. As part of the extension of services the City plans to hook up the existing rural residential homes served by private wells along Grey Cloud Trail South to the municipal water supply system. Hooking up these properties and consequently capping the private wells is consistent with the recommendations of The Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies planned MUSA expansion areas. (https://www.cottagegrovemn.gov/200/Comprehensive-Plan) 2 The CDWSP can be accessed at https://3 msettlement. state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Draft_CD W SP_Chapters l _7.pdf 11-22-2021 July 2013 version the Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan (CDWSP) that was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). In addition to water and sanitary sewer extensions, the local road network must be extended and developed within the Project Area. The Dunes will be primarily served by an internal curvilinear road network with a series of cul-de-sacs and loop roads internal to the development. There are two entrance locations on Grey Cloud Trail South, and the north entrance will serve as the primary entrance into the development. As shown on Figure 5 Concept Sketch Plan Grey Cloud Trail South will be realigned on the north edge of the Project Area crossing the northwest corner. The realignment is intended to create a safer access into the Project site and to will eventually upgrade the 103rd Street S corridor to a County Road. Washington County and the City have identified the need to improve east -west connections through the south quarter of the City to ensure road infrastructure is available to support the projected growth and development of this area of the community. Extension of gas, electric, phone, internet and other small utilities will be extended into the Project Area to serve the new homes. The extension of the small utilities is the responsibility of the Project Proposer and will be coordinated with site grading activities and installation of the roadways. Construction and Timing of Site Development Activities The Project is planned to be constructed in four phases. The Project Proposer will work with the City through the Preliminary Plat process to establish the phasing boundaries. Generally, the Project Proposer will develop the site in four phases, and the anticipated activities and schedule are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Anticipated Project Schedule Summary Spring — Full site grading including rough grade of all stormwater management ponds, Phase I Summer 2022 realignment of Grey Cloud Trail South, pull water/sewer utilities from off site, ....................................:....................................................:..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................: begin installation of local roadways to serve new homes. Fall — Winter Phase I will primarily be developed with single-family detached housing (60- 2022 foot) units, detached townhome (50-foot) units, and senior housing. ....................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Phase II 2023 Extension of roadways into Phase II will be completed in the Spring, and a mix ....................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ of 60-foot and 50-foot lots will be available for development. Phase III 2024 Extension of roadways into Phase III will be completed in the Spring, and a mix ....................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ of 60-foot and 50-foot lots will be available for development. Phase IV 2025 Extension of roadways into Phase IV will be completed in the Spring, and a mix ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... of 60-foot and 50-foot lots will be available for development. 11-22-2021 July 2013 version Project magnitude: Table 4: Project Magnitude Total Project Acreage :................................................................................................................................... Linear project length .................................................................................................................................... Number and type of residential units .................................................................................................................................... Commercial building area (in square feet) .................................................................................................................................... Industrial building area (in square feet) :................................................................................................................................... Institutional building area (in square feet) :................................................................................................................................... Other uses — specify (in square feet) .................................................................................................................................... Structure height(s) 164 acres ...:............................................................................................................................................................................: N/A ...:............................................................................................................................................................................. Up to 369 detached single-family homes and 130-unit attached senior living building ...:............................................................................................................................................................................. N/A ........................................................................................................................................................................ . Single-family homes will be up to two stories, and the detached townhomes are anticipated to be single story. The Senior Living Building height is to be determined and will be designed to meet the City's ordinance requirements. ........................................................................................................................................................................ . 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 will provide a diverse mix of housing types within the City and will help meet current and future demand for housing as established within the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It includes 239 60-foot lots intended for market rate detached single-family homes, 130 50-foot lots planned for detached townhomes marketed to active seniors 55+, and a 130-unit senior living building. During the Mississippi Dunes Master Plan process the City identified the land abutting the Mississippi River as an important public amenity that should be protected and accessible. This Project will protect the river frontage for a combination of active and passive park uses, river buffer and extension of the MnDNR Scientific Natural Area (SNA). As shown on the Concept Sketch Plan, approximately 25.3 acres of land will be protected as river buffer/ park, 6.8 acres as City Park, and approximately 12-acres are planned for purchase by the MnDNR. The ultimate plan for the river frontage will be established through land use approval process, but the area is planned to include a network of public trails connecting to a dedicated City Park on the southwestern edge of the Project including the potential for a non -motorized boat launch that provides access to the Mississippi River Trail (See Figure 9 and 10). This Project will meet the City's objectives identified in the Master Plan that includes providing diverse, sustainable housing choices and options while providing protection of important natural resources and amenities along the Mississippi River that are consistent with its MRRCA plan and ordinances. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? ❑ Yes ✓ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. 11-22-2021 July 2013 version The City's adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes the Future Land Use Plan that guides land for planned or anticipated land uses and development. As identified in Item 9 below, the south quarter of the City is within the City's planned growth areas through 2040 and beyond. The Project Area is guided Transitional Planning Area on the Future Land Use Plan which is a land use designation that the City intends to be reguided at the time of development. This is consistent with the process identified for the Project. Undeveloped properties surrounding the Project Area are required to follow the land use guiding identified on the Future Land Use Plan. As the adjacent properties develop, the City will require the preparation of an EAW for any future phase or project that meets the mandatory thresholds or upon valid petition. This EAW covers the full known Project Area currently planned for development in four phases by the Project Proposer. e. 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. N/A 7. Cover types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Table 5: Cover Type Open Spacel Wetlands 8.2 81 0 27.8 Natural Area ........... .........__ Wooded/forest ................ 6.9 ......... 0 Stormwater Pond 2 7.0 .... ............................................................................................................. ........ ......_. Impervious Brush/Grassland 3.8 0 4.4 47.8 surface Lawn/Landscaping 138.7 73.3 ......... ........ .................. .................... TOTAL 164 &lljW 164 ........................... 11-22-2021 10 July 2013 version 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. Table 6: Required Permits and Status State Minnesota Pollution Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System To be applied for Agency (MPCA) (NPDES) Stormwater Construction Permit ............:........................................................... Demolition To be applied for ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Minnesota Department of Health Watermain plan review To be submitted (MDH) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................:...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Supply Connection To be applied for Regional ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Metropolitan Council ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Sanitary Sewer Connection To be applied for ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Local Washington County Road Access Permit and Road Realignment of 103rd To be applied for Street S ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... City of Cottage Grove ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Zoning Amendment To be applied for ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Site Plan To be applied for ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Preliminary Plat To be applied for Final Plat To be applied for ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... SWPPP To be applied for ...............................................................................................:...........................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Wetland Delineation To be applied for ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................... Demolition Permit To be applied for 11-22-2021 11 July 2013 version Sign Permit To be applied for HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical Permits Fire sprinkler and alarm permits To be applied for .........................................................: To be applied for South Washington Watershed Stormwater permit and Wetland Replacement Plan To be applied for District Other BNSF Railroad ROW Permit for infrastructure crossing To be applied for Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGUcan address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAWItem No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EA 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 Project Area has predominantly been used for the Dunes Golf Course for the past several decades. Surrounding the golf course is a mix of rural residential properties and vacant land. Directly west of the project site rural residential lots are accessed from Grey Cloud Trail South. To the north of the site is 103rd Street. Beyond this street lies Bailey's Nursery. South of the BNSF line is the old driving range associated with the golf course and land permanently protected as the Grey Cloud Dunes Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) which is owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). The southern boarder of the site is the Mississippi River channel and Grey Cloud Island which is currently actively mined for aggregate resources. ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (f available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. The Project Area is guided in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan ('2040 Plan") as Transitional Planning Area. The 2040 Plan describes this land use designation as a temporary holding designation and acknowledges that the area will develop with urban services at some time in the future. The 2040 Plan 11-22-2021 12 July 2013 version designates the Project Area within the post-2040 staging area but also acknowledges that the timing of development may be accelerated due to the work of the 3M Settlement Working Group. The 3M Working Group is developing a Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan (CDWSP) to address PFAS contamination in the East Metro. The 2040 Plan states, "One option to address PFAS contamination in rural areas is to extend City water to neighborhoods that have contaminated private wells. Numerous homes along Grey Cloud Trail have private wells that are over the Health Based Values for PFAS... As part of the CDWSP City water could be extended to the homes along Grey Cloud Trail. If this were to take place, City water would also be available to the Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Property, which could change the development staging in this area." Given that the plan is to extend the water supply to this area, the Project is a viable option today rather than the designated post-2040 time period. The planned future land use as Transitional Planning Area requires the Project Area to be re -guided at the time of development, and the requested guiding must 1) be consistent with the City's available Future Land Use designations contained within the 2040 Plan; 2) obtain a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and 3) must meet the goals and expectations of the City as identified in the 2040 Plan. Additionally, the City has been working on the Mississippi Dunes Master Plan ("Master Plan") to provide direction to any reguiding of the subject property (see Figure 4 City of Cottage Grove DRAFT Mississippi Dune Master Plan). Through much of 2021 the City has worked to prepare the conceptual land use plan for the property that includes a mix of low -density residential uses, medium -density residential uses, parks, open space and protected natural resource areas. The Master Plan has been developed with extensive feedback from the public, the MnDNR and other key stakeholders. The draft Master Plan identifies that a minimum of 20-acres be protected along the Mississippi River frontage and that such areas must be accessible to the public. The Master Plan further stipulates that development must plan for the County Road Realignment of 103rd Street South and eventual road and trail connections to the planned Grey Cloud Island Regional Park just south the site across the Grey Cloud Slough (Figure 9 and Figure 10). While the planned Grey Cloud Island Regional Park is not on the Project Site, it will be connected by the Grey Cloud Slough water way that connects non -motorized boaters to the Water Trail and other boat launches within the Mississippi River corridor. As shown in the Concept Sketch Plan, the Project results in approximately 3.3 Dwelling Units per Acre for that portion of the project developed with the 50-foot detached townhomes and 60-foot detached single-family uses, and approximately 16.9 Dwelling Units per Acre for the Senior Living building. The Project Area would be required to be reguided to a mix of Low Density Residential, High Density Residential and Parks/Open Space as part of this process. The City's 2040 Plan and the Master Plan identify the City's top priority for any new development in this area is that the Mississippi River frontage is protected as open space and that the public has access to enjoy the river and its amenities. As shown on the Concept Sketch Plan, the Project is anticipated to protect more than 25 acres for a river buffer, park and open space along the Mississippi River Corridor. The open space corridor will include a network of public trails that will be accessible to the new neighborhood residents and the larger community. The 2040 Plan further establishes a desire to provide a diverse mix of housing types and recognizes the importance of serving not only families, but 11-22-2021 13 July 2013 version seniors given the aging boomer population. As described in the Project Purpose, and as shown on the Concept Sketch Plan, the Project will include a mix of market -rate single-family detached homes, active 55+ detached townhomes, and a senior living building. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The Project Area parcels are currently zoned as identified in Table 7. The full Project Area is continued within an MRCCA Overlay District and is subject to the City's adopted MRCCA ordinance. All parcels contained in the floodplain overlay are planned to be used as park, open space and natural resource protection (see Table 7 and Figure 7.) Table 7: Dunes Project Parcel Zoning Parcel 1 R-1 CA -RN Floodzone - AE 60' lots, 50' lots and River ........... (Rural Residential) ........................................................................................................................................................................:................................................................................... Buffer/Park Mix of 60' lots, 50' lots and R 1 small portion of Senior Living Parcel 2 (Rural Residential) CA -SR :None Building, protected wetland area, open space and ....................................................:................................................................................... stormwater ponds Parcel 3 CA -SR :None Senior Living Building ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................; (Rural Residential) Parcel 4 R-1 CA -SR None Open Space ..........: (Rural Residential) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parcel 5 R-1 CA -SR :None Senior Living Building and (Rural Residential) protected wetland area ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................:...................................................................................; Parcel 6 R-1 CA -SR None 60' lots for single-family ........... (Rural Residential) ........................................................................................................................................................................:................................................................................... detached Parcel 7 R-1 CA -SR :None 60' lots for single-family (Rural Residential) detached : Parcel 8 ......................................................................................................................................................................... R-1 CA -RN None ................................................................................... 60' lots for single-family (Rural Residential) detached ........... Parcel 9 ........................................................................................................................................................................:................................................................................... R-1 CA -RN :None 60' lots for single-family (Rural Residential) detached : Parcel 10 ....................................................... ....... ...................................................... CA -RN ..................................................... Floodzone - AE ................................................................................... City Park, River Buffer/Park (Rural Residential) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parcel 11 CA -RN Floodzone - AE River Buffer/Park ........................................ (Rural Residential) .............................................................. :...................................................... :.................................................... :................................................................................... : 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 Project includes a mix of single-family detached market rate uses, age targeted 55+ detached townhomes, senior living building and an extensive network of open spaces and parks around the perimeter. 11-22-2021 14 July 2013 version As designed, the Project is consistent with adjacent land uses that include single-family uses and protected parks and open spaces. The Project is consistent with the City's 2040 Plan provided that the Project Area is re -guided to allow for the extension of urban services to the Project Area. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. The Project must apply for, and receive, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the Project Area parcels and to include the parcels within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The reguiding must allow for the development of the Project Area with urban densities to be consistent with the future land use designations of Low Density Residential and High Density Residential. 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. A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report3 was prepared by the Project Proposer for the Project Area. The Project Area's proximity to the Mississippi River results in varied geological conditions as the grades increase upslope from the river. The Project Area's previous use as a golf course included extensive grading and filling to create the golf course's bunkers, fairways and greens. The subsurface exploration included 23 test boring locations that were identified across the extents of the existing golf course. Limestone bedrock was generally found across the entire Project Area and was encountered between 7 and 18 feet below the surface. Above the limestone bedrock is a mix of poorly graded sand, silty sand and organic clay. Per the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, the limestone was classified as highly weathered which allowed the auger to penetrate the bedrock a couple feet in most locations. Groundwater was encountered between 2 and 19.5-feet below the surface in eight of the test borings and was not encountered within the depth of the test boring at 15 locations. Groundwater was encountered closest to the surface near the wetland complex on the north end of the site. This indicates that groundwater may impact construction especially for the installation of underground utilities; it is recommended that sump pumps be utilized to temporarily dewater the construction area. The presence of shallow limestone formations near the Mississippi River is expected and should be closely monitored during the construction process. The South Washington Watershed District rules require the Project Proposer to identify areas with active karst and report any known karst features such as sinkholes, springs and caves. There are no know active karst areas on site and Figure 14 identifies known locations of active karst near the Project Area. To prevent impacts to possible karst features, the location of stormwater storage or treatment areas should be 3 The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report was prepared by Braun Intertec on April 8, 2021. 11-22-2021 15 July 2013 version located in areas with adequate separation to the limestone bedrock. Where this is not possible, mitigation should be implemented including pond liners or other methods that create a barrier between standing water and the limestone formations. 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. Table 8 identifies soils found at the Project Area, as determined by the NRCS web soil survey and as contained in the Wetland Delineation Report. (See Figure 12 in Appendix A). The site is relatively flat with some areas of rolling/hilly topography. The site generally slopes downward towards the Mississippi River on the south edge of the Project Area. As shown on Figure 12 NRCS Soil Classification the area mapped as Chaska silt loam (329) is classified as a predominantly hydric soil. The existing wetland complex as well as a significant portion of the stormwater ponding are located within the Chaska silt loam area to minimize potential karst impacts in other areas of the site. All other soils on site are generally classified as nonhydric. Table 8: NRCS Soil Classifications: Dunes 7D Hubbard loamy sand, 12 to 18 percent 13.2 8.0% ......................................................... slopes ....................................................................................... 8B Sparta loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes 79.4 48.1 % 8C Sparta loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes 52.0 31.5% .... 100B Copaston loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 08 0.5% ....... ......... 298 Richwood silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.0 1.2% ........ ......... 301 B .............. ......... ......... ................ Lindstrom silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes ......... ......... ................. ......... 0.0 .............................. ........ ......... ......... 0.0% .................................................. 327 .......................................................... Dickman sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ......... 4.5 ............................... 2.7% 327B Dickman sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 3.2 2.0% 327C .......................................................... ......... Dickman sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes ......... ......... 1.3 ............................... ........ ......... .... 0.8% 329 :.........................................................:...................................................................................................................................:.....................................................:..................................................: Chaska silt loam 8.0 4.9% 488F Brodale flaggy loam, 20 to 50 percent slopes 0.4 0.3% ........ ......... W ......... Water ......... 0.0 ........ ......... . 0.0% Total Area of Interest (A01) 164.9 100.00% As described in the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, the Project Area will need typical subgrade preparation including removal of existing vegetation, topsoil, existing fill, buried topsoil, swamp deposit soil and any soft or loose soils identified as part of the subsurface exploration and evaluation. The estimated cut and fill needed to meet building elevations ranges from approximately 5 to 10 feet from existing grades based on information in the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report. There is an estimated 450,000 11-22-2021 16 July 2013 version cubic yards (CY) of grading and/or excavating for the development of the Project. During the site work, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used as specified within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be developed for the site as a required condition of the NPDES permit. At this time, it is unknown how much soil correction will be required as part of the construction process, but preliminary estimates indicate the cut and fill required on the site will balance out through the grading process. NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EA 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 current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within I mile of the Project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. The Project Area is bound by the Mississippi River on the southern boundary which is a designated as a Minnesota Wild and Scenic River. The river includes a series of connected tributaries, streams, wetlands, and other surface water features. Segments of the waterway are identified on the MPCA 303d Impaired Water List, but Moers Lake, Grey Cloud Channel and Grey Cloud Slough are not listed on the Impaired List which are the waterbodies within 1-mile of the Project Area. The Project Area is connected to the Grey Cloud Channel (part of the riverway) to the northwest of the Project Area by the wetland complex that runs through the northern portion of the Project Area. The wetland complex receives water from the Grey Cloud Chanel as well as runoff from the existing golf course. The Project Proposer prepared a Wetland Delineation Report4 and the South Washington Watershed District issued a Notice of Decision that confirmed approximately 8.2 acres of wetlands ion the Project site. The Mississippi River Corridor is subject to the rules and regulations of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA). These regulations were recently updated and require cities to incorporate a MRCCA Plan into their 2040 Comprehensive Plan that includes the requirement to implement an ordinance supporting the MRCCA Plan. The City of Cottage Grove is in the process of updating its MRCCA ordinance and the Project will be subject to the ordinance at time of land use application and permitting. Figure 7: Zoning Map with MRCCA & FEMA Floodplain show the portion of the Project Area subject to the additional standards and regulations. As shown on Figure 5 Concept Sketch Plan, the Project Proposer will protect and preserve the full river frontage inclusive of the MRCCA overlay for 4Wetland Delineation report was prepared by Westwood and is dated June 25, 2021. 11-22-2021 17 July 2013 version open space, natural resources and park uses consistent with the ordinance requirements. Within a mile of the Project Area there are 3 Public Waterbodies. The associated PWI numbers and names (if applicable) are provided in the table below: Table 9: PWI in Proximitv to Grey Cloud Slough................................................................. Surface Water Body 19-5..P........................................... Mooers Surface Water Body 19-5 P .........................................................................: U.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool (aka Grey Cloud Channel) Surface Water Body 19-5 P .............................................. ................. ......................................................... As described in subsection b.ii. of this item, the Project will be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include all additional stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharges to impaired waters since the runoff from the Project Area ultimately drains to the Mississippi River which includes segments on the 303d impaired list. To ensure protection of the receiving water and to meet the City's ordinance requirements, the stormwater management plan will be developed to meet standards for rate control, water quantity, and water quality. 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 Geotechnical Evaluation Report included 23 test borings in which eight encountered groundwater between 2 feet near the existing wetland complex, and 19.5-feet below ground at the center of the Project Area. Depending on final engineering and grading plans, in areas where the existing geography and relatively shallow depth to groundwater impacts the buildability of a lot, the homes will be constructed with either slab -on -grade or shallow basements where possible. The Project Area is not located in a wellhead protection area. Based on MDH records, there are two existing wells within the Project Area, and the Phase I ESA5 conducted by the Project Proposers indicated that there may be four wells, three of which have potable water supply. There is an irrigation well located on the golf course which was used for maintenance and management of the greens and fairways, and a well that was used for the clubhouse operations. (See Figure 13 Well Site Locations) As previously referenced, the MPCA and MnDNR prepared the Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan for communities in the east metro affected by the contaminates. Cottage Grove's groundwater was affected by the 3M PFAS contamination, and therefore has been actively participating in the 3M Settlement Working Group. An outcome of that Working Group is the objective to hook residential users up to the municipal water supply, including existing rural residential properties with private wells abutting Grey Cloud Trail S. 'Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Braun Intertec and is dated April 21, 2021. 11-22-2021 18 July 2013 version At the time of development and when the individual homes along Grey Cloud Trail S are hooked up to the municipal water supply, the private wells will be capped according to MDH standards and regulations. 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. 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 will connect to the regional sanitary sewer system. As stated in Chapter 7 of the City's Water Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the Project Area is located within the City's S-3, S-4 and S-5 sewersheds which were planned for extension of services. The connection will eventually flow and connect with the Cottage Grove Wastewater Treatment Facility located on the south edge of the City near the Mississippi River. The Cottage Grove Wastewater Treatment Facility is part of the regional system managed by the Metropolitan Council. The Project Area will require a Comprehensive Amendment to amend the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to allow for the extension of the system into the Project area. Since the Project Area was planned for contiguous expansion post-2040, the City did not include the projected flows within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While the proposed timing of development has accelerated, the City planned for the Project Area and adjacent area to be served within the MUSA. The estimated increase in wastewater flow was calculated utilizing the Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual 2017, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The following table provides estimated flows based upon the Concept Sketch Plan attached in Figure 5. Table 10: Estimated Sanitary Sewer Flow Rates (SAC) 11-22-2021 19 July 2013 version The wastewater generated from the Project will not need to be pretreated prior to entering the system and will be conveyed by a gravity sanitary sewer system to the Metropolitan Council's Interceptor trunk line where it will eventually be discharged to the Metropolitan Plant in Cottage Grove. The wastewater flows from the development of the Project have been accounted for in the Metropolitan Council's long-term trunk sewer and treatment plant capacities. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. There are no SSTS proposed as part of the Project. 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. The Project will not discharge wastewater to a surface water body. 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 runofffrom 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. Existing Conditions The existing conditions and uses on the Project Area include a golf course, single-family residential, and vacantlundeveloped land. Golf course operations typically heavily irrigate and apply fertilizers that include phosphorus and nitrogen to achieve high maintenance standards. In storm events where runoff exceeds infiltration capability, runoff likely enters the wetland complex that crosses the northern edge of the golf course, into small surface water ponds (water hazards) and the Mississippi River on the southern edge of the Project Area. Post Construction Conditions The redevelopment of the golf course for single-family residential, senior living and open space uses will be required to meet all stormwater management rules and regulations of the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and the City of Cottage Grove. A summary of the City's ordinance requirements for rate control, water quality treatment and volume control are provided: 11-22-2021 20 July 2013 version Rate Control: Peak flow rates after development shall not exceed pre -development peak flow rates for the critical 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year recurrence interval precipitation events. The Project site is located within the Southwest Subwatershed (SW -Al 7, SW -Al 8, SW-A19 and SW-A20). Three existing ponds are installed within the area identified as SW- P17, SW-P18, and SW-P19. The City Surface Water Management Plan requires rate restrictions for sub watersheds SW -Al 7, SW -Al 8, SW -Al 9 so that proposed conditions peak outflow rates not to exceed 0.4 cfs/acre and 33 cfs combined. Water Quality: The City requires that new development projects include BMPs that at a minimum achieve post -development reductions in TP and TSS by 50% and 80%, respectively. Watershed rules call for a TP loading rate of 0.22 lbs./acre/year or existing loading rates, whichever is less, since the project site drains to the Mississippi River. If on - site BMPs, such as infiltration, are not feasible or sufficient to meet the water quality total phosphorus loading rates, the purchase of off -site mitigation credits is an option. Volume Control: The City requires a uniform volume control treatment equal to 1: of runoff from the net increase in impervious areas. This provision is intended to maintain the annual average existing conditions infiltration capacity of the site. The Project site lies outside of the 10-year Composite Groundwater Capture Zone, so infiltration is allowed by the City unless prohibited by other criteria of the MPCA Stormwater Manual or the Minnesota Department of Health (where precluded by bedrock, depth to groundwater, or other criteria). Where infiltration to fully meet the volume control measure is not desirable or is impossible, an Alternative Sequencing procedure will be applied to achieve compliance. The Project Proposer will use to the maximum extent practical filtration and biofiltration practices, using a clay liner and an underdrain sized to meet the volume control requirement for the site, or use wet sediment basins sized per the standards within the MPCA General Construction Stormwater Permit. If on -site BMP's are not feasible or sufficient to meet the volume control requirements, the purchase of off -site mitigation credits is an option. At a minimum, the developed condition of the Project is required to manage and control rates of stormwater runoff, provide water quality treatment and stormwater volume storage within the Project Area consistent with the ordinance rules established above and the SWWD rules. The stormwater generated onsite due to increased impervious surfaces associated with single-family detached homes, detached townhomes and senior living building, parking, and roadways will be managed through the stormwater infiltration basins constructed as part of the development (see Figure 5 for location). The stormwater system will be designed to manage at least the minimum standards as required through the City's Ordinance and the SWWD permitting process. Further, the transition of the Project Area from a golf course to residential uses will likely result in an improvement of water quality due to reduced fertilizer and pesticide use. A SWPPP must be prepared as part of the NPDES Construction Permit required for the Project. The SWPPP will include all additional stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required above. To ensure protection of the receiving water and to meet the City's ordinance requirements, the stormwater management plan will be developed to meet standards for rate control, quantity and quality as described. During the construction, BMPs must be utilized and will include, but are not limited to: bio-rolls as sediment control along swales, silt fence as down gradient perimeter control, rock entrance and berm to prevent off -site vehicle sediment tracking, inlet protection devices to 11-22-2021 21 July 2013 version prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer system, wood -fiber blanket to prevent erosion along slopes, proper restoration in accordance with MPCA regulations, and a seed mix as directed by the City. Additionally, since the Project is located within a karst area the Project Proposer should use and reference the MPCA's General Stormwater Management Guidelines for Karst Areas.6 A complete list of BMPs will be described in the SWPPP. 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. The Project will be served by the City's municipal water supply. The City recently determined through its Water Conservation Plan' that water demand based on total per capita water use is estimated at approximately 116 gallons per capita per day. Table 11 provides the estimated water supply use based on the unit mix planned for the development. Based on the Metropolitan Council's persons -per -household estimates for senior housing the age -restricted 55+ housing units will have fewer persons per household than the market rate single-family housing units. Single -Family Detached Residential (Market 239 HH 116 2.35 65,151 Rate) ................................................ Single -Family Detached 130 HH 116 2.0 30,160 Residenti.a.l..(55+) ......................................... ................................... ..............., Senior Living Building 130 Units 116 2.0 30,160 Total Maximum 125,471 GPD As discussed in Item 10, the soil borings indicate that groundwater will likely be encountered during construction particularly as infrastructure and utilities are installed. Temporary dewatering will likely be necessary for some of the Project Area construction activities, but it is unclear to what extent based on the significant variation in depth to groundwater across the Project Area. If it is determined at any time that dewatering during construction is approaching or will exceed the regulatory thresholds, the Project Proposer will be required to obtain all necessary permits. 6 https://stormwater.pca. state. mn.use/index.php/Karst ' The Water Conservation Plan was adopted in 2016 and can be accessed here: https://www. cottagegrovemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53 7/Water-Conservation-Plan-PDF 11-22-2021 22 July 2013 version 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. As previously noted the Wetland Delineation for the Project Area was completed and Notice of Decision (NOD) issued by the South Washington Watershed District that confirmed approximately 8.2 acres or wetland area (See Figure 5). As shown on the Concept Sketch Plan, the Project Proposer will primarily protect the wetland areas and incorporate them as part of an open space network along the northeast boundary of the Project Area. Two small wetland areas may be impacted depending on the final alignment of the County Road and of the main entrance road into the neighborhood. The road alignments shown on the Concept Plan are designed to meet safety and access space requirements on 103rd Street S and Grey Cloud Trail. Any disturbed wetland or buffer areas will require a mitigation plan that must be approved by the South Washington Watershed District and any other entity with jurisdiction over the wetland mitigation and replacement plan. 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 transition of the Project Area to a residential neighborhood is anticipated to improve how runoff and stormwater is managed on the Project Area. The Project Area is adjacent to the Mississippi River (Grey Cloud Slough) and as shown on the Concept Sketch Plan more than 30 acres will be protected as river buffer and park area. There are no planned changes to the river frontage that will adversely impact this surface water. No grading work or other site alterations are proposed to impact adjacent, nearby or existing surface waters except as noted in (a) above. 11-22-2021 23 July 2013 version 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 groundwater 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. A query of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) "What's in my Neighborhood" data search identified the following within proximity or on the Project site: • Potential hazardous waste location on the Project parcels (Figure 11). It is assumed that this reference is regarding the storage of some fertilizers and other maintenance substances used as part of the golf course operations. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reported that fertilizers and other substances were observed on site, but that there was no evidence of any leaking or spillage. All of these materials will be properly removed and disposed of prior to any site work commencing for the subject Project. One stormwater site on Parcel 2 (on the portion with the exemption) 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 Project is a residential development and should primarily generate municipal solid waste and household hazardous waste. The Seven -County Waste Coordinating Board estimates municipal solid waste generation of approximately 1.8 pounds per person per day. The following analysis provides a calculation based on the number of units shown on the Concept Sketch Plan. Single -Family Detached 239 HH 1.8 2.35 1,011 Homes ........... ................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... : Detached Townhomes 130 HH 1.8 2.0 468 Senior Living Building 130 Units 1.8 2.0 468 TOTAL The single-family homes will contract individually for solid waste management and are required to contract with one of the City's licensed haulers. The homeowners' association for the single-family detached 11-22-2021 24 July 2013 version townhomes will contract collectively for solid waste management and are required to participate in recycling services. Management of the Senior Living building will contract with waste services for the whole building. The Project is consistent with existing neighborhoods and services and will not negatively impact or alter the current system. 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. As identified within the description, development of the Project and related site work will be required to adhere to all City, NPDES, and other regulatory permits necessary to complete the work. Storage of hazardous materials on the Project Area during construction will be limited to construction vehicles and machinery. This equipment may be left onsite through the duration of construction depending on phasing and activity, as well as temporary storage tanks, such as for diesel fuel or hydraulic fluids. Construction vehicles, as well as associated storage of their fuels, will be required to follow a spill prevention plan, if required. All demolition shall follow proper protocol for storage and disposal of waste as regulated by the MPCA, if applicable, the City, or any other agency. 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 development process should not create or generate any hazardous waste. During the construction process, compliance with the NPDES permit and the City's ordinances shall be required. The Project Proposer shall follow proper processes and standards for disposal of any toxic or hazardous materials, such as gas, oil, etc., present on the construction site. Once residents are living on the property, generation of household hazardous waste may occur. Washington County provides recycling and disposal of hazardous wastes convenient to Cottage Grove residents at their drop-off location in Woodbury and at various one -day collection events. 11-22-2021 25 July 2013 version 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. Approximately 89% of the Project Area has been used as golf course since the 1990s when it was developed. According to the City's records, development of the golf course in the 1990s included the mass grading of the site that converted the site from its historical use for agricultural production into a manicured landscape that includes a series of greens and fairways, clubhouse and driving range. The use of pesticides and herbicides were used to maintain the heavily manicured condition of the golf course, which likely impacted the quality of habitat. The remaining 11 % of the Project Area has been used for either rural residential use or are considered vacant. This acreage is developed with single-family residential uses or other small-scale buildings, lawns, and pockets of woodlands. As shown on Figure 15: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) the site's coverage is predominantly classified as 5-10% impervious consistent with the golf course use. Small pockets of wooded vegetation including maple basswood and mesic oak are found intermittently throughout the golf course on the south quarter of the Project Area. A small area identified as Tall Grasses is located near the existing rural residential homes but is not identified as native. Plants and wildlife typically found in golf course settings include small mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, deer, birds, etc. Adjacent to the easterly border of the Project Area is the Grey Cloud Dunes Scientific Natural Area (SNA) owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). As shown on Figure 15, the vegetation in the Grey Cloud Dunes SNA has a distinct and different quality of natural vegetation than the Project Area, Figure 15 generally depicts woodland remnants extending onto the Project site in two small areas 1) small finger along the river frontage onto the Project Area; and 2) minimal connections through the wetland areas on the northern portion of the Project site. The Grey Cloud Dunes SNA is approximately 236 acres and includes a mix of land cover and vegetation that is suitable for wildlife, plant communities and sensitive ecological resources. Per the Minnesota DNR's information regarding the Grey Cloud Dunes SNA sightings of the blue racer snake, prairie skink, lark buntings and Henslow's, clay colored, and grasshopper Sparrows are common on the property due to the high -quality vegetation and habitat. The southerly border of the Project Area is the Grey Cloud Slough which is a backwater of the Mississippi River. As stated by the MnDNR a large number of raptors and waterfowl are present moving along the Mississippi River flyway, and slough areas of the river are generally habitat for birds, insects or animals with no vertebrae. 11-22-2021 26 July 2013 version 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-1025) and/or correspondence number (ERDB #20220044) 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. The Natural Heritage Review (NHIS) query identifies rare species or other significant natural features within an approximately one -mile radius of the Project. The following species and identified habitat were provided in a November 19, 2021 response to an early coordination request with the DNR (Appendix B). Table 13: NHIS Rare Species or Significant Natural Features within —1 Mile of Project Area Name Summary of Suitable Habitat; Conservation/Management Description8 Seaside Three -awn Sandy prairies with dry and loose sand; vegetation should remain limited, thrives where dunes Aristida tuberculosa form Hill's Thistle Southern dry prairies; management is fire dependent which means periodic fire is needed to Cirsium pumilum var. hillii maintain habitat condition suitable Louisiana Broomrape Northern dry prairie land; management includes exclusion of motorized vehicles and Orobanche ludoviciana var, ludoviciana maintaining surrounding vegetation Purple Sandgrass Restricted to sand dunes (naturally occurring) or referred to as dry savannas; impacted by Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea significant disturbance such as road construction, digging, trenching, etc. Habitat varies, but generally prefer medium to large rivers and may be found in fast and slow - Various mussels and fish moving portions of the river. Especially vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation. Henslow's Sparrow Uncultivated grasslands and old fields with stalks and substantial litter layer; require specific Ammodramus henslowii maintenance to maintain attractiveness — grasslands cannot be too short or manicured Rusty -patched Bumble Bee Grasslands and tallgrass prairies with pollen from flowers and underground nesting sites Bombus affinis (abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses) and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil); management includes limit pesticide use and chemical fertilizer provide areas that are less manicured with native grasses and (orbs Lark Sparrow Dry grasslands with short and/or sparse grasses (usually native) in areas of sand or gravel Chondestes grammacus soils, with at least some bare ground and patchy trees; native environments are largely gone especially in Metro and prescribed burning of prairie grasses is required to prevent overgrowth North American Racer Forested hillsides, bluff prairies, grasslands, and open woods, woodland margins and field Coluber constrictor edges are preferred; impacted by pesticides and habitat destruction including agricultural activity Leonard's Skipper Dry prairie dominated by mid -height and short gasses, areas of sand and openings in Hesperia leonardus leonardus woodlands, dominated by native plant species; impacted by habitat loss including urbanization Regal Fritillary Spe eria Idalia Loggerhead Shrike Grassy open areas with scattered trees and shrubs such as pastures, prairie patches and Lanius ludovicianus grassy roadsides; management includes minimize use of pesticides, maintain habitats and leave fences/or other perching locations Bell's Vireo Shrub thickets, champs and edges within or bordering open habitats such as grasslands or Vireo bellii wetlands; management includes maintain shrub patches in native prairie, requires prescribed burning a Summary of data from MnDNR. Additional data can be found at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html 11-22-2021 27 July 2013 version In addition to the species and features identified in Table 13, the US Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) Information of Planning and Consultation (IPAC) identifies the Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) as a Threatened Species in the vicinity of the Project Area. The NLEB roosts underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live and dead trees. The Project Area is not located within a township containing any documented NLEB maternity roost trees or hibernacula entrances.9 Additionally, the USFWS IPAC identified the potential for the following species within the Project Area: the Rusty -patched Bumble Bee, the Higgens Eye pearly mussel, the Sheepnose Mussel, the Snuff Box Mussel. The Monarch Butterfly is listed as a candidate species. The Project Area is entirely within a high potential zone of the Rusty -patched Bumble Bee10. See description in Table 13 for summary habitat description. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. The primary existing use of the Project Area for a golf course included heavy pesticide use to manage the manicured greens and fairways. While the conversion of the golf course to residential development will not eliminate the use of pesticides, it will significantly reduce the quantity and frequency of use. While individual homeowners will have their own perspective for landscaping, the Project Proposer will encourage the use of native species as part of their landscaping to include trees, grasses, and pollinator friendly species in its development program. As indicated in (b.) based on the MLCCS data there are limited suitable areas on the Project site where the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities and rare features would be located. As stated in Item 11, the Project development activities must follow all erosion control and stormwater management requirements and will not adversely impact water quality and will not increase siltation. As shown on Figure 5, there is a large buffer area between the site development activities and the river further mitigating any potential impact to water quality. However, there are Project site activities that if not managed properly could negatively impact the surrounding areas with significant natural resource value such as the Grey Cloud SNA and the Mississippi River. The following description of Project site activities is provided to describe how the site development process will be implemented to minimize impact to species and natural features identified in Table 13. The Project will disturb approximately 110 acres of the Project Area and include grading, grubbing, and tree clearing. Proper mitigation as described in subsection (d) will be required during and post -construction. Approximately 30-acres encompassing the Mississippi River frontage that includes a significant portion of the identified Forest area on Figure 15 will remain undisturbed. As described in Table 13, the most significant patch of habitat is in this area and the Proposed Project will protect and leave this area undisturbed. 9 Townships Containing Documented Northern Long -Eared Bat Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula Entrances in Minnesota. DNR and USFS June 7, 2021. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota—nleb township_list_and _map.pdf 10 Rust Patched Bumble Bee Map Available at: https://www. fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html 11-22-2021 28 July 2013 version The Project should not introduce any new invasive species to the Project Area during construction. Site clearing is anticipated to begin in the Spring with mowing and vegetation disturbance occurring prior to the primary growing season which is prior to the active season for the Rusty -patched bumble bee, the Leonard's skipper, Regal fritillary and Monarch butterfly. Post construction the Project will include a landscape and planting plan to revegetate the Project Area with native/non-invasive species that are desirable habitat for several of the species and features identified on Table 13.The Project Proposer will use the BWSR or MnDOT native seed mixes around stormwater features and near open space edges, especially along the shared eastern border of the Grey Cloud SNA in an effort to support the rare species and features within proximity of the site. Given the anticipated schedule, and the Project Proposer's plan to revegetate portions of the site with native seed mixes there is no long-term adverse impacts to the rusty patched bumble bee anticipated because of the Project Construction contractors will be directed to properly manage onsite equipment to ensure development does not spread noxious weeds through construction vehicle traffic. If any invasive species are encountered during the grading/site grubbing process, they will be removed, and proper mitigation implemented to remove them from the Project Area. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. The adjacent Grey Cloud SNA is an area with known high -quality wildlife, plant communities and rare features. Given the adjacency of the Project site to the Grey Cloud SNA, the Project Proposer is working with the City and the MnDNR to properly site the open space corridor to protect the natural resource area and have identified the potential to sell approximately 12-acres of land to the MnDNR. The area identified as important to protecting the natural resources and wildlife in the Grey Cloud SNA would be sold from the Project Proposer to the MnDNR and incorporated as part of the SNA into perpetuity. As shown on the Concept Plan (Figure 5) the Project Proposer has planned for the protection of the full Mississippi River frontage through a connected network of park and open space. These areas will be publicly dedicated to the City as open space, and the City or any regulatory agency with ownership of these areas should protect the significant stands of trees and will consider revegetation efforts that include native species and vegetation that provides supportive habitat to the species identified in Table 13. In addition to publicly dedicated open space, the Project site will be developed to include some private open space that once complete may provide desirable habitat for the species identified. The proposed Senior Building site will include open spaces that will be revegetated and connected to the stormwater and wetland complex on the south portion of this area (See Figure 5). The Project Proposer will be required to follow BMPs during construction which must include adequate erosion control. Given that project development activities are setback more than 300 feet from the river and that BMPs and erosion control are required, there will be minimal -to -no impact to the Slough or its habitat as a result of the Project. The MnDNR provides specific guidance regarding the following species during construction and site development activities. The Project Proposer shall comply with the following mitigation plan: 11-22-2021 29 July 2013 version • The Project Proposer will work with a qualified ecologist to develop a reasonable survey plan proposal acceptable to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) for site review of species and plants identified in the Review letter (Appendix B). The survey plan proposal will address, at a minimum, the appropriate time of year, area, and specific species or plants to survey. The survey plan proposal will be approved by the MnDNR prior to the commencement of the survey work. • If necessary, the Project Proposer may adjust the phasing area of the Project to align with the survey plan proposal once the survey areas are identified and agreed to between the parties. • Once the survey plan proposal is approved by the parties, the Project Proposer's ecologist will complete the survey to determine if any species or plants identified in the approved Survey Plan are present on the Project site. If any rare, threatened or endangered species are identified on site, a mitigation plan will be prepared by the ecologist and agreed to by the MnDNR, Project Proposer and any other regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the mitigation plan. The Project Proposer will not use erosion control blankets that contain plastic mesh netting. • Products used for erosion control will be selected that have biodegradable netting. • The Project Proposer will only use weed -free mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes for restoration of the site. • Stormwater pond areas will be revegetated using native seed mixes (MnDNR or BWSR seed mix are both suitable) to reintroduce habitats supportive of those species identified in Table 13. • Stands of trees, where healthy, will be protected to the extent possible to maintain existing potential habitats. Open Space areas will be left undisturbed to the extent possible, with the most significant site development activity occurring within the existing disturbed area (existing golf course).A review of the US Fish & Wildlife Endangered Species resource was completed and identified the Project site. As indicated previously, there are no known northern long-eared bat hibernacula or maternity roost trees located in the Project Area. The site is in the "High Potential Zone" for the Rust Patched Bumble Bee. The following mitigation will be followed based on the findings: • The Northern Long -Eared Bat fact sheet is provided in Attachment B. Mitigation suggested will be followed to the extent possible if there is any evidence of the NLEB encountered on site. • Heavy pesticide use is associated with depletion of the Rusty Patch Bumble Bee. Conversion from the golf course to a residential use will reduce the use of pesticides in the area. The Project Proposer should consider alternative solutions for homeowners' post -construction. • Native planting around stormwater features on site will introduce plant types that are supportive of the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. • Homeowners will be encouraged to landscape lots using native pollinator -friendly plants that provide additional habitat opportunities on site. 11-22-2021 30 July 2013 version 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. As provided in the attached correspondence dated August 23, 2021 from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, there is one historical structural on the Project Area, the Herb Fritz House located in the northeast portion of the Project Area. The Herb Fritz House is not listed on any local, state, or national historic registry. Regardless, the Project Proposer is not planning to damage or demolish this home. There are several other historical structures and archeological sites in the area but none will be adversely impacted by the Project. (See Appendix B for MNSHPO correspondence). 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. The Project is located within the MRCCA and is subject to the standards and regulations identified in the City's adopted 2040 Plan and the MRCCA overlay zoning standards. There are no scenic views or vistas identified in the MRCCA plan, and the most visible area along the river frontage will be protected as river buffer and park area. There are existing residential neighborhoods near the Project Area that may be impacted by light pollution and construction. Site construction is anticipated to occur during daylight hours, and therefore there is no anticipated glare or intense light that will be generated during the site construction process. Post construction, the Project Area will be developed with uses compatible to surrounding suburban development. All proposed lighting shall be required to follow City regulations for light fixture intensity and design. 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. 11-22-2021 31 July 2013 version There are no industrial or light industrial users or generators of hazardous air pollutants proposed as part of this Project. Vehicle emissions -Describe the effect of the project's tragic 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. The Project will develop a mixed -density residential neighborhood that will generate an increase in carbon monoxide levels due to an increase in passenger vehicle trips to the area beyond the existing golf course use. The Project does not require an indirect source permit. No baseline air quality monitoring or modeling is proposed and no measures to mitigate for the increase in vehicle related emissions are being considered. 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. Limited dust and odors consistent with the development of a residential project will be generated during the construction process on the Project Area. The contractors will be required to control dust by using watering trucks or other methods as agreed to with the City to protect adjacent neighborhoods. The adjacent residential neighborhoods are the nearest receptors of the dust and odors, which should be monitored throughout the construction process by the Project Proposer. 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 of the Project there will be additional noise generated beyond existing conditions. The existing area is primarily developed with residential and golf course uses that generate typical noise levels associated with these land uses. However, the BNSF railroad borders the site and is an active line that generates significant noise from the 37 trips per day and the site is within the MSP Flyway which generates considerable noise several times throughout the day. The nearest noise receptors to the Project Area are residential homes to the west and north of the Project Area and the Scientific Natural Area (SNA) located east of the Project Area. Site work and grading will produce the most noticeable increase in noise generated and grading may occur through the duration of the project on a phase -by -phase basis. Noise typical of heavy equipment operation would also occur during site development. However, construction noise would be required to comply with Cottage Grove City Code Chapter 9 Section 4-9-8 which is limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday 11-22-2021 32 July 2013 version through Friday and 9:00 am and 7:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction noise impacts may have a temporary nuisance effect on neighboring residents. Upon completion of development, noise levels are anticipated to be consistent with residential noise levels. Mitigation of the short-term impacts can be managed through proper coordination and construction planning. Post construction, the Project will be used for low -density and high -density residential uses and is not anticipated to generate noise that exceeds the MPCA's noise standards for residential areas. 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 S) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. S2 Traffic Solutions, LLC (SSTS) completed a Traffic Impact Study to estimate the trips generated by the Project and evaluate the potential need for transportation or roadway improvements. The complete Traffic Study is included in Appendix C. Existing and Proposed Parking Spaces The Project Area includes a former 18-hole golf course and club house with approximately 175 parking spaces provided for patrons and staff. The proposed 369 single-family homes and 130-unit senior living attached housing will include off-street parking and garages. It is assumed the senior living development will include one space per unit. Estimated Traffic Generation SSTS prepared a Traffic Impact Study for the 369 single-family homes and 130-unit senior attached residential units (Figure 5). The Traffic Study assumed full development of the Project Area by 2026. The complete Traffic Impact Study is included in Appendix C. Trip generation was estimated using the methodology outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 101" Edition (2017). The Project is expected to generate about 3,953 vehicle trips per day. Within the PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate 389 trips, consisting of 242 entering vehicles and 147 exiting vehicles (Table 13). The Traffic Study included in Appendix C provides a full description and analysis of the peak hour traffic and traffic recommendations. 11-22-2021 33 July 2013 version Table 14: Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use ITE . of Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips .. Out .. Out Total Single-family homes/Detached 210 369 3,456 67 200 267 224 132 356 Townhomes Senior Attached Residential (Senior 252 130 497 9 17 26 18 15 33 Living Building) Total 3,953 76 217 293 242 147 389 Availability of Transit and Alternative Transportation Metro Transit provides transit services to the City of Cottage Grove. The nearest transit facility is a park and ride at approximately TH 61/10 and Jamaica, approximately 2 miles east of the Project Area. Since the Project site is not on a fixed -route transit line, the Senior Living Building will be served through Metro Mobility which as on -call service administered by Metropolitan Transit. Trails and sidewalks provide another alternative approach for local travel. The Project will include sidewalks along some residential streets and trails to link with future local and regional trail systems. According to City Code, eight foot -wide pedestrian trails must be included on any streets with blocks longer than 900-feet. As shown on Figure 5 there are multiple locations that will meet the threshold and the Project Proposer will be required to update the Concept Plan to meet this standard. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagementlresources.html) or a similar local guidance). SSTS documented existing conditions of the nearby roadways with a field inventory during the week of September 6, 2021 and was supplement on . The study focused on the following intersections: 1. 103rd Street S & Grey Cloud Trail 2. Hadley Avenue S & 100th Street S 3. 100th Street S & Jamaica Avenue S 4. Hadley Avenue S & 95th Street S 5. Jamaica Avenue S & 95th Street S 6. Grey Cloud Island Drive and Grey Cloud Island Trail 3-way intersection 7. Grey Cloud Island Drive and Grey Cloud Island Trail intersection on the Island 11-22-2021 34 July 2013 version Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the above intersections on September 8th, 2021 and indicate the AM peak hour occurs at 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM, and the PM peak hour occurs at 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. SSTS analyzed intersection operations using Synch ro/Si mtraffic, 11th Edition for the 2026 Build out year and for the 2040 Planning Horizon year. There are no improvement projects planned for the study area roadways and none were assumed for the No -Build or Build conditions. Effects on Traffic and Roadways The results of the analysis show that all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better with manageable vehicle queues for both the No -Build and Build conditions. No improvements are suggested. Details are included in Appendix C. c. Identify measures that will betaken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. As mentioned, the traffic analysis considered full build out by 2026 and evaluated conditions in 2026 and 2040. The transportation system serving the area will have sufficient capacity to include traffic from the Project as well as other anticipated projects without improvements. 19. Cumulative potential effect (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EA Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. The Project is located in the City of Cottage Grove's southern developing area of the community. The City has planned for future residential growth in and adjacent to the Project Area. As previously noted, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is required to redesignate the property for urban densities and to include the Project area within the MUSA. The City's 2040 Plan addresses the potential acceleration of including this area within the MUSA depending on the findings of the 3M Settlement Working Group. The City has planned that this area would include a mix of residential housing types and the subject Project is consistent with those expectations. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. As stated in previous items, the City recently adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan which identifies the Project Area and surrounding properties within its future growth area. The Project Area and surrounding properties were identified as part of the 2030-2040 Phasing period for the extension of municipal services. 11-22-2021 35 July 2013 version The extensions contemplated as part of this Project are planned to adequately serve the surrounding area consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At this time, there are no known projects that will further compound environmental effects of the Project, and any future development in the area will follow the requirements of the environmental review process. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and sznnmarize any other available information relevant to determining whethej• there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. Based on available information, and existing planning efforts completed by the City, there are no anticipated or known cumulative environmental impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated if proper permitting and development processes are followed. Any required mitigation identified as part of the Environmental Site Assessment Phase I or Limited Phase II and other assessments will be implemented as part of the development and land use permit approval process. 20. Other potential environmental effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. The Project will increase greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the development, The increase is anticipated to be minimal and will not impact emissions on a regional scale. There are no other known potential environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the Project. RGU CERTIFICATION (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor) I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature d Date ldoyemeer Zaa 20,4V Title 66mwlun1]6 11-22-2021 36 APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota A. FIGURES B. LETTER ATTACHMENTS Natural Heritage Review, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2. State Historic Office of Preservation Review Response C. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) APPENDIX A : FIGURES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota 1. Project Location in Washington County 2. USGS Topo Location Map 3. Project Parcels 4. Mississippi Dunes Master Plan 5. Concept Sketch Plan 6. Existing Conditions 7. Zoning Map with MRCCA & FEMA Floodplain 8. Existing Land Use / Future Land Use 9. Existing Water Trail & Planned Regional Park 10. Planned Regional Park & Transportation Trail 11. MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood?" Map 12. NRCS Soil Classifications Map 13. Well Site Locations (MDH) 14. Karst Features Locations 15. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System V �7, Washington _TRr .., JF, T .gym f tA 41 Dakota .1 4 1 Figure 2. USGS Topo Location Map M USGS U.S. DEU. S. GEOLOGPARTMENT ICAL SURVEYF THE IINTERIOR sr�n.a�.aa6Ja9iau.aJ�d 93.0000'wl! a.e�59' 101°00mE 02 03 ^690°a"N s n 1z IA a 5 63 6< ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course rMap SAINT PAUL PARK QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA UStTopo 7.5-MINUTE SERIES 93.8)50- 05 06 07 08 09 —750' 69 9 AN w IM I� ply. I! I[f I III _;. ���. � ��� '1 „'� �I ��.. �►' t MIA rw • L';�i�� ■ � r�� � � �� , .err �!r � .»� ��, � '- _ r i YA M 9 M N .11 M B —500' wR 03 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 '09--E -93.00W' 92.8]50-M.95W' Quadranlge t7ztncated to fitpage it. d,G,nepetmi�sclobeAiore Ulvey 991I p PlUduced6VMe UnoT.n'Ef SCALE 1:24000 ROAD ClA551iwolON� F x przssway Ittal rzct« twc5edi. 10 tl,. stuns ImILs 00 sw «o x a imp ary Hwy — -- - wa ,«.«x Int to Rxxrz U Ro O k to ... �Yan3mpnY........... ..................xan roq aFMv sO oscuxATl xnT rtxTsn r xasT 1 1 3 t 2 H ntwrs............................................National emtiooOfazet R018 Bountlariesswrt«I see metatlata rile us 1°"° COMOUR RxxERVAL IO 11T NORM ON£NCaN VERTICAL OAIUM OF 19e0 uasan trove Heights ..............MWtige &M, 201x roonw-. ae��io lnrs map was to cmlormv1 tM1e i 5 4lmer weuantls.................fws National wttlanm Inventory xUlo wx proaucea 1. Amelaaaa m.ut«,atea w,m tmt przaa�t ra arzn vem.n aa.le 'Coates ° e ........ SAINT PAUL PARK, MN sn,wxlw asowxrus 2019 Figure 3. Project Parcels ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Source: MNGEO, Washington County Draft Date: 11.05.2021 Prepared by: SHC, LLC. Miles N 0 0.1 0.2 Figure 4. Mississippi Dunes Master Plan City of Cottage Grove ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course o oc m X Q w 0 z MCC 2 Q w Y ¢ - N J H .. z- E,�� « E o0 'o 0 V m E > a a Z O Q > O _ C7 ? v °LLJc°a v >. 17 ~ T12 i = J Q z z y ~ , _ - aM N a K 2 z C K X D i/i �<¢ a —LU a « w Q g} N J Y K v E QI vZi . U U E U E yr ¢ W vl W y z Lf) O MCC W U'? co o O7 M 0 U)o ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Figure 5. Concept Sketch Plan DRAFT �� •�.. ���'t_�_ :_. r;•� f�. _ J-� � .4 hl .•tom �3. � - �': WJ • , - ' — �-:.;.,',tipK,-',� � r !� / � ++ � f : i ` �`: ~` \.� , � ' N^ R�.y• y cQ X .L F I-•—•�l4! � f ��5F1 j 1 — 69 s rC City Park Westwood N Lp,� e•I�so¢- O�/[k COTTAGE GROVE, MN 01 ISP 3VP 45P s a 0 0 !.;:.: ::':'..i"� % IPA Rv L � r o 40vp f �� oil 40, Np ft Gj D� 4 °1 _ _J s� ..... -- - ..... -- - ..... 4g �, �_Ie: is -.... }_.. ..,:sl � ...... .. , ..r.. ��..:vl,ic ::.'::: �:_,�:. ��.:: �..:v_1.6c : �::: ; ...:: � . aU,iE : sk,:.: ......�1• Project Area. _ ... ..... - - :: l tr: _ ... , ...:: � :v1.6c ..... ' .�'� . �l,iE ..... as_l�': . .l,iF NWI Wetlands -�=;--_- :s�l,ic .._ _ •;:I==--_- �I,iE .._ _ •;:I==--_: vJ,iF .._ _ I ; _: �I::r...'-- ...,j;-:=- I.t� .:_ - •;.Ir, Foot • • "� _- -- •`-�i''.::__ ._ -- ..,_ltr:.::__ Figure 8. Existing Land Use / Future Land Use ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Cottage Grove Existing Land Use Excerpt �o IN 4 r r J c I 2016 Generalized Land Use Farmstead Mixed Use Residential - Major Rig hway $easonallVa—lion Mixed Use Industrial — Rsi]way Single Family (Detached Mixed Use commercial and Other _ Airport - Manufactured Housing Park Industrial and Utility Agricultural �] Single Family Attached Extractive Undeveloped _ Muitfamily - Instdulional Water _ Retail and Other Commercal Park, Recreational or Preserve t7ncce _ Golf course L__. county Reundadps City and Township Roundaries Project Area 0 NC—p— Streel Centerlines Source: City of Cottage Grove Draft Date: 11.05.2021 Prepared by: SHC, LLC. Cottage Grove 2040 Future Land Use Excerpt _ High Density Residential _ Commercial _ Mixed Use ® Mixed Use within 300' of Arterial Roadways _ Industrial _ Public/Semi-Public 0 Agricultural 0 Project Area _ Parks/Open Space _ Golf Course Transitional Planning Area _ Open Water 0 Street and Railroad Right -of -Way ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Figure 9. Existing Water Trail & Planned Regional Park Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course 11ill lilt /�� r ': nl�i smlmi 1 ' '�Ilu� a.ta� � ■■■■ -- q llllii 1i1111 '�E/� IIIIr= rl� � .ri 111111!/ �[■ �� zz lu• uL - a 3 - �1�� E ` MEN ■1 11�:� -1 .■ . �,. � _ ■.III 111 11 �►. 111��1111 A Al0 �.. Z - E �•. L MOONProject Area ' Mississippi Source: MNGEO, DNR, Washington County Draft Date: 11.05.2021 Prepared by: SHC, LLC. Miles N 0 0.6 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Figure 10. Planned Regional Park & Transportation Trail Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Existing Transportation Trails Existing Recreation Trails Existing Sidewalk - - - • 2040 Planned Recreation Trail - - - - 2040 Planned Transportation Trail Central Greenway Regional Trail ■ ■ N Prairie View Regional Trail Search Corridor Mississippi River Trail Bikeway 0 Metropolitan Council Tier 1 RBTN Corridor �,,Oo Metropolitan Council Tier 2 RBTN Corridor -•_� City Boundary - Community Park - County Park - Neighborhood Park Open Space Recreational Facility State Scientific and Natural Areas Planned Parks/Open Space I Open water 0 Project Area onal Park CQ r ■ .� Source: City of Cottage Grove Draft Date: 11.05.2021 Prepared by: SHC, LLC. C '0 tir 8 7Pirie, Glen Park Rl� . a M op ■ I Grey Cloud Dunes SNA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Figure 11. MPCA "What's in my Neighborhood?" Map Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Settlers Bluff Bailey Nurseries Nord Farm MississippiDu nes grgfjng �� g5�yansid Jr — — — — —�� 1 ♦ c s c s , s r► ,�is ssltlpi�rygs �oN Links t s ` F. l I � L l 1 1 '6 s a ♦ ` 1 1 1 1 � : r Project Area r C' Multiple Programs Air Quality Environmental Review Feedlots Hazardous Waste Investigation and Cleanup Ashland Oil -Cottage 1:9,028 • Pollution Prevention 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi • Solid Waste 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km a Stormwater A SSTS • Tanks • Water Quality MPCA, County of Dakota, Washington County, MN, Esri Canada, Esd, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, USGS, METI/ NASA, EPA, USDA MPCA County of Dakota, Washington County, MN, Ear! Canada, Esd, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA I MPCA I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Figure 12. NRCS Soil Classifications Map Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Source: Westwood Draft Date: 11.05.2021 Figure 13. Well Site Location (MDH) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course AV --Ngt f 01�SI �\ t w="O> J` w Figure 15. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETFormer Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Legend 5-10% Impervious Maintained Tall Grass 11-25% Impervious - Tree Plantation 26-50% Impervious Forest - 51-75% Impervious Wetland Forest - 76-100% Impervious - Shrubland Short Grasses Agricultural Land ` _ . Project Area Wetland Shrubs - Tall Grasses Source: MNGEO, DNR, Washington County 0 Draft Date: 11.10.2021 Prepared by: SHC, LLC. - Wetland Emergent Veg. - Dry Tall Grasses Lichen Scrubland - Rock Outcrop - Mud Flat - Open Water Wetland Open Water Miles 0.25 0.5 APPENDIX B : LETTER ATTACHMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota 1. Natural Heritage Review - November 19, 2021 a. Endangered Specie Fact Sheet 2. State Historic Preservation Office DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 November 19, 2021 Correspondence # >ERDB 20220044 Jessica Points Swanson Haskamp Consulting, LLC 246 South Albert Street, Suite 2A St. Paul, MN 55105 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Dune Development- Pulte Homes, T27N R21W Sections30 and 31; Washington County DearJessica Points, As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queriedto determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search area (for detaiIs, please visit the Rare SyeciesGulde Websitefor more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adve rse ly aff ecte d by the proposed project: Ecologically Significant Areas ■ The Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) has identified several 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 biodiversityat a statewide level. Factors taken into account duringthe ranking process include the numberof 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 Sites were documented to contain multiple native plant communities. However, these areas were delineated prior to the golf course development in the area. As such, a majority of these ecologically significant areas are destroyed completely or extremely deteriorated. Accordingto aerial photography, there are small portions of Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) native plant communities that may still be intact. Multiple state -protected species (see below) have been documented in these or nearby Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) communities. As such, impacts to undisturbed areas ofthis community need to be avoided. Actions to avoid or mi nimize disturbance may include, but are not limitedto, the followingrecommendations: o Conduct surveys/habitatassessmentsto better document resource impact and designate areas to avoid; a Retain a buffer between proposed activities and undisturbed areas, especially prairie; o As much as possible, operate within already -disturbed areas; o Use effective erosion prevention and sediment control measures; a inspect and clean all equipmentpriorto bringing it to the site to preventthe introduction and spread of invasive species; o Revegetate disturbed soil with native species suitable to the local habitat as soon after construction as possible; and a Use only weed -free mulches, topsoi Is, and seed mixes. Of particular concern are birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and crown vetch (Coronillavaria),two invasivespecies that are sold commercially and are problematic in prairies and disturbed open areas. GIS shapefiles of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and DNR Native Plant Communities can be downloaded from the MN Geos atial Commons. Please contact me if you d❑ not have access to the appropriate mapping services. For additional information on interpreting the data, referencethe MBS Site BiodiversitV Significance and Native Plant Community websites. State -fisted Species • Several state -listed threatened and endangered mussels and fish have been documented in the Mississippi Riverin the vicinity of the proposed project. These species are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation. As such, the project should not be allowed to negatively affect the water quality of the river. It would be beneficial fora buffer of vegetation to occur between the development and the river. Sound erosion and sediment control practices need be implemented and maintained for the duration of the project. Please contact me if the proposed project will impact the river's water quality, as a mussel survey may be needed. The Loggerhead Shrike (tanius ludovicianus) and Henslow's Sparrow jAmmodrornus henslowii], both state -listed endangered birds, and BeII's Vireo (Vireo bellii) and Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), both state -listed bird species of special concern, have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. These bird species nest in a variety of areas including shrubs, trees, and the ground. Given the potential for these species to be found in the vicinity of the project, disturbance to undisturbed grassland areas and tree/shrub removal must be avoided from April through August 151h to avoid disturbance of nesting birds. Please contact me if this Page 2 of 5 isn't feasible, as the DNR may request that a survey for active nests be conducted prior to construction. Louisiana broom rape (Orobonche ludoviciona var. Judoviciono) and seaside three -awry (Aristida tuberculoso), both state -listed threatened plant species, and purple sandgrass (Triplosis purpureovar. purpurea) and Hill's thistle (Cirsium dumdum var. hilli), bath state -listed plant speciesof special concern, have been documented in t}1e vicinity of the proposed project. These species are found primarily in prairie habitats with sandy soiIsand dunes. Minnesota's Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibitthe take of threatened or endangered species without a permit. As Louisiana broomrap e and seaside three -awn were documented in the vicinity of the proposed project, a qualified surveyor needs to conduct a habitat assessment in any undisturbed areas that will be impacted by the proposed project. If potential habitat for these species is documented and those areas cannot be avoided, a botanical survey will be needed. Surveys must follow the standards contained in the attached Rare Species Survey Process and Rare Plant Guidance. Project planning should take into account that any botanical survey needs to be conducted during the appropriate time of the year, which may be limited. Please consultwiththe Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, Lisa Joyal (Iisa.joyal@state.mn.us), regardingthis process. North American racer (Coluberconstrictor), a state -listed species of special concern, has been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project and may be encountered on site. These snakes prefergrassy areas with sandy and gravel soils. Given the presence of these rare snakes, the DNR recommends that the use of erosion control mesh, if any, be limited to wildlife -friend) ■ The Leonard's skipper (Hesperia Jeonardus) and regal fritillary (Speyerio idolia), both state- listed butterfly species of special concern, have been documented within the vicinity of the project. These species populations have declined historically due to the widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture and other uses. Less than 1% of Minnesota's native prairie remains and the remaining prairie mostly consists of widelyscattered small fragments surrounded by agriculture and development. To protect these prairie obligate butterfly species, avoiding disturbance to native prairie is strongly re Commended. Federolly Protected Species • To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and WiIdIifeService's (USFWS) online Informationfor- PIanningand Consultation (IPaC)tool, Environmental Review and Permitting Page 3 of 5 The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance. Sufficient information should be provided sothe DNR can determine whethera takings permitwi11 be needed foranyofthe above protected species. • Please include acopy of this letterin any state or local license orpermit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses. 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 isthe 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 al I 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. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the resultsare only valid forthe project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or construction has not occurred within one year as additional review may be required. 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. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may contact your DNR Re gionaI Environmental AssessmentEcol_ogist. 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 underseparate cover. Sincerely, I Z Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist Samantha. Bum p@state. m n. us Page 4 of 5 Links: Rare Species Guide http://www.dnT.state.mn.us/rsg/index.htmi ❑NR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html USFWS I PaCTool https :Hecos.fws.gov/i pac/ Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control http://fi ies.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/wildlife-friendly-erosion-control.pdf MBSSites of Bi od iversity Significance http ://www. d o r.s t ate. m n. u s/ a co/ m chs/ b i od ive rs ity_gui d e l i nes. htm l DNR Native P I ant Co mmu nities http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/index.htmi MN GeospatialCommons https.-//gisdata.mn.gov/ BWSR Na ti ve Vegeta ti on/Seed Mixes http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native—vegetation/ Cc: Mel i ssa Collins and Leslie Parris Page 5 of 5 _ 6AaVlOR IYh 7 The northern long-eared bat is federally listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Endangered species are animals and plants that are in danger of becoming extinct. Threatened species are animals and plants that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Identifying, protecting and restoring endangered and threatened species is the primary objective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Program. What is the northern long-eared bat? Appearance: The northern long- eared bat is a medium-sized bat with a body length of 3 to 3.7 inches and a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. Their fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny to pale -brown on the underside. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears, particularly as compared to other bats in its genus, Myotis. Winter Habitat: Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They use areas in various sized caves or mines with constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. Within hibernacula, surveyors find them hibernating most often in small crevices or cracks, often with only the nose and ears visible. Summer Habitat: During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live trees and snags (dead trees). Males and non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. Northern long- eared bats seem to be flexible in selecting roosts, choosing roost trees based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. They rarely roost in human structures like barns and sheds. Reproduction: Breeding begins in late summer or early fall when males begin to swarm near hibernacula. After Northern Long -Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis This northern long-eared bat, observed during an Illinois mine survey, shows visible symptoms of white -nose syndrome. copulation, females store sperm during hibernation until spring. In spring, females emerge from their hibernacula, ovulate and the stored sperm fertilizes an egg. This strategy is called delayed fertilization. After fertilization, pregnant bats migrate to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single pup. Maternity colonies of females and young generally have 30 to 60 bats at the beginning of the summer, although larger maternity colonies have also been observed. Numbers of bats in roosts typically decrease from the time of pregnancy to post -lactation. Most bats within a maternity colony give birth around the same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late July, depending where the colony is located within the species' range. Young bats start flying by 18 to 21 days after birth. Maximum lifespan for the northern long- eared bat is estimated to be up to 18.5 years. Feeding Habits: Like most bats, northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to feed. They primarily fly through the understory of forested areas feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in flight using echolocation or by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation. Range: The northern long-eared bat's range includes much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. The species' range includes 37 States and the District of Columbia: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Why is the northern long-eared bat in trouble? White -nose Syndrome: No other threat is as severe and immediate as this. If this disease had not emerged, it is unlikely that northern long-eared bat populations would be experiencing such dramatic declines. Since symptoms were first observed in New York in 2006, white -nose syndrome has spread rapidly from the Northeast to the Midwest and Southeast; an area that includes the core of the northern long-eared bat's range, where it was most common before this disease. Numbers of northern long- eared bats (from hibernacula counts) have declined by up to 99 percent in the Northeast. Although there is uncertainty about the rate that white -nose syndrome will spread throughout the species' range, it is expected to continue to spread throughout the United States in the foreseeable future. Other Sources of Mortality: Although no significant population declines have been observed due to the sources of mortality listed below, they may now be important factors affecting this bat's viability until we find ways to address WNS. Impacts to Hibernacula: Gates or other structures intended to exclude people from caves and mines not only restrict bat flight and movement, but also change airflow and microclimates. A change of even a few degrees can make a cave unsuitable for hibernating bats. Also, cave -dwelling bats are vulnerable to human disturbance while hibernating. Arousal during hibernation causes bats to use up their energy stores, which may lead to bats not surviving through winter. Loss or Degradation of Summer Habitat. Highway construction, commercial development, surface mining, and wind facility construction permanently remove habitat and are activities prevalent in many areas of this bat's range. Many forest management activities benefit bats by keeping areas forested rather than converted to other uses. But, depending on type and timing, some forest management activities can cause mortality and temporarily remove or degrade roosting and foraging habitat. Wind Farm Operation: Wind turbines kill bats, and, depending on the species, in very large numbers. Mortality from windmills has been documented for northern long-eared bats, although a small number have been found to date. However, there are many wind projects within a large portion of the bat's range and many more are planned. What Is Being Done to Help the Northern Long -Eared Bat? Disease Management. Actions have been taken to try to reduce or slow the spread of white -nose syndrome through human transmission of the fungus into caves (e.g. cave and mine closures and advisories; national decontamination protocols). A national plan was prepared by the Service and other state and federal agencies that details actions needed to investigate and manage white -nose syndrome. Many state and federal agencies, universities and non -governmental organizations are researching this disease to try to control its spread and address its affect. See wwwwhitenosesyndrome. org/ for more. Addressing Wind Turbine Mortality. The Service and others are working to minimize bat mortality from wind turbines on several fronts. We fund and conduct research to determine why bats are susceptible to turbines, how to operate turbines to minimize mortality and where important bird and bat migration routes are located. The Service, state natural resource agencies, and the wind energy industry are developing a Midwest Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan, which will provide wind farms a mechanism to continue operating legally while minimizing and mitigating listed bat mortality. Listing: The northern long-eared bat is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Listing a species affords it the protections of the Act and also increases the priority of the species for funds, grants, and recovery opportunities. Hibernacula Protection: Many federal and state natural resource agencies and conservation organizations have protected caves and mines that are important hibernacula for cave -dwelling bats. What Can I Do? Do Not Disturb Hibernating Bats: To protect bats and their habitats, comply with all cave and mine closures, advisories, and regulations. In areas without a cave and mine closure policy, follow approved decontamination protocols (see http://whitenosesyndrome. org/topics/decontamination). Under no circumstances should clothing, footwear, or equipment that was used in a white - nose syndrome affected state or region be used in unaffected states or regions. Leave Dead and Dying Trees Standing: Like most eastern bats, the northern long-eared bat roosts in trees during summer. Where possible and not a safety hazard, leave dead or dying trees on your property. Northern long-eared bats and many other animals use these trees. Install a Bat Box. Dead and dying trees are usually not left standing, so trees suitable for roosting may be in short supply and bat boxes may provide additional roost sites. Bat boxes are especially needed from April to August when females look for safe and quiet places to give birth and raise their pups. Support Sustainability: Support efforts in your community, county and state to ensure that sustainability is a development goal. Only through sus- tainable living will we provide rare and declining species, like the northern long- eared bat, the habitat and resources they need to survive alongside us. Spread the Word. Understanding the important ecological role that bats play is a key to conserving the northern long- eared and other bats. Helping people learn more about the northern long- eared bat and other endangered species can lead to more effective recovery efforts. For more information, visit wwwfws.gov/midwest/nleb and wwwwhitenosesyndrome.org Join and Volunteer. Join a conservation group; many have local chapters. Volunteer at a local nature center, zoo, or national wildlife refuge. Many state natural resource agencies benefit greatly from citizen involvement in monitoring wildlife. Check your state agency websites and get involved in citizen science efforts in your area. Visit wwwfws.gov/midwest/nleb and wwwwhitenosesyndrome.org/ April 2015 11/8/21, 1:05 PM Ammodramus henslowii : Henslow's Sparrow I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR Mit DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • DNR RESPONSE TO COVID-19: For information on the status of in -person services at DNR facilities, visit this webpage (http5://www.dncstate.mn.us/covid-19.html).. For more general information on the state's COVID-19 response, visit the Minnesota COVID-19 response webpggt-(https://mn.gov/covidl9/).. 11 10ntkm x.html) > i'(1bn6sdex.htm1) > _(/index.html) Ammodramushenslowii (Audubon,1829) MN Status: endangered Federal Status: none CITES: none USFS: none Group: bird Class: Aves Order: Passeriformes Family: Emberizidae Habitats: Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie Basis for Listing i>MVindex.html) > I jB>r ad�mY}a The Henslow's sparrow breeds across the northeastern United States, from northwestern Minnesota east to New York and south to Oklahoma and North Carolina. Across the country, the number of Henslow's sparrows declined by over 68% between 1966 and 1991 (Herkert 1994). In Minnesota, Henslow's sparrows have been a widespread but relatively uncommon summer resident throughout the southern two thirds of the state. The species requires uncultivated grasslands and old fields with standing, dead vegetation and a substantial litter layer. Areas used one year may be abandoned the next year if the grass has become too long or too short. Therefore, the Henslow's sparrows distribution in the state is sporadic and the extent of its former range is difficult to delineate. The major cause of the species' decline is habitat loss and degradation resulting from urban sprawl, intensive agriculture, increased frequency of mowing hayfields, and conversion of pastures, hay fields, and old fields to row crops. There is evidence that other factors are also involved in this species' decline, as it is not utilizing seemingly suitable habitat in some places (Pruitt 1996). The Henslow's sparrow was classified as a special concern species in Minnesota in 1984, but its continued decline in the state led to its reclassification as endangered in 1996. Search for.. Henslow's Sparrow photos/ photos/slides/.phhotol561144640851. The Henslow Sparrow has a large relatively flat olive -colored head with Since that time there has been an increase in records (Svingen 1998), particularly from several dark stripes. native prairie areas in western Minnesota. Description .(https: / /webappsl7. dnr. state.mn.us/ g- The Henslow's sparrow is an inconspicuous, secretive bird whose quiet, short, two -syllable song photos/ photos/slides/photol561144749161 is easily overlooked. This sparrow's most distinctive feature is its large, relatively flat, olive- Henslow Sparrow males use tall stalks as colored head with dark stripes. Its streaked chest, rufous -tinged wings, and short tail are also singing perches. diagnostic. Habitat ■ Henslow's sparrows prefer uncultivated grasslands and old fields with stalks for singing perches (https://webappsl7.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg- and a substantial litter layer. Litter depth, vegetation height, and the number of standing, dead photos/ photos/slides/photol561145009941. herbaceous stems are important components of occupied areas (Herkert 1994). Grasslands over The Henslow Sparrow has a streaked 100 ha (247 ac ) are preferable but smaller areas of suitable habitat are also used by this chest and short tail. species. Biology / Life History Henslow's sparrows are believed to overwinter primarily in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. They have been described as breeding in loose colonies, in which several pairs occupy a small grassland .(Hanson 1994). Map Interpretation (maps.html#mn). Map Interpretation (maps.html#na). .(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/consgrant reports/1994/1994 hanson.pdf) ® PDF, but individual nesting is not uncommon. Males utilize tall (orbs as singing perches and vantage points from which to defend their territories, which are approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac.) in size. Females build nests at the base of grass clumps, and often construct runways through the leaf litter for use in escaping predators. Females lay an average of 4-5 eggs, and incubate them until they hatch in about 11 days. The young grow quickly and are fed by both the male and female. There is usually time for a pair to raise two broods in a season. Brown -headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism of Henslow's sparrow nests is believed to occur infrequently, as the nests are very difficult to find. More significant causes of nest failure include trampling by cattle and predation by snakes and small mammals (Herkert 1994). Henslow's sparrows forage in the leaf litter for insects, spiders, small mollusks, and seeds. Conservation / Management The grasslands inhabited by Henslow's sparrows require management to maintain their attractiveness to the species. Because of their need for tall vegetation and a substantial litter layer, Henslow's sparrows do not occupy heavily grazed areas. Fire management may be necessary at times to restore or improve grassland habitat for this species, but few birds will use these areas during the first several years after burning. Mowing is compatible with habitat use by Henslows sparrows if vegetation is allowed to grow to an acceptable height and density by the next breeding season. These management practices, and possibly light grazing, can be combined on a https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ABPBXA0030 1/2 11/8/21, 1:05 PM Ammodramus henslowii : Henslow's Sparrow I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR rotational basis to maintain suitable habitat (Herkert 1994). Because Henslow's sparrows are primarily insectivorous, they may be adversely affected by pesticides (Pruitt 2012(bttps://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/soc/birds/pdf/HESP SAandConsP1an11Oct2012.pdf). PDF ). Conservation Efforts in Minnesota A 1988-89 habitat evaluation of 23 sites where Henslow's sparrows had been sighted in previous years revealed that one-third of the sampled sites were no longer suitable because of urban development and agricultural use (Hanson 1994). For a number of years, Great River Bluffs State Park (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state parks/great river bluffs/index.html). (formerly O.L. Kipp State Park) supported a stable population of Henslow's sparrows. This population was intensively studied between 1987 and 1989 and was found to consist of 19-23 adults. From 1996 to 2006 the number of singing males at Great River Bluffs State Park fluctuated between 1 and 28 singing males (S. Fritcher, DNR, pers comm.). A management plan for Henslow's sparrows was drafted in 1996 (Bolin 1996). Some of the habitat maintenance activities recommended in this plan have been implemented, including prescribed burns, removal of woody vegetation, and fertilizing brome grass to increase vigor. Since 1996, observations of Henslow's sparrows have increased, with breeding season records coming from counties scattered throughout western, central, and southern Minnesota. Of particular interest is the consistent presence of this species in several Large tracts of native prairie in western Minnesota. Increased monitoring of these western populations is needed to assess the status of Henslows sparrows at these sites. Henslow's sparrows have become established at Afton State Park (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state parks/afton/index.html) in east - central Minnesota, and the Trust for Public Land and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are currently in the processing of acquiring 120 acres southwest of Afton to help protect the sparrows and other rare resources. The property will connect to the existing 200-acre Lost Valley Prairie Scientific and Natural Area (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snas/sna01041/index.html).. References and Additional Information Bolin, K. E. 1996. A draft plan for Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodromus henslowii) habitat management at O.L. Kipp State Park, Winona County, Minnesota. 9 PP - Cooper, T. R. 2012. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). Versionl.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota. 136 pp. Hanson, L. G. 1994. The Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) of Minnesota: population status and breeding habitat analysis. M.S. Thesis, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. 39 pp. Herkert, J. R. 1994. Status of habitat selection of the Henslows Sparrow in Illinois. Wilson Bulletin 106:35-45. Svingen, P. 1998. Recent status of the Henslow's Sparrow in Minnesota. Loon 70:153-154. Questions? Call 651-296-6157 or 888-MINNDNR (646-6367) Email us: info.dnr@state.mn.us Sign up for email updates Email address Subscribe f V O in o 0 2021 Minnesota DNR I Equal opportunity employer I Data access I Disclaimers, legal notices and policies I A-Z list https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.htmI?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ABPBXA0030 2/2 11/8/21, 12:21 PM Chondestes grammacus : Lark Sparrow I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR Mit DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • DNR RESPONSE TO COVID-19: For information on the status of in -person services at DNR facilities, visit this webpage .(http5://www.dnr.state.mn.us/covid-19.html).. For more general information on the state's COVID-19 response, visit the Minnesota COVID-19 response webpggt-(https://mn.gov/covidl9/).. it _(/index.html) Home (/index.html) > Nature (/nr/index.html) > ETSC (/ets/index.html) > Rare Species Guide (/rsg/index.html) > Chondestes grammacus (Say,1823) MN Status: special concern Federal Status: none CITES: none USFS: none Group: bird Class: Aves Order: Passeriformes Family: Emberizidae Habitats: Upland Prairie, Savanna, Fire pgpendent Forest, Rock Outcrop Basis for Listing The Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) breeds throughout much of the western and central United States into southern portions of Canada and, less commonly, in the eastern U.S.. Breeding Bird Survey trend data (Sauer et al. 2014) for this species show significant declines in some areas, increases in others, with an overall range -wide decline of about 1% annually since surveys began in the late 1960s. Lark Sparrow trends vary in Minnesota's neighboring states and Canadian provinces. They have shown increases (not statistically significant) in Wisconsin, where they are a species of special concern, and South Dakota. In Iowa, Lark Sparrows have increased significantly in the long-term but have declined in the most recent 10-year period. This species has also shown significant increases in Manitoba. Lark Sparrows are presumably extirpated in Michigan (Michigan Breeding Bird atlases I and II). There have been significant declines in several western states, including California, Idaho, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. In Minnesota, Lark Sparrows were much more abundant historically. The ornithologist Hatch noted in 1892 that Lark Sparrows occurred in greatest numbers in "...the vicinity of open brush - land with a few deciduous trees not far away." Another early ornithologist, T.S. Roberts, in 1932 stated that the Lark Sparrow was common "...in all the open woodlands, and everywhere on prairie knolls." In 1936, however, Roberts reported that in the last 20-30 years (i.e., early 1900s) Lark Sparrows had suffered one of the greatest reductions in number of any bird in the state. He reported on an observer in the Red Wing area (Goodhue County) finding only 1-2 Lark Sparrows in an area where they had previously found 300 or so within a mile radius. Search for.. Lark Sparrow Map Interpretation (maps.html#mn). At the present time, Lark Sparrows occur in Low densities from southeastern Minnesota through Map Interpretation (maps.html#na). the Minnesota River Valley and Anoka Sand Plain (North Central Glaciated Plains (b-Ups://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/251B/index.html). and Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222M/index.htmi). sections) and at scattered sites in western Minnesota (Red River Valley Section (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/251A/index.htmi).) extending to the northwestern region Aspen Parklands (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/223N/index,html). While the Minnesota Biological Survey. (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mbs/index.html). (MBS), Minnesota Ornithologists' Union (https://moumn.org/). (MOU), and Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas Project (https://mnbirdatIas.org/). (MNBBA) have documented Lark Sparrows from many locations in Minnesota, many of these records are of only one to a few individuals, with unknown persistence over the years. Well-known areas where Lark Sparrows have occurred for many years include some of Minnesota's highest quality areas of dry prairie and oak savanna. The vast majority of Minnesota's oak savanna and dry prairie habitat for Lark Sparrows has already been lost (Minnesota's Remaining Native Prairie(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/prairie map.pdf). ® PDF). The few high quality remnants of these habitats are at risk due to development pressures, sand and gravel quarrying, increases in woody vegetation, invasive species, and other factors. Due to its relatively low numbers, patchy distribution, restricted habitat requirements, and limited habitat availability, the Lark Sparrow was designated a species of special concern in Minnesota in 2013. Description Lark Sparrows are a relatively large sparrow, with bold facial markings consisting of chestnut patches bordered by black and white. This species has brown upperparts, with light-colored and un-streaked underparts showing a central breast spot. Their tail has prominent white corners (as opposed to the white tail edges of the much more common Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gromieus). The Lark Sparrow has a melodious song consisting of a series of trills, clear whistled notes, and buzzes rising and falling in pitch. This species is quite distinctive and is unlikely to be confused with other sparrows. Habitat In Minnesota, Lark Sparrows typically occur in dry grasslands with a specific set of components and characteristics: short and/or sparse grasses (usually native) in areas of sand or gravel soils, with at least some bare ground and widely -scattered or patchy trees. Favored tree species are typically bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and occasionally jack pine (Pinus banksiana). This combination of habitat features can be found in a variety of native plant communities, including northern drysavanna (hLUp://files.dncstate.mn.us/natural resources/npc/gpland rp airie/upn� p L ®PDF, southern drysavanna (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/ npc/upland prairie/ upsl4.pdf) ® PDF, northern dry-mesic oak woodland (http://fiLes.dnr.state.mn.us/naturaL resources/npc/fire dependent forest/ppatap I'd system.pdf).R PDF,southern dry- mesic oak woodland (b-Up,//fites.dnrstate.mn.us/naturat resources/npc/fire dependent forest/ebf fd system.pdfl ® PDF, northern dry _prairie (http://hies.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/ npc/ upland prairie/upnl2.pdf). ® PDF, southern dry_prairie .(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/naturaL resources/np-c/upland prairie/ upsl3.pdf).0 PDF, and southern bedrock outcrop .(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/naturaL resources/npc/rock outcrop/rosl2.pd 1. ® PDF. Lark Sparrows may reach their highest abundance in the state in the Minnesota River Valley, where south -facing slopes having a combination of dry grassland openings, pastures, and rock outcrops with frequent bur oak and red cedar provide extensive suitable habitat. While Lark Sparrows are typically associated with native plant communities, they can sometimes be found in disturbed or human -altered habitats as long as short grass, scattered trees, and sandy soils are present. Pastures, gravel pits, restored prairie -savanna, brushy fence lines, and similar areas all may provide habitat for Lark Sparrows. Biology / Life History The Lark Sparrow is a short -distance migrant wintering in Mexico. During courtship displays, the male struts on the ground with its tail cocked at a 45 degree angle. The species usually builds its nest on the ground, rarely in a shrub or small tree. Typically 4-5 eggs are laid then incubated by both the female and male. The young hatch after 11-12 days, are fed by both adults, and then fledge about ten days later. Lark Sparrows eat seeds much of the year; however, insects are eaten and fed to young during the nesting season. Conservation / Management https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.htmI?/rsg/profile.htmI?action=elementDetaiI&selectedElement=ABPBX96010 1/2 11/8/21, 12:21 PM Chondestes grammacus: Lark Sparrow I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR The vast majority of native savanna, oak woodland, and dry prairie habitats in Minnesota have been lost by direct conversion to other land uses (Minnesota's Remaining Native Prairie (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/prairie map.pdf). ® PDF). Historically, these habitats were maintained by fires, so the suppression/cessation of this natural disturbance in many remaining areas has resulted in sites becoming overgrown by trees and shrubs to the point of no longer providing suitable Lark Sparrow habitat. This is particularly true in the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area, much of which was once savanna or open oak woodland. Prescribed burning can be difficult, if not impossible, close to developed areas, so that this management tool is no longer an option. Sand and gravel quarrying has resulted in the destruction of Lark Sparrow habitat in many areas and continues to be a threat to remnant prairie and savanna. Since a relatively narrow set of characteristics make up the grassland component of Lark Sparrow habitat, not all grasslands are suitable. Tall thick grasses such as non-native brome (b-Ups://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial n /grasses/smoothbromegrass.html), as well as dense stands of native species are usually not suitable for Lark Sparrows. In some cases, grazing at a moderate level can maintain grass at proper levels, but intensive grazing may not provide suitable cover. In areas where oak savanna or woodland has become overgrown With woody vegetation to the point of being unsuitable habitat for Lark Sparrows, restoration of the open character of woodlands, with larger prairie openings, would improve habitat. Prescribed burning can be an important management tool in areas where it can safely be implemented both for reducing woody cover and maintaining or enhancing suitable grassland vegetation. Conservation Efforts in Minnesota �urvey-L(https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/procedures birds.html). by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Minnesota fliqjQgicat Survv y_(fps://www.dnr.state.mn,us/mbs/index.html) along with numerous records from Minnesota birders and the MNBBA have provided a good picture of the overall breeding distribution of Lark Sparrows in Minnesota. Still lacking though, is knowledge of populations and relative breeding success in various regions/sites/habitats. The Lark Sparrow is not encountered in high enough numbers on either U.S. Breeding Bird Survey or MNBBA routes to allow statistically significant trend data. Protection, management, and/or restoration of dry prairie and oak savanna in Minnesota is a relatively high priority, as high quality examples of these native habitats are rare. While such efforts are not being done specifically to manage for Lark Sparrows, this species should respond favorably. Authors/Revisions Steven P. Stucker (MNDNR), 2018 (Note: all content OMNDNR) References and Additional Information Chartier, A. T. 2011. Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus). in A. T Chartier, J. J. Badly, and J. M. Brenneman, editors. The second Michigan breeding bird atlas [web application]. Kalamazoo Nature Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan. <http://www.mibirdatias.org/Portals/12/MBA2010/LASPaccount.pdf>. Kumlien, L., and N. Hollister (revisions by A. W. Shorger). 1951. The birds of Wisconsisn. Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, Inc., Madison. Martin, J. W., and J. R. Parrish. 2000. Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus): birds of North America species account. No. 488. in: A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. Birds of North America series. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas Project [web application]. <http://mnbba.org/blockmap/cresutts.php?species=Lark%20Sparrow>. Partners In Flight. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan [web application]. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. <http://www.partnersinflight.org/plans/landbird-conservation-plan/>. Accessed 25 June 2009. Pfannmuller, L. A. 2014. Lark Sparrow Minnesota conservation summary. Audubon Minnesota. Blueprint for Minnesota Bird Conservation. [web application]. Audubon Minnesota, St. Paul. <http://docs.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/lark_sparrow_conservation_summary_12-31-2014.pdf>. Roberts, T. S. 1936. The birds of Minnesota. Second edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Sample, D. W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources PUBL-SS-925-97, Madison. 154 pp. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2013 [web application]. Version 01.30.2015. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. <http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs20l3.htmt>. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative. 2013. Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), Wisconsin All -bird Conservation Plan [web application]. Version 2.0. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison. <http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/Plan/species/lasp.gym>. Questions? Call 651-296-6157 or 888-MINNDNR (646-6367) Email us: info.dnr@state.mn.us Sign up for email updates Email address Subscribe f W@ino 02021 Minnesota DNR I Equal opportunity employer I Data access I Disclaimers, legal notices and policies I A-Z list https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.htmI?/rsg/profile.htmI?action=elementDetaiI&selectedElement=ABPBX96010 2/2 Jm �T YIS1[ a4[.t1l.lira The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the rusty patched bumblebee as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Endangered species are animals and plants that are in danger of becoming extinct. Identifying, protecting and recovering endangered species is a primary objective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program. What is a rusty patched bumble bee? Appearance: Rusty patched bumble bees live in colonies that include a single queen and female workers. The colony produces males and new queens in late summer. Queens are the largest bees in the colony, and workers are the smallest. All rusty patched bumble bees have entirely black heads, but only workers and males have a rusty reddish patch centrally located on the back. Habitat: Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses. Bumble bees need areas that provide nectar and pollen from flowers, nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil). Illustrations of a rusty patched bumble bee queen (left), worker (center), and male (right) by Elaine Evans, The Xerces Society. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis r ih r a 1P :. r *V Ilk pair. Reproduction: Rusty patched bumblebee colonies have an annual cycle. In spring, solitary queens emerge and find nest sites, collect nectar and pollen from flowers and begin laying eggs, which are fertilized by sperm stored since mating the previous fall. Workers hatch from these first eggs and colonies grow as workers collect food, defend the colony, and care for young. Queens remain within the nests and continue laying eggs. In late summer, new queens and males also hatch from eggs. Males disperse to mate with new queens from other colonies. In fall, founding queens, workers and males die. Only new queens go into diapause (a form of hibernation) over winter - and the cycle begins again in spring. Feeding Habits: Bumble bees gather pollen and nectar from a variety of flowering plants. The rusty patched emerges early in spring and is one of the last species to go into hibernation. Why conserve rusty patched bumble bees? As pollinators, rusty patched bumble bees contribute to our food security and the healthy functioning of our ecosystems. Bumble bees are keystone species in most ecosystems, necessary not only for native wildflower reproduction, but also for creating seeds and fruits that feed wildlife as diverse as songbirds and grizzly bears. Bumble bees are among the most important pollinators of crops such as blueberries, cranberries, and clover and almost the only insect pollinators of tomatoes. Bumble bees are more effective pollinators than honey bees for some crops because of their ability to "buzz pollinate." The economic value of pollination services provided by native insects (mostly bees) is estimated at $3 billion per year in the United States. It needs a constant supply and diversity of flowers blooming throughout the colony's long life, April through September. Range: Historically, the rusty patched bumble bee was broadly distributed across the eastern United States and Upper Midwest, from Maine in the U.S. and southern Quebec and Ontario in Canada, south to the northeast corner of Georgia, reaching west to the eastern edges of North and South Dakota. Its range included 28 states, the District of Columbia and 2 provinces in Canada. Since 2000, this bumble bee has been reported from only 13 states and 1 province: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin — and Ontario, Canada. Why is the rusty patched bumble bee declining? Habitat loss and degradation: Most prairies and grasslands of the Upper Midwest and Northeast have been converted to monoculture farms or developed areas, such as cities and roads. Grasslands that remain tend to be small and isolated. Intensive farming: Increases in farm size and technology advances improved the operating efficiency of farms but have led to practices that harm bumble bees: increased use of pesticides, loss of crop diversity resulting in flowering crops being available for only a short time, loss of hedgerows with flowering plants, and loss of legume pastures. Disease: Pathogens and parasites may pose a threat, although their prevalence and effects in North American bumble bees are not well understood. Pesticides: The rusty patched bumble bee may be vulnerable to pesticides. Pesticides are used widely on farms and in cities and have both lethal and sublethal toxic effects. Bumble bees can absorb toxins directly through their exoskeleton and through contaminated nectar and pollen. Rusty patched bumble bees nest in the ground and may be susceptible to pesticides that persist in agricultural soils, lawns and turf. Global climate change: Climate changes that may harm bumble bees include increased temperature and precipitation extremes, increased drought, early snow melt and late frost events. These changes may lead to more exposure to or susceptibility to disease, fewer flowering plants, fewer places for queens to hibernate and nest, less time for foraging due to high temperatures, and asynchronous flowering plant and bumble bee spring emergence. What is being done to conserve rusty patched bumble bees? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Several Service programs work to assess, protect, and restore pollinators and their habitats. Also, the Service works with partners to recover endangered and threatened pollinators and pollinator -dependent plants. Concern about pollinator declines prompted formation of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, a collaboration of people dedicated to pollinator conservation and education. The Service has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Pollinator Partnership to work together on those goals. The Service is a natural collaborator because our mission is to work with others to conserve, fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Other Efforts: Trusts, conservancies, restoration groups and partnerships are supporting pollinator initiatives and incorporating native plants that support bees and other pollinators into their current activities. For example, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service is working with landowners in Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin to make bee -friendly conservation improvements to their land. Improvements include the practices of planting cover crops, wildflowers, or native grasses and improved management on grazing lands. Research: Researchers are studying and monitoring the impacts of GMO crops and certain pesticides on pollinators. Efforts by citizen scientists and researchers to determine the status of declining bee species are underway throughout the United States. What can I do to help conserve the rusty patched bumble bee? Garden: Grow a garden or add a flowering tree or shrub to your yard. Even small areas or containers on patios can provide nectar and pollen for native bees. Native plants: Use native plants in your yard such as lupines, asters, bee balm, native prairie plants and spring ephemerals. Don't forget spring blooming shrubs like ninebark and pussy willow! Avoid invasive non-native plants and remove them if they invade your yard. For more information on attracting native pollinators, visit wwwfws.gov/pollinators/pdfs/ PollinatorBookletFinalrevWeb.pdf. Natural landscapes: Provide natural areas - many bumble bees build nests in undisturbed soil, abandoned rodent burrows or grasss clumps. Keep some unmowed, brushy areas and tolerate bumble bee nests if you find them. Reduce tilling soil and mowing where bumble bees might nest. Support natural areas in your community, county and state. Minimize: Limit the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer whenever possible or avoid them entirely. Pesticides cause lethal and sublethal effects to bees and other pollinators. January 10, 2017 NHIS Response Landowners Guide for Maintaining and Encouraging Loggerhead Shrikes Loggerhead shrikes are in trouble — but you may be able to help. Throughout the United States, and particularly in the Midwest, loggerhead shrikes are disappearing at an alarming rate. So serious is the decline that the loggerhead shrike is one of six bird species considered threatened in Minnesota. What is a loggerhead shrike? Loggerhead shrikes are special birds — an interesting cross between songbird and hawk. They feed on large insects such as grasshoppers and beetles, mice, small birds, frogs and toads. Shrikes spend much of their time perched on powerlines, fences or the top -most branches of trees and shrubs, scouting for prey and then swooping down to catch it. Then the bird either eats its prey, impales it on a nearby thorn or barbed wire fence or wedges it into the fork of a branch. Because shrikes lack the strong, sharp claws and feet of hawks, impaling food holds it in place as the bird tears at it with its bill. Your first clue that loggerhead shrikes are on your property may be finding an animal impaled on a fence barb or a thorn. This habit has earned the loggerhead shrike the nickname "butcher bird." What do loggerhead shrikes look like? The robin -sized loggerhead shrike has a slate -gray back with a light breast. The most distinguishing markings of this bird are the black mask, which extends across the eye, and the black and white wing and tail patches which flash when the bird flies. Males and females are similar in size and color. In Minnesota, loggerhead shrikes are most easily confused with eastern kingbirds and northern shrikes. However, eastern kingbirds have no mask, their heads are entirely dark, and they do not have white patches on their wings. The northern shrike looks very similar to the loggerhead shrike, but occurs in Minnesota from October through April, whereas the loggerhead shrike is here from March to October. During the early spring and fall, when both shrikes are in the state, they can be told apart by the loggerhead shrike's completely black bill and its mask which extends across the top of the bill. Where do they live? Loggerhead shrikes were once found throughout much of the unforested region of the state. Today, their numbers are very low. Recent surveys have located fewer than 30 nests in the state (Fig. 1). It is very important that we try to maintain habitat for the few shrikes that still breed in Minnesota. Shrikes use grassy, open areas with scattered trees and shrubs such as pastures, prairie patches and grassy roadsides. A few trees and shrubs, along with fences and powerlines provide nesting sites and perches from continued on back Loggerhead Shrike black slate gray mask 5 white wing patches Eastern Kingbird iTi� mask entirely dark gray above M D n O CD �, O n 9 which to hunt. Red cedar, hawthorn and plum trees are often used for nesting. A pair may range over 2.5 - 30 acres. Loggerhead shrikes are early nesters, arriving in Minnesota from their wintering areas in the southern U.S. and Mexico in early spring. Shrikes lay 4-6 eggs that hatch after about 16 days. The young birds remain with their parents for about 4 weeks after leaving the nest. It is at this time that the birds are most conspicuous. Shrikes tend to nest in the same general areas from year to year, although they may be absent for a year or two and then return again, as long as the habitat remains. Why is the loggerhead shrike population declining? The decline of the loggerhead shrike is likely the result a combination of factors, including loss of habitat resulting from the conversion of pasture and grasslands to houses or cropland and the encroachment of forest and brush on pastures and grasslands. In addition, changes in farming NHIS Response Figure]. Historical range of loggerhead shrikes (shaded) in Minnesota. (from Coffin and Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna). Dots are nests found between 1990 and 1996 practices have resulted in larger fields and fewer trees, shrubs and fences scattered about. The increasing use of pesticides may also play a role in the decline of shrikes because these chemicals affect many animals that shrikes eat. WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP LOGGERHEAD SHRIKES? If there are shrikes nesting on your property, congratulations! You are one of a very few Minnesotans fortunate to share your property with such a unique bird. We hope you will want to help this bird continue its presence in your neighborhood. Obviously your land management practices and land use are already compatible if the birds have selected your land for nesting. While biologists continue to investigate the decline of the shrike there are things you can do on your property to encourage shrikes. 1. Leave fences standing for shrikes to use for perching and impaling food. If a fence must be removed, or if there are no fences near your grassland or pasture, you can create perch and impaling posts. To do this, wrap barbed wire near the top of a post. Place these posts along the edges of pastures and fields for shrikes to use. Your local nongame wildlife biologist can help you select the best locations for the posts. 2. Keep brush from encroaching upon grasslands by removal or burning, but only to the extent that the shrubs and trees don't dominate the grassland. A few scattered shrubs and trees are necessary to maintain the best shrike habitat. 3. Pastures and grassland are more attractive to shrikes than are row crops. Therefore, it is important to maintain existing pasture and grasslands. Investigate the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which pays farmers to retire highly erodible farmlands from production and to establish permanent grassland. Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service office (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) for more information about this program. 4. Take advantage of financial incentives for maintaining compatible land uses. In many counties, the Agricultural Preserve Program and/or the Green Acres Program provide tax adjustments and/or deferments to farmers to help them maintain their land for agricultural use. Contact your county assessor's office for more information about these programs. 5. Minimize use of pesticides. Pesticides can reduce the supply of large insects and other non -target animals that shrikes need. Also, because shrikes feed on animals at which pesticides are directed, these chemicals can build up in the birds and impair their ability to reproduce and reduce the survival of their young. For more information about shrikes or to report loggerheads shrikes on your property please contact: Nongame Wildlife Program 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 or locally contact: (651) 297-3764 1-800 766-6000 M Z3 n O 1 CD n O n ©1996, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources 10/96 Preventing Entanglement by Erosion Control Blanket Plastic mesh netting is a common component in erosion control blanket. It is utilized to hold loose fibrous materials in place (EG straw) until vegetation is established. Erosion control blanket is being utilized extensively and is effective for reducing soil erosion, benefitting both soil health and water quality. Unfortunately there is a negative aspect of the plastic mesh component: It is increasingly being documented that its interaction with reptiles and amphibians can be fatal (Barton and Kinkead, 2005; Kapfer and Paloski, 2011). Mowing machinery is also susceptible to damage due to the long lasting plastic mesh. Potential Problems: • Plastic netting remains a hazard long after other components have decomposed. • Plastic mesh netting can result in entanglement and death of a variety of small animals. The most vulnerable group of animals are the reptiles and amphibians (snakes, frogs, toads, salamanders, turtles). Ducklings, small mammals, and fish have also been observed entangled in the netting. • Road maintenance machinery can snag the plastic mesh and pull up long lengths into machinery, thus binding up machinery and causing damage and/or loss of time cleaning it out. Suggested Alternatives: • Do not use in known locations of reptiles or amphibians that are listed as Threatened or Endangered species. • Limit use of blanket containing welded plastic mesh to areas away from where reptiles or amphibians are likely (near wetlands, lakes, watercourses, or rock outcrops) or habitat transition zones (prairie — woodland edges, rocky outcrop — woodland edges, steep rocky slopes, etc.) • Select products with biodegradable netting (preferably made from natural fibers, though varieties of biodegradable polyesters also exist on the market). Biodegradable products will degrade under a variety of moisture and light conditions. • DO NOT use products that require UV -light to degrade (also called "photodegradable") as they do not degrade properly when shaded by vegetation. Solution: Most categories of erosion control blanket and sediment control logs are available in natural net options. • Specify 'Natural Netting' for rolled erosion control products, per MnDOT Spec 3885. See Table 3885-1. • Specify'Natural Netting' for sediment control logs, per MnDOT Spec 3897 lj�q� +fir T- f P _ r'A. ' - The plastic mesh component of erosion control blanket becomes a net for entrapment. Literature Referenced Barton, C. and K. Kinkead. 2005. Do erosion control and snakes mesh? Soil and Water Conservation Society 60:33A-35A. Kapfer, J.M., and R.A. Paloski. 2011. On the threat to snakes of mesh deployed for erosion control and wildlife exclusion. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:1-9. (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section /pwpermits/gp 2004 0001 manual.html) Best Practices for Meeting DNR GP 2004-0001 (version 4, October 2014) Chapter 1, Page 25 11/8/21, 12:25 PM Vireo bellii : Bell's Vireo I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR Mit DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • DNR RESPONSE TO COVID-19: For information on the status of in -person services at DNR facilities, visit this webpage (http5://www.dnr.state.mn.us/covid-19.html).. For more general information on the state's COVID-19 response, visit the Minnesota COVID-19 response webpggt-(https://mn.gov/covidl9/).. 11 10ntkt x.html) > *an6sdex.html) > Vireo bellii Aububon,1844 MN Status: special concern Federal Status: none CITES: none USFS: none Group: bird Class: Aves Order: Passeriformes Family: Vireonidae Habitats: Wet Meadow/Carr, Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie Basis for Listing _(/index.html) XMf/index.html) > I jB ad�mY}a Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii) is a bird of brushy thickets and riparian areas in the Southwest, Central Plains, and Midwest regions of the United States. It is generally rare and quite locally distributed in southern Minnesota, which lies at the northern edge of its breeding range Bell's Vireo requires dense and shrubby thickets adjacent to grassland or sedge/grass wetlands. This microhabitat may occur in a variety of broader habitat settings. Shrubby edges that seem like suitable habitat are quite common and widespread in much of Minnesota, yet Bell's Vireo is found in only a tiny proportion of such areas. Bell's Vireo has been reported from approximately 50 locations in Minnesota; however, it is consistently found at fewer than ten of these sites. Significant regional declines have been detected, with federal breeding bird survey (BBS) routes in the Midwest showing an average population decline of 2.9% per year between 1966 and 2007. However, in Minnesota, relatively few BBS routes are located within this species' normal breeding range, and there may be little suitable Bell's Vireo habitat along these routes. Due to its rarity, patchy distribution, and specific habitat needs, Vireo bellii was listed as a species of special concern in 2013. Description Search far Q Bell's Vireo Map Interpretation (maps.html#mn). Bell's Vireo is a rather non-descript sparrow -sized songbird, with olive-green upperparts and whitish underparts accentuated by a yellowish wash on the flanks. This species has indistinct MW white "spectacles" and faint white wing -bars. Due to its secretive nature, Bell's Vireo is best detected and identified by its distinctive song, a somewhat wheezy series of phrases Map Interpretation (maps.html#na). alternatively rising and falling in pitch. Bell's Vireo can be confused with other vireos, warblers, and small flycatchers. Most similar to other vireos, it can occur in similar habitat to the White -eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus), which is very rare in Minnesota. The White -eyed Vireo has a distinct white eye (iris), bolder yellow spectacles, and brighter more extensive yellow flanks. The relatively common Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) is more often found in trees, rather than shrubs, has a white eyebrow, rather than spectacles, lacks wing - bars, and has little to no yellow wash on its underparts. Habitat In Minnesota, Bell's Vireo prefers shrub thickets, clumps, and edges within or bordering open habitats such as grasslands or wetlands. Occasionally it may occupy more extensive shrublands, either upland or wetland. In wetland situations, suitable herbaceous vegetation is typically dominated by sedges or grasses, rather than cattails. Shrub species most often associated with Bell's Vireo are various species of willow (Salix sp.), dogwood (Corns sp), particularly gray and red -osier, and wild plum (Prunus americans). The majority of Bell's Vireo records in Minnesota come from habitats not considered to be native plant communities, primarily old fields with brushy edges. To be considered a Native Plant Community certain criteria must be met, including minimal disturbance by humans, minimal exotic species present, as well as certain size limits (extent of habitat). The shrubby edges and thickets that Bell's Vireo requires often do not meet these requirements. In cases where Bell's Vireos have been found in recognized native plant communities, the most important seem to be seepage meadow/carr .(bUp,//files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/wet meadow carr/wms83.pdf) ® PDF, mesic prairie (http://files.dnnstate.mn.us/natural resources/npc/upland prairie/ ups23.pdf).®PDF, and dry_prairie (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/upland ro airie/upsl3.pdf). ® PDF. They have also been found in wet seepagg prairie (http://fiLes.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/wetland prairie/wps54.pdf). ® PDF and calcareous fen .(http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/open rich peatland/ebf op system.pdf).® PDF. Biology / Life History Bell's Vireo is a long-distance migrant, wintering in Mexico and Central America. Breeding Season begins in early June, and most young are out of the nest by July. It builds its nest in a shrub, typically 0.3 - 1.0 m (1-6 ft.) off the ground. Like most vireos, the nest is a cup suspended from a forked branch. Usually there are four eggs, incubated by both the female and male. Young typically hatch after 14 days, are fed by both adults, and fledge about 14 days later. Elsewhere in their breeding range, Bell's Vireos are commonly parasitized by Brown -headed Cowbirds (Molothrus oter); however, this has rarely been documented in Minnesota. Primarily insectivores, Bell's Vireo gleans insects, spiders, and other arthropods from foliage. Conservation / Management In Minnesota, there is no strong evidence that habitat is a limiting factor for the presence of Bell's Vireo, since much apparently suitable habitat is unoccupied. Certainly available habitat has been greatly reduced from historic levels by land use changes, such as conversion to agriculture or urban/residential development; however, active habitat management for this species is probably not warranted at this time. Grassland and shrub habitats in areas where Bell's Vireo is known to occur should be maintained with several important considerations. Invasive species that may compromise the bird's habitat, particularly reed-canary_grass (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/grasses/reedcanarygrass.htmi).(Phalaris arundinacea), hybrid/narrowleaf cattail (Typha X glauca), purple loosestrife (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/purpleloosestrife/index.html). (Lythrum salicaria), and buckthorn (b.Up://dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/index.html), (Rhamnus cathartics) should be controlled. At known Bell's Vireo sites, provision must be made for maintaining shrub patches in native prairies otherwise managed to control or eliminate woody cover. Prescribed burning needs to be conducted such that adequate shrub patches are maintained or enhanced. Longer burn rotations or protection of shrub patches may be necessary. Grazing should be closely monitored or limited in known Bell's Vireo habitat so as not to reduce necessary herbaceous cover in proximity to shrub patches. Shrubby ecotones between forests and open grasslands/wetlands need to be maintained or enhanced. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ABPBW01110 1/2 11/8/21, 12:25 PM Vireo bellii : Bell's Vireo I Rare Species Guide I Minnesota DNR Conservation Efforts in Minnesota The breeding distribution and population status of this small songbird is not well known compared with many other Minnesota bird species. As a result, conservation efforts for Bell's Vireo have been limited to inventories seeking to learn more about the breeding distribution of this species in the state. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Minnesota Biological Survey .(https://www.dnr. state.mn.us/mbs/index.html). has conducted targeted searches .(b-Ul2s,//www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/12rocedures birds.html), of potential Bell's Vireo habitat resulting in the documentation of this species at several new locations. Additional records of this species have been found during the Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas. Authors/Revisions Steven P. Stucker (MNDNR), 2018 (Note: all content (DMNDNR) References and Additional Information Brown B. 11993. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii): birds of North America species account. No. 35. in: A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. Birds of North America series. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Budnik, J. M., F. R. Thompson, III, and M. R. Ryan. 2002. Effect of habitat characteristics on the probability of parasitism and predation of Bell's Vireo nests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):232-239. Budnik, J. M., M. R. Ryan, and F. R. Thompson, III. 2000. Demography of Bell's Vireos in Missouri grassland -shrub habitats. The Auk 117(4): 925-935. Donovan, T. M., C. J. Beardmore, D. N. Bonter, J. D. Brawn, R. J. Cooper, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. Ford, S. A. Gauthreaux, T. Luke George, W. C. Hunter, T. E. Martin, J. Price, K. V. Rosenberg, P. D. Vickery, and T Bently Wigley. 2002. Priority research needs for the conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 73(4):329-339. Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas Project. [web application]. <http://mnbba.org/blockmap/cresults.php?species=Bell%27s%20Vireo>. Pfannmuller, L. A. 2014. Bell's Vireo Minnesota conservation summary. Audubon Minnesota. Blueprint for Minnesota Bird Conservation [web application]. Audubon Minnesota, St. Paul. <http://docs.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/bells_vireo_conservation_summary_12-31-2014.pdf>. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2007 [web application]. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative. 2013. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii), Wisconsin All -bird Conservation Plan [web application]. Version 2.0. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison. <http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/Plan/species/bevi.htm>. Questions? Call 651-296-6157 or 888-MINNDNR (646-6367) Email us: info.dnr@state.mn.us Sign up for email updates Email address Subscribe f W @ in o O 2021 Minnesota DNR I Equal opportunity employer I Data access I Disclaimers, legal notices and policies I A-Z list https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.htmI?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ABPBWO1110 2/2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course Hello Jess, Please see attached. Jim DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE 1,6TORIC PRUERVATIOM 4FUCE SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS — please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area's potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR — National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF — Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course 11/12/21, 11:26 AM Swanson Haskamp Consulting, LLC Mail - Data Request for an EAW SEF — Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE — Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF — Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project's potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at kelly..graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/. Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors and unable to accommodate in -person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us. Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience. 00@ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course SHPO - Historical N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M1- M1- ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro a a s a a>>>> a x x x x x x x x x x �C a a aaa a > > > > > > > a a . a a C) C) C) CCi CCi CCi CCi 0 0 D 0 M m co co O O N O vi vi A N N � vi w N �t b APPENDIX C : TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota DUNES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT T 2 TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY in Cottage Grove, MN November 9, 2021 Dunes Cottage Grove, MN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROJECT NO. 2021_012 November 9, 2021 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota: V1 Vernon E. Swing, P.E. Date: 11-9-2021 Lic. No.: 4141 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FORMER MISSISSIPPI DUNES PROPERTY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA November 9, 2021 Prepared For: Pulte Homes tPulte Prepared By: S2 Traffic Solutions, LLC 4290 Norwood Lane North Plymouth, MN SS442 612-968-4142 Project No. 2021_012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4 A. Data Collection 4 B. Roadway Description 4 III. NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE 9 A. Background Growth 9 B. Anticipated Improvements for No -Build Conditions 9 C. Results of Analysis 9 IV. BUILD ALTERNATIVE 12 A. Site -Generated Traffic 12 B. Trip Distribution and Assignment 12 C. Build Traffic Volumes 15 D. Intersection Operational Analysis Description 15 E. Results of Analysis 18 F. 2040 Operations 20 V. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS 23 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number 1. Trip Generation 12 2. 2026 No -Build Operations 18 3. 2026 Build Operations 19 4. 2040 No -Build Operations 20 5. 2040 Build Operations 21 6. 2040 Build Operations for Hadley Avenue S Residential 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Number 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. Site Plan 3 3. Existing Geometrics and Traffic Control 7 4. Existing Traffic Volumes 8 5. 2026 No -Build AM and PM Peak Traffic 10 6. 2040 No -Build AM and PM Peak Traffic 11 7. Trip Distribution & Trip Assignment 14 8. 2026 Build AM and PM Peak Traffic 16 9. 2040 Build AM and PM Peak Traffic 17 Exhibit 1 23 TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Available upon Request) A. TRAFFIC COUNTS B. TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS C. RESULTS OF OPERATIONAL ANALYSES I. INTRODUCTION Pulte Homes proposes to redevelop the Mississippi Dunes Golf Course site of approximately 164-acres as a single family detached residential homes development plus a senior attached residential building referred to as the Dunes. The project will consist of a maximum of 369 single-family homes and 130 senior attached units. For the purposes of this study, it is anticipated that construction will be complete, and the facilities fully occupied by 2026. The proposed site is located to the south of 103rd Street S and to the east of Grey Cloud Trail S and is bordered on the south by Mooers Lake. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1, "Vicinity Map". Direct access to the site is proposed via two locations both originating from Grey Cloud Trail S and progressing southeastward into the site. Indirect access is available from Jamaica Avenue S, Hadley Avenue S, 95' Avenue S, and 100'' Street S via the intersection of 103' Street S with Grey Cloud Trail S. Indirect access is also available from Grey Cloud Island Drive S via both the northern and southern intersections with Grey Cloud Trail S. The location of the direct accesses is illustrated on the Concept Site Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of this study is to support the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) completed for the subject development, particularly to evaluate the impact of traffic generated by the proposed development on the operations and safety of the adjacent roadway network. The study focuses on the roads and intersections that provide direct and indirect access into the site. This study details the existing and future roadway conditions at studied intersections and includes traffic volumes, lane geometrics and traffic operational analysis results. Recommendations regarding roadway improvements to accommodate site generated traffic, as well as the anticipated growth in background traffic are included as necessary. Traffic Impact Study Page 1 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 L S '`• �': ` - ;� ,sue: r: * �f • YAK ? { f t ,. �ii[ti• ug s PROPOSED SITE A rILW Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Westwood I te..i V D ►�'i 1 V E5 aN COTTAGE GROVE. MN o- M spp Aso• Figure 2 - Concept Site Plan (By Others) Traffic Impact Study Page 3 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 I. Existing Conditions A. Data Collection The existing conditions of the nearby roadway system were documented by a field inventory conducted during the week of September 8, 2021. The purpose was to identify features that affect roadway capacity, including traffic control, sight distances, turn lanes, speed limits, etc. In addition, turning movement traffic counts were conducted revealing the AM Peak hour occurs at 7:30 — 8:30 AM and the PM Peak hour at 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM at the following intersections: • 103rd Street S & Grey Cloud Trail • Hadley Avenue S & 100th Street S • 100th Street S & Jamaica Avenue S • Hadley Avenue S & 95th Street S • Jamaica Avenue S & 95th Street S • Grey Cloud Island Drive and Grey Cloud Island Trail 3-way intersection • Grey Cloud Island Drive and Grey Cloud Island Trail intersection on the Island Figure 3 illustrates the study area, the existing geometrics, and the traffic control, and Figure 4 shows the existing AM and PM Peak hour turning movement counts. Also, the 2019 average daily traffic volumes in the study area as published by MnDOT are included on Figure 4. It is noted, Covid-19 has affected the travel patterns during peak times. Current patterns in the Twin Cities suggest the total daily traffic volumes are at levels similar to pre-Covid conditions, but the AM peak is much less intense, and the PM peak is occurring earlier with less volume but is lasting longer. The volumes in this report have not been adjusted to reflect pre-Covid conditions. B. Roadway Descriptions The existing geometrics of the Study Area Roadway Network have been documented based on a field review. The discussion that follows details specific items such as lane layout, roadway classifications, and turn lane storage lengths. Traffic Impact Study Page 4 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 ➢ Jamaica Avenue S, runs generally north/south to the east of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove Minnesota State Aid (MSA) road and is functionally classified as an A Minor Expander. In the study area, it is a 4-lane road, undivided to the south of 95' Street S, and divided to the north with designated left right turn lanes at intersection with 95' Street S. It provides indirect access to the site via the intersection with 100' Street S and subsequently 103' Street S. It is signed for 45 mph, and has an urban cross-section. ➢ Hadley Avenue S, runs generally north -south to the east of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove MSA road and is functionally classified as a Major Collector. In the study area, it is a two lane road with right and left turn lanes provided at major intersections. Hadley Avenue S provides indirect access to the site via the intersection with 100th Street S and subsequently 103' Street S. It is signed for 40 mph and has an urban cross-section. ➢ 95t' Street S, runs generally east -west to the northeast of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove MSA road and is functionally classified as a Major Collector. In the study area, it is generally a 4- lane road. 95' Street S provides indirect access to the site via the intersection with Hadley Avenue S and subsequently 103' Street S. It is signed for 45 mph and has an urban cross-section ➢ 100t' Street S, generally runs in an east -west direction to the east of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove (MSA) road and is functionally classified as a Major Collector/Other Arterial, and in the future it is planned as an A -Minor Expander. In the vicinity of the site, it is a 2-lane undivided road with dedicated right turn lanes and left turn by-pass lanes at major intersections. It provides indirect access to the site via its connection to 103ra Street S. It is signed for 50 mph and generally has an urban cross-section. Traffic Impact Study Page 5 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 ➢ 103" Street S, generally runs in an east -west direction to the north of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove MSA roadway and is functionally classified as a Major Collector. It provides indirect access to the site via its intersection with Grey Cloud Trail S, is a 2-lane facility and is signed for 40 mph. ➢ Grey Cloud Trail S, runs generally north -south adjacent to the site. It is a Cottage Grove MSA roadway and is functionally classified as a Major Collector. It provides direct access to the site via two new intersections. Grey Cloud Trail S is a 2-lane undivided facility, is signed for 40-mph, and currently has a rural cross-section. ➢ Grey Cloud Island Dr S, runs generally north/south to the west of the site. It is a City of Cottage Grove Local Street. In the vicinity of the site, it is a 2-lane undivided and it provides indirect access to the site via its intersections with Grey Cloud Trail S. It is signed for 35 mph and has a rural cross-section. As mentioned above, the existing geometric conditions at the study area intersections have been reviewed and are summarized on Figure 3. It is noted, 1031 Street S passes under an active rail line just to the east of Grey Cloud Trail S. This underpass is stop controlled on both approaches as the roadway curvature and width of the underpass will not accommodate more than one oversized vehicle at a time. Traffic Impact Study Page 6 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 LO Of � nTTr+ Aso n zo 41 r + + �,`'►°' + +PROPOSED Bypass Lane y SITE LEGEND o 14 D :7 +� t �► Lane Geometry xxx° Storage Length (Approximate) VVI 0 Signal Control , - 3 Side -Street Stop -Control Roundabout Control N Figure 3 -Existing Geometries J m J f R 1 O 00 2650[2019) iG N rr�� t25 (34) �^ N r 1� Y �13 (26) J r+ T O CV N N trG 00 0 710(2019) r` a t8 (12) 1 I 'r-13 (23) I m O M Ins Q c�u I�j3 i� � r $ Fiaure 4 - Ex g, n ,y0 ,y0 PROPOSED SITE Traffic Volumes 6l 3300 )2014y �' y � 3 M r t86 (110) m m �IMm m �i8 (40) m rn t3 (10) Y 1 �► r13(20) !' Y I I H23(41) x� n waenss (26) 45 1 j ? f (103) 1391 (33)18 N r r (32) 17-+ (2)1 i LEGEND xxx (xxx) Peak Flour Existing Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) 4 T r" Traffic Movement Signal Control 3 Side -Street Stop -Control 0 Roundabout control N 500 (2a2oi Average Daily Traffic Veh/Day (Year) III. NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE To address the impacts of a development on the surrounding roadway system, it is necessary to predict the traffic that would be present on the roadway system at the time (the design year) of completion of the proposed development, without the inclusion of the proposed development. This is considered the No - Build scenario, and serves as a basis with which to compare Build scenarios. In this study two design years were analyzed 2026, the year after the development is fully built and occupied, and 2040, the current planning year horizon. A. Background Growth Review of the latest City of Cottage Grove Comprehensive Transportation Plan indicates the traffic in the area is expected to increase. The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates traffic will grow by approximately 1.3 percent per year between now and 2040. This rate is likely conservative as ITE and the Transportation Research Board suggest traffic patterns will permanently change due to the impact of COVID-19 with fewer home to work and work to home trips likely to occur in the future. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the anticipated 2026 and 2040 No -Build peak hour traffic volumes. B. Anticipated improvements for No -Build Conditions There are no programmed improvements identified for the roadways surrounding the site. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the current roadway condition will remain as is. C. Results of Analysis The study area intersections identified in Section II were analyzed for the 2026 and 2040 No -Build scenarios. Complete discussion of the results of these analyses is provided in Section IV, where a comparison with corresponding design year Build alternatives are made. Traffic Impact Study Page 9 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 t27 (36) 4 4--14(21) �n y ej M QQ - CD � O � °= t9(13) F r 1 L* 14 (23) mve u rf m p � PROPOSED � "'" ii k -_ SITE N • .yam A Figure 5 - 2026 No -Build Traffic Volumes ty V r � [37] N N +-1 (12) 4,1 1 4 r-'d (3) xm st [31B]193 1 4) r r* [11]4� n o w t92 (117) 1 19 (43) ♦J 1 4 �14(21) xn a (28) 48 4) r l+ (38] 19 -# N r ■ - 1 R t3 (11) 4' I [Y H25 (44) �onnss (110) 149-t (3411" LEGEND xxx (xxx) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) *) fi I+ Traffic Movement Signal Control Side -Street Stop -Control 0 Roundabout Control N -x:su��;n�•,: i.t'7 T�`�_ ram' r ion S � r r 13�3`L e� N t 32 [43] 1 r 1 4 4.17 (26) ivvtn st 1 r* to V N N - bG N M O N I �17 [29] Y * iexe x a N r PROPOSED SITE „o /fjw Fiaure 6 - 2040 No -Build Traffic Volumes V V 1+-110 [141] 4 m m H23 (51) 4) 1 4 r17(26) um se (33) 58 J 4) 1 i* (42) 23 —} N (3) 1 ro i� ;•� 1 co t4(13] I �29(52) `i woenn (132)178J (41 )22—► LEGEND xxx (xxx) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) 41 T f Traffic Movement Signal Control Side -Street Stop -Control 0 Roundabout Control N IV. BUILD ALTERNATIVE A. Site -Generated Traffic The number of vehicle trips generated by the maximum 369 single family homes and 130 Unit Senior Attached Residences to be developed as part of the Dunes residential development were estimated for the weekday daily, and AM and PM traffic peak hours using the data and methodologies contained in the loth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The proposed development will include single-family homes corresponding to ITE Land Use Code 210 and senior attached residential units corresponding to ITE Land Use Code 252. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation estimates. Table 1 Trip Generation ILand I Trips Generated Land Use I Use I Size PM Peak Code Weekday ADT I I Enter Exit nter Exit Single Family 210 369 Homes 67 200 224 132 3456 Housing Senior Attached 252 130 Units 9 17 18 15 497 Units 76 217 242 147 Totals 3953 293 389 1. Per the data and methodologies in Trip Generation, 10' Edition, published by ITE. B. Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution of site -generated traffic from and to the adjacent street system was based on existing traffic patterns in the area and on travel time forecasts recorded during the peak traffic times using google maps. Figure 7, titled "Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment," depicts the distribution of the estimated site - generated traffic entering and exiting the study area roadway network, with 100 percent destined to/from the north. This traffic is then distributed accordingly, with 15 percent utilizing the Hadley Avenue and TH 61 interchange, 84 percent utilizing the Jamaica Avenue S and TH 61 interchange (with 20 percent diverting Traffic Impact Study Page 12 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 to 95' Street S when the traffic light is red or when visiting retail on the way home) and 1 percent utilizing Grey Cloud Trail. Site -generated traffic was assigned to the network accordingly and is also illustrated on Figure 7. (It is noted the volume of traffic turning left into the northern access may benefit from the installation of a left turn lane as traffic on Grey Cloud Trail S increases in the future. However, this study did not include a dedicated left turn lane at this access in the analysis.) Traffic Impact Study Page 13 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 41 r o o� r ° a r l❑1 ° 90 ZUn % wa r L n 0 (0) c 1 1 M1 M 4N7 `'. G4 ` ° W C3. 1 1 r' N 47 r N v � is t° (°)7 «j 1 4°°)ON (29) 43 4) 1 ro' , (0) 0 srs o (°) 0 K '� D� o rg p q ti �`� hry r^Oi�(44�?r'03) d .04o � 01 a1 a Figure 7 - Trip Assignment 0 Tom._ R c r a H0 (0) c LO (0) 4 1 4 �'� (ter 4) um s+ wWst (0) 0 1 4 1 j; (94) 139j r r LEGEND xxx (xxx) Peak Hour Trip Assignment: AM (PM) +1 t r+ Traffic Movement Signal Control Side -Street Stop -Control 0 Roundabout Control N g- Trip Distribution % C. Build Traffic Volumes When combined, the site -generated traffic volumes and No -Build scenario traffic volumes result in the Build scenario traffic volumes, shown on Figures 8 and 9 for the 2026 and 2040 design years, respectively. D. Intersection Operational Analysis Description The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as roadways, traffic signals and stop -controlled intersections, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volume on that facility. Various factors affect capacity including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the 6' Edition of Hi-hg wU Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of driver delay represented as a Level of Service (LOS). Operations are given letter designations with "A" representing the best operating conditions and "F" representing the worst. Generally, level of service "D" represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. The Chart below summarizes the level of service and delay criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Avera a Delay/Vehicle Sec. Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle Sec. A <10 <10 B > 10-20 > 10-15 C > 20-35 > 15-25 D > 35-55 > 25-35 E > 55-80 > 35-50 F >80 >50 A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable Level of Service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. In this report, the Industry Design Standard 95th percentile queue length is used. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length of vehicle queue that has only a five -percent probability of occurring during an analysis hour. Traffic Impact Study Page 15 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 _ C r � � ��' cli �9 (37) ' %P i N N I: f-1 (12) L +j 1 `i r 0 (3) (316) 237 J ) t 1�5j717Z "' N (11)4—► (1)9Z � O1 v v L 27 (36) 6 a 1 4 �62 (176) _ - -- �L I 88 (264)... N m ^ F19 (43) Y u k +j + 1 Y 29 (70) :t 75 (28) 48 4 t f* r: •■• (35)19 —+ m 3 (2)1Z�� r r �- a e 3 L L Figure 8 - 2026 Build Traffic Volume i z m N O Z3 N {11j i I 4' Y H 25 j44j ivnn n (204)2871 (34)18—+ LEGEND 1 It:�40 xxx (xxx) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) `ry t 'sa '� °dal (1 s) 4) t � Traffic Movement Signal Control r � Side-Street Stop -Control p• - , N Roundabout Control CIO m n, rmi A r h i {14} Cn .� 1 4ro4 (408) 2751 4) f f' (1)10 r. ro m t-32 (43) 5 - v rI� 4 r65 (181) ioa^ sr t � 1 ( - >v _ _ k J C7 M T v C ri tS0 {15] -- - - - - Im T t41D {14S] N 1 4 r9' 2s9 OD� Go 4-23 (51) t4 (13) i ]��+� + *) 1 4 �32 (74) I lY H29 [52] �stn st !-' maenn r c N (33) 58 } T (228) 317J T •••.• (42)23 -+ M N [41 ] 22-+ LEGEND xxx (xxx) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) a°'� �s�' ,( ry"' t6 ,( "� t rs J 4) fi f Traffic Movement r l o�0) 10� 0 Signal Control b O Side -Street Stop -Control N Figure 9 - 2040 Build Traffic Volume Roundabout control E. Results of Analysis This section contains the results of the intersection operational analyses based on Synchro/Simtraffic, I I" Edition, and provides recommendations, as necessary to mitigate the impacts. It is noted, the reported results are from the aggregate of 10 SimTraffic simulations which use a random number generator to seed the network with vehicles. These results reflect dynamic conditions and a more accurate than the results of the static analysis reported by Synchro, however, due to random number generator can sometimes show slightly better results on minor movements under higher traffic conditions when the intersections are operating at very good LOS. Table 2 summarize the results of the operational analyses for the 2026 No Build scenario (assumes 1.0 percent annual growth in traffic from existing conditions). Table 2 2026 No -Build Operations Overall/Worst Movement LOS & Delay (sec) Intersection Notes/951h Percentile Q AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (1.1)/a ebl (3.4) a (1.5)/a ebl (3.6) EB Q is 30 ft in AM; Cloud Trail S (south) EB Q is 37 ft in PM 103rd Street S & Grey Cloud Trail a (1.1)/a wbl (4.0) a (1.4)/a wbl (3.8) WB Q is 36 ft in AM; S WB Q is 37 ft in PM 1001" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (1.1)/a wbl (3.2) a (1.5)/a wbl (5.8) WB Q is 39 ft in AM; WB Q is 51 ft in PM 95th Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (4.3)/a wbl (7.1) a (4.8)/a wbl (7.5) NBQis37ftinAM; SIB Q is 42 ft in PM Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (1.0)/a ebr (2.5) a (1.1)/a ebr (2.9) -NA - ; Cloud Trail S (north) EBR Q is 13 ft in PM 95t" Street S &Jamaica Avenue S A (6.6)/B EBL (16.2) B (10.1)/C WBT(32.7) EBL Q is 162 ft in AM;EBL Q is 183 ft in PM 100t" Street S & Jamaica Avenue a (2.1)/a sbl (7.2) a (2.9)/b sbl (11.5) SBR Q is 33 ft in AM; S SBR Q is 53 ft in PM 1. Overall Level of Service reported from SimTraffic delay, first letter represents intersection LOS, while second letter represents worst LOS of individual approach. Upper case letters indicate signalized intersection, lower-case letters indicate unsignalized intersection, and italic letters signify roundabouts 2. 95`h percentile queues are a result from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations. The results shown in Table 2 indicate all intersections and worst movements are expected to operate at acceptable LOS in 2026 without the proposed project. Further, the results indicate all intersections will Traffic Impact Study Page 18 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 experience manageable vehicle queues. No intersection modifications are suggested for the 2026 No -Build condition. Table 3 summarizes the operational analyses results for the 2026 Build conditions. Table 3 2026 Build Ouerations Overall/Worst Movement LOS & Delay (sec) Intersection Notes/95t" Percentile Q AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (1.0)/a ebl (3.5) a (1.2)/a ebl (3.5) EB Q is 28 ft in AM; Cloud Trail S (south) EB Q is 35 ft in PM 103rl Street S & Grey Cloud Trail a (1.7)/a wbl (4.3) a (4.6)/a wbl (7.8) WB Q is 51 ft in AM; S WB Q is 83 ft in PM 100t" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (2.5)/a wbl (6.9) a (4.1)/b wbl (11.4) WB Q is 49 ft in AM; WB Q is 90 ft in PM 951" Street S &Hadley Avenue S a (4.7)/a wbl (7.6) a (6.3)/b wbl (10.7) NBQis47ftinAM; WB Q is 69 ft in PM Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (0.9)/a ebr (1.6) a (1.2)/a ebr (2.9) EBR Q is 13 ft in AM; Cloud Trail S (north) EBR Q is 15 ft in PM 951" Street S &Jamaica Avenue S A (7.7)/C WBT (29.2) B (10.1)/D WBL(38.9) EBL Q is 159 ft in AM;EBL Q is 167 ft in PM 100t" Street S & Jamaica Avenue a (3.5)/a sbl (6.5) a (4.8)/b sbl (10.1) EBL Q is 38 ft in AM; S SBR Q is 62 ft in PM North Access &Grey Cloud Trail S a (2.6)/a wbr (3.9) a (2.3)/a sbl (3.2) WBR Q is 66 ft in AM; WBR Q is 53 ft in PM South Access & Grey Cloud Trail S a (2.2)/a wbr (2.9) a (1.9)/a wbr (2.7) WBR Q is 49 ft in AM; WBR Qis44isPM 1. Overall Level of Service reported trom Stnil'rattic delay, tirst letter represents intersection LOS, while second letter represents worst LOS of individual approach. Upper case letters indicate signalized intersection, lower-case letters indicate unsignalized intersection, and italic letters signify roundabouts 2. 951h percentile queues are a result from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations. The results shown in Table 3 indicate all intersections and worst movements are expected to operate at acceptable LOS in 2026 with the proposed project. Further, the results indicate all intersections will experience manageable vehicle queues. It is noted the project will have a negligible impact on the operations of the Grey Cloud Island Dr S and Grey Cloud Trail S intersections. (Again, when the operations of the intersection and critical movements are at LOS A, the random number generator can sometimes show slightly better delay or queuing results on minor movements even with higher traffic volume conditions.) Traffic Impact Study Page 19 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 F. 2040 Operations The long-range planning horizon year is 2040, as mentioned in the No -Build section. The results of the analysis of the 2040 No -Build traffic conditions, which continue to reflect a 1.3 percent annual growth rate, assume the roadways surrounding the site have the current configuration. Table 4 summarizes the 2040 No -Build operations at the study area intersections. Table 4 2040 No -Build Operations Overall/Worst Movement LOS & Delay (sec) Intersection Notes/95t" Percentile Q AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (0.9)/a ebl (3.9) a (1.3)/a ebl (3.6) EB Q is 33 ft in AM; Cloud Trail S (south) EB Q is 37 ft in PM 103rd Street S & Grey Cloud Trail a (1.0)/a wbl (3.3) a (1.6)/a wbl (3.9) WB Q is 38 ft in AM; S WB Q is 43 ft in PM 1001" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (1.2)/a wbl (4.6) a (1.3)/a wbl (5.5) WB Q is 39 ft in AM; WB Q is 45 ft in PM 951" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (5.2)la wbr (5.2) a (6.0)1a wbl (10.0) NB Q is 57 ft in AM; SB Q is 65 ft in PM Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (0.8)/a ebr (2.6) a (1.1)/a ebr (3.3) -NA - ; Cloud Trail S (north) EBR Q is 9 ft in PM 95t" Street S &Jamaica Avenue S A (7.1)/B EBL (17.6) B (12.4)/C EBL (22.0) EBL Q is 128 ft in AM; EBL Q is 220 ft in PM 100t" Street S & Jamaica Avenue a (2.5)/a sbl (5.2) a (2.7)/a sbl (5.1) EBL Q is 33 ft in AM; S SBR Q is 44 ft in PM 1. Overall Level of Service reported from SimTraffic delay, first letter represents intersection LOS, while second letter represents worst LOS of individual approach. Upper case letters indicate signalized intersection, lower-case letters indicate unsignalized intersection, and italic letters signify roundabouts 2. 951h percentile queues are a result from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations. The results shown in Table 4 indicate all intersections and worst movements are expected to operate at acceptable LOS in 2040 without the proposed project. Further, the results indicate all intersections will experience manageable vehicle queues. (Again, when the operations of the intersection and critical movements are at LOS A, the random number generator can sometimes result in slightly better delay or queuing results on minor movements even with higher traffic volume conditions.) Table 5 summarizes the results of the 2040 Build traffic operational analysis, assuming no improvements or mitigation. Traffic Impact Study Page 20 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 Table 5 2040 Build Operations Overall/Worst Movement LOS & Delay (sec) Intersection Notes/951" Percentile Q AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (0.8)/a ebl (3.2) a (1.5)/a ebl (3.9) EB Q is 22 ft in AM; Cloud Trail S (south) EB Q is 36 ft in PM 103rd Street S & Grey Cloud Trail a (1.4)/a wbl (3.9) a (4.4)/a wbl (7.7) WB Q is 31 ft in AM; S WB Q is 85 ft in PM 1001" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (2.0)/a wbl (4.2) a (3.8)/b wbl (10.1) WB Q is 54 ft in AM; WB Q is 95 ft in PM 951" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (4.5)/a wbl (7.9) a (6.0)/a wbl (8.9) NB Q is 53 ft in AM; WB Q is 55 ft in PM Grey Cloud Island Dr S & Grey a (1.0)/a ebr (1.3) a (0.9)/a ebr (2.5) NA; Cloud Trail S (north) NA 951" Street S &Jamaica Avenue S A (8.5)/B EBL (19.0) B (11.9)/D WBL(36.5) EBL Q is 143 ft in AM;EBL Q is 196 ft in PM 100t" Street S & Jamaica Avenue a (3.3)/a sbl (6.3) a (5.4)/a sbl (7.9) EBL Q is 42 ft in AM; S SBR Q is 68 ft in PM North Access &Grey Cloud Trail S a (2.2)/a wbr (3.6) a (2.4)/a sbl (3.0) WBR Q is 63 ft in AM; WBR Q is 47 ft in PM South Access & Grey Cloud Trail S a (1.6)/wbr (3.0) a (2.0)/a wbr (2.0) WBR Q is 32 ft in AM; WBR Q is 52 ft in PM l . Overall Level of Service reported from SimTraffic delay, first letter represents intersection LOS, while second letter represents worst LOS of individual approach. Upper case letters indicate signalized intersection, lower-case letters indicate unsignalized intersection, and italic letters signify roundabouts 2. 951h percentile queues are a result from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations The results shown in Table 5 indicate all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable overall LOS in 2040 with the proposed project. Further, the results indicate all intersections will experience short to moderate vehicle queues, which are typical for peak hour conditions. As with the 2026 Build conditions, the project will have a negligible impact on the operations of the Grey Cloud Island Dr S and Grey Cloud Trail S intersections. (Again, when the operations of the intersection and critical movements are at LOS A, the random number generator can sometimes result in slightly better delay or queuing results on minor movements even with higher traffic conditions.) In addition to the forecast conditions at the study area intersections identified earlier in this document, two other areas were reviewed for the 2040 AM and PM Build conditions to determine if the project will result in unacceptable operations. The two areas are the railroad underpass intersection, and the Hadley Avenue Traffic Impact Study Page 21 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 S intersections with 90t'' Street S and 85" Street S. As mentioned in the existing conditions section, 103rd Street S passes under an active rail line and the approach lanes for each direction of the underpass are controlled with stop signs. This treatment is in place to protect oversized vehicles such as semi -trucks which cannot navigate through the underpass without encroaching into the opposing lane of traffic. It is noted, this project will straighten the 103rd Street S underpass, however, the opening will remain narrow likely making it difficult for two oversized vehicles to pass simultaneously. The operation analysis of the 2040 AM and PM Build conditions indicate the intersection and worst movement will operate at LOS A for both peak periods with the longest 95th percentile queue estimate to be 90 feet for westbound traffic during the PM peak. That said, with the anticipated increase in traffic associated with the proposed project, it is suggested that advanced warning signs with flashers be installed to alert drivers to the unusual traffic control conditions. The 2040 Build AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the Hadley Avenue S intersections with 90' Street S and 85t' Street S were also analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic Software. These intersections are all -way stop control with share left through and right movements occurring from one lane on all approaches. The volumes used in the analysis are derived from existing ADT. Exhibit 1 summarizes the 2040 Build peak hour traffic conditions at the two intersections. The results of the analyses indicate the intersection and worst movement operations for both intersections will not significantly change with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. Table 6 summarizes the results for the 2040 Build conditions. Table 6 2040 Build Operations for Hadley Avenue S Residential Intersections Overall/Worst Movement LOS & Delay (sec) Intersection Notes/95t" Percentile Q AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 90" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (6.6)/a nbt (7.7) a (7.2)/a nbt (8.2) NB Q is 97 ft in AM; NB Q is 113 ft in PM 85" Street S & Hadley Avenue S a (6.8)/a wbl (7.7) a (7.6)/a sbt (8.0) NB Q is 92 ft in AM; S13Qis95ftinPM 1. Overall Level of Service reported from SimTraffic delay, first letter represents intersection LOS, while second letter represents worst LOS of individual approach. Upper case letters indicate signalized intersection, lower-case letters indicate unsignalized intersection, and italic letters signify roundabouts 2. 95"' percentile queues are a result from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations Traffic Impact Study Page 22 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 Exhibit 1— 2040 Build Traffic Volumes at Hadley St Intersections L 1,2(8) (77) 26 ,e roj ❑ y rr7) 16 T �OI�f / '� 1 (, 7)26 1 r' lol a r I17y1sZcq Q [V i L LEGEND xxx If Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: AM (PM) I Traffic Movement A 0 All -Way Stop -Control N Traffic Impact Study Page 23 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 V. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS The preceding analysis has evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development of the Pulte Homes single family and attached senior apartment residential project, Dunes, on the operations of the study area intersections. The site is located adjacent to the east side of Grey Cloud Trail S and south side of 103rd Street S, just north of Mooers Lake in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Two design years were considered in this study, 2026 to correspond to the year after build -out and 2040 to remain consistent with the long range planning horizon. For both design years a No -Build and Build scenario, was analyzed and compared to assess the development's impact, and the area's future infrastructure needs. Development of the Dunes residential project on the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course site by 2026 is expected to result in approximately 3,953 new vehicle trips on the study area roadway network per average weekday. Peak hour trips generated by the development are estimated at 293 during the AM peak hour and 389 during the PM peak hour. The site access will include the construction of two new intersection on Grey Cloud Trail S, to the south of 103' Street S. Growth in background traffic at a rate of 1.3 percent per year was accounted for in the analysis. Results of the operational analyses in the 2026 and 2040 No -Build and 2026 and 2040 Build scenarios indicate all the intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service with typical Peak Hour short to moderate vehicle queues. It is suggested that the current stop sign control of the 103' Street S underpass be augment with advanced warning flashers to alert the driver of an unusual traffic control treatment. While not warranted at this time, it may be beneficial to include a dedicated left turn lane for Grey Cloud Trail into site at the northern access intersection. No other improvements to the roadways or intersections within the study area are required. Traffic Impact Study Page 24 S2 Traffic Solutions November 9, 2021 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules [I It ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD PLANNING Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning as an aid to units of government and others involved in the Minnesota Envi- ronmental Review Program pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04 and 116D.045; and the administrative rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Board: Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410 parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7500. This guide replaces the 1989 edition of Guide to the Rules, introducing rule amendments adopted in 1997 and providing additional information on selected topics. It is not intended to substitute for the rules, nor address every section and provision of the rules; it is designed to help Responsible Governmental Units and others implement the program more effectively and efficiently and to avoid common pitfalls. The guide does not alter the rules or change their meaning; if any inconsistencies arise between the guide and the rules, the rules prevail. Updates and corrections to the guide will be posted on the Environmental Quality Board homepage at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. Upon request, the Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules will be made available in an alternate format, such as Braille, large print or audio tape. For TTY, contact Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627- 3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. April 1998 For additional information, or paper or electronic copies of the guide, contact: MINNESOTA PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD Environmental Review Program 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar St. St. Paul MN 55155 612-296-8253 or 1-800-657-3794 (voice mailbox) web site: www.mnplan.state.mn.us e-mail: env. review@mnplan.state.mn.us f� u Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules GLOSSARY PROGRAM OVERVIEW Determining the Responsible Governmental Unit BEGINNING THE REVIEW Defining the project Prohibitions on governmental approvals and construction J ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS Petitions for an EAW Discretionary review Environmental Assessment Worksheet process time line ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS EIS content and scoping Environmental Impact Statement process time line Alternatives 1 3 7 9 SUBSTITUTE METHODS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15 Alternative Urban Areawide Review process AUAR process time line It MANDATORY AND EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 18 Glossary Alternative Urban Areawide Review A substitute review process based on review of development scenarios for an entire geographic area rather than for a specific project. See Chapter 5 for more information on the AUAR process. Connected actions Two or more projects that are related, interdependent parts of a larger whole. See Chapter 2 for more information on connected actions. Construction Any activity that directly alters the environment, excluding surveying or mapping. Cumulative effects Effects resulting from a project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Discretionary review Environmental review ordered by any government unit, usually in response to a citizen petition, where review is not mandatory. Environmental Assessment Worksheet A document providing basic information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit to determine whether an Envi- ronmental Impact Statement should be prepared. Environmental Impact Statement A thorough study of a project with potential for significant environmen tal impacts, including evaluation of alternatives and mitigation. Environmental Quality Board State agency that adopts environmental review rules, monitors their effectiveness and revises as appropriate; provides technical assistance to interpret and apply rules. EQB Monitor Biweekly publication of the Environmental Quality Board, lists deadlines for Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Impact Statements and other notices. Expansion A facility's capability to produce or operate beyond its existing capacity, excluding repairs or renovations that do not increase capacity. Mandatory review Legally required review, established by the Environmental Quality Board through rules authorized by the Environmental Policy Act. Mandatory review requirements are presented in Chapter 6. Mitigation plan An action plan developed in an Alternative Urban Areawide Review for how environmental effects will be avoided, including mitigation mea- sures, legal and financial measures and institutional arrangements. Phased actions Two or more projects by the same proposer that will have environmen- tal effects on the same geographic area and will occur sequentially over a limited time period. See Chapter 2 for more information on phased actions and phased residential actions. Responsible Governmental Unit Government unit responsible for environmental review, usually the unit with the greatest authority over the project as a whole. Using a stan- dardized process, the RGU prepares an EAW or EIS when required by the rules. Scoping Process to identify what potential environmental impacts, alternatives and other issues will be addressed in the EIS. Program overview Chapter Program overview The function of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program is to avoid and minimize damage to Minnesota's environmental resources caused by public and private actions. The program accomplishes this by requiring certain proposed projects to undergo special review proce- dures prior to obtaining approvals and permits otherwise needed. The program assigns a unit of government — the Responsible Govern- mental Unit — to conduct the review using a standardized public process designed to disclose information about environmental effects and ways to minimize and avoid them. Some people are disappointed to learn that the RGU is most often the governmental unit with greatest responsibility to approve or carry out the project, not an impartial unit as might be desired. The program does not give any unit authority over decisions of others, nor does it impart approval or disapproval of a pro- posed action. Local, state and federal regulatory agencies carry out the protection measures identified in environmental review. The program has no authority to enforce measures, regardless of how significant the envi- ronmental impact. In short, the review is a source of information and must be integrated with other permitting and approval processes to protect the environment. Two different review documents are used in this program: the Environ- mental Impact Statement, and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The EIS is a thorough study of the project's environmental impacts and a comparative analysis of its economic and sociological effects. It considers reasonable alternatives, including the "no -build" alternative. When completed, the review gives government units infor- mation to determine whether the project is environmentally acceptable and what mitigation measures are needed. The EIS is reserved for projects with "the potential for significant environmental effects" only a handful of projects each year. The other level of review is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This review procedure screens projects, which may have the potential for significant environmental effects using a worksheet with a stan- dardized list of questions. The EAW is subject to a 30-day public review period before the Responsible Governmental Unit makes a decision about whether the project also needs an EIS. An EAW can be initiated by a government unit or requested by citizen petition, as discussed in Chapter 3. Requirements for preparing a man datory EIS or EAW for specific project types and sizes are described in the rules and in the last chapter of this guide. Environmental review can apply to any action or project that meets three conditions: ■ The action or project must involve the physical manipulation of the environment, directly or indirectly (see definition of project at part 4410.0200, subpart 65). ■ The action or project must involve at least one governmental approval or one form of governmental financial assistance, or be con- ducted by a government unit (defined at part 4410.0200, subpart 34). For types of approvals and financial assistance that qualify, including those by federal agencies, see definition of permit at part 4410.0200, subpart 58. ■ Action or project approval and construction must take place in the future; that is, projects constructed or those with all required govern- mental approvals are not subject to further review, unless an expansion is proposed. A moratorium is automatically placed on action or project approval and construction whenever environmental review is required or requested by citizen petition (Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 2b and 4410.3100, subpart 1). Minnesota law requires that when environmental review is being conducted, a project may not proceed and permits authorizing the project may not be issued. Once all review is complete, governmental units with permitting authority or other authority over the project may proceed to make final decisions on the project. General responsibilities of those involved in environmental review are described at part 4410.0400, and can be summarized as follows: ■ Project proposers provide information needed for an EAW to which they have "reasonable access" and pay reasonable costs to prepare an EIS (required by part 4410.6000). ■ Responsible Governmental Unit prepares an EAW or EIS when required by the rules, verifies its accuracy and complies with rule time frames. ■ Environmental Quality Board adopts program rules, monitors their effectiveness and revises as appropriate, and provides technical assis- tance to interpret and apply rules. An appeal of an EAW or EIS need decision or EIS adequacy must be initiated within 30 days of the RGU decision being challenged (Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 10). Formerly, the rules stated that an appeal could be filed within 30 days from the date the decision notice is published in the biweekly Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning Chapter Program overview EQB Monitor. In 1997 the board amended the rules to comply with statutory language. Judicial review of environmental review decisions occurs in the state dis- trict court. The Environmental Quality Board is NOT an appeal body and cannot review an RGU decision, however, it may initiate judicial review or intervene in any proceeding brought under Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 10. DETERMINING THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Determining the Responsible Governmental Unit is the first step in the environmental review process. The RGU officially decides whether the project fits any mandatory EAW or EIS categories. Selection rules can be summarized as follows: Mandatory review. The Responsible Governmental Unit is specified by each mandatory category, except for those projects proposed by state agencies, where the agency proposer serves as the RGU. Discretionary review. If a governmental unit orders environmental review, it serves as the RGU. If a petition is filed, the Environmental Quality Board chair or staff assigns the RGU. Based on a provision in the 1997 rule amendments, the EQB cannot designate as the RGU a gov- ernmental unit that has already granted all permits for the project, regardless of whether the unit qualifies under other selection criteria (part 4410.0500, subpart 3). RGU assignment. The rules provide a hierarchy of selection criteria if the RGU assignment is unclear or in dispute (part 4410.0500, subpart 5). These criteria are: ■ If the project will be carried out by a single governmental unit, that unit is the RGU. ■ If a single unit has approval authority over the project, it is the RGU. ■ The government unit with the greatest authority over the project is the RGU. ■ If it is unclear who has the greatest authority, the government units involved may mutually agree on which is to be the RGU. In controversial cases units are advised to prepare a written document describing how the decision was reached. ■ If the units cannot reach agreement, the Environmental Quality Board chair must determine the RGU. The EQB can exercise extraordinary authority to change the RGU. The EQB has limited authority to change the RGU that is properly designated under the rules. The EQB can change the RGU only if making the change results in the appointment of an RGU with greater expertise in analyzing potential environmental impacts (part 4410.0500, subpart 6). The EQB can exercise this authority only if it acts within five working days of receiving the completed data portion of an EAW. Since the time - frame for using this authority is restricted and because the board, which typically meets only once a month, must make the decision, the EQB staff should be contacted immediately if a change in the RGU is requested. A governmental unit is not disqualified from acting as the RGU simply because it is the project proposer. The rules offer no mechanism for dis- qualifying an RGU because of an alleged bias. The EQB does not act as the RGU unless designated under the rules. In some situations the designated RGU can agree to allow another willing governmental unit to act as the RGU. The EQB has acquiesced in these decisions when all interested parties have agreed. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Beginning the review Chapter Beginning the review Environmental review should be initiated as early as possible. If the project fits into a mandatory review category, the Responsible Govern- mental Unit should be advised as soon as the proposer can thoroughly describe the project's location and basic features. For other projects, the sooner the public and governmental units with authority over the project are advised, the sooner the need for environmental review can be determined. DEFINING THE PROJECT Before the review process can begin, the RGU needs to define the project. This is usually straightforward, however some projects include more than the project proposer initially intended. Additional compo- nents may be included as part of the project because of planned future stages of development or because additional projects will occur as a result of the initial project. The rules contain two general concepts relating to identification of the complete project. One is "phased actions," which are future actions by the same proposer. The other is "connected actions," which are actions by any proposer that are closely connected to the initial project. These concepts are discussed below and at parts 4410.1000 and 4410.2000. In addition, for residential projects, the rules provide guidance in deter- mining what constitutes the project (parts 4410.4300, subpart 19, mandatory EAW and 4410.4400, subpart 14, mandatory EIS.) Phased actions Phased actions are defined as: "two or more projects by the same pro- poser that an RGU determines will have environmental effects on the same geographic area and are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time" (4410.0200, subpart 60). This definition involves three components: same proposer, same area affected and timing. Only one and not all of a group of owners need be involved in both projects if that owner's stake is substantial. The same geographic area is affected if the effects of any potentially significant impacts overlap. The project sites do not need to be adjacent, or even nearby, if the impact zone is large. The third component involves the most uncertainty and therefore is often the most difficult component to apply. The Environmental Quality Board recommends that the RGU consider the following factors as indicative that project stages are "substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time": ■ Development rights are being granted for future stages; for example, all parcels given preliminary plat approval or concept plan approval conveying any development rights must be considered part of the same "phased actions." ■ The project proposer is seeking approval for later stages from another governmental unit. ■ Public infrastructure or support facilities are currently being built to serve future stages. ■ Any aspect of the initial stage determines, limits or tends to preju- dice decisions about future stages. ■ Any assurances that future stages will not take place within a limited period of time. ■ The proposer has constructed other previous stages in the area. Past history may provide evidence about the likelihood and development schedule of future stages. ■ Any other factor that impacts the certainty and scheduling of the future stages. The 1997 amendments address the requirements for deter- mining whether a proposed expansion of a project is a phased action that might require a mandatory EAW when considered with the existing project (part 4410.4300, subpart 1, EAW threshold test). The existing size, or number or impacts of the existing project must be added to those of the proposed project under the following conditions: ■ Construction of the existing project began after April 21, 1997, the date this new provision of the rules went into effect; ■ Construction of the existing project commenced less than three years before the date an application was submitted for the proposed expansion or additional stage; and ■ The existing project was not reviewed through an EAW or EIS. EXAMPLE: In 1999, a 150,000 square foot expansion is proposed to a 200,000 square foot office building constructed the year before, without an EAW. Since all three conditions listed above are met, the RGU adds the square footage of the proposed expansion and the existing structure, comparing the 350,000 square foot total to the EAW threshold to determine if the expansion needs review. In other situations, tons of air pollutants emitted or cubic yards of waste disposal or number of animal units may be added; what is added depends on the measuring tool identified in the mandatory category. The goal of the 1997 amendment is to catch phased actions that slip by, intentionally or unintentionally, without review at their initial stage. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 3 Chapter Beginning the review This provision does not require EAW review of any existing stages of the project. It only requires the RGU to include previous stages in the calcu- lation to determine if the EAW mandatory threshold is exceeded, not to review completed construction. An EAW can only review impacts of actions that are not yet approved. Existing project stages are to be treated as background conditions, similar to the treatment of other development surrounding the project. It is important to emphasize that although the 1997 amendment may require past construction to be included with proposed future con- struction in some situations, in all situations the RGU must still determine whether there are any future phased actions that must be included in the threshold determination (part 4410.0200, subpart 60) Phased residential projects For residential projects, the EQB has adopted special provisions that prescribe how to treat potential future stages. The provisions are in the mandatory EAW and EIS categories for residential projects text (part 4410.4300, subpart 19 and part 4410.4400, subpart 14). They require that the total number of units potentially buildable on all contiguous land owned or under an option by the proposer be considered, regard- less of whether the whole area or only a part is proposed for immediate development. The land must be zoned or identified in an adopted com- prehensive plan for future residential development. If the proposer does not yet have plans for part of the area, the number of units potentially buildable is calculated from the maximum allowable units per acre under the zoning ordinance, or if the ordinance does not specify, from the average number of units per acre from the area as planned multiplied by the number of acres. If the total potential number of units exceeds a mandatory threshold, review is required for all phases. The review can be staged to coincide with phased development approvals (parts 4410.1000 and 4410.2000, subparts 4). If an EIS is mandatory, an initial stage of up to 10 percent of the applicable threshold may be reviewed through the EAW process; all subsequent stages are subject to an EIS. Connected actions Three types of relationships between projects qualify as connected actions (part 4410.0200, subpart 9b): ■ One induces the other; ■ One is a prerequisite for the other, the first occurring previously or simultaneously; or ■ Neither is justified by itself; that is, the two projects are interdepen- dent parts of a larger whole. Whenever two or more projects are related in any of these ways, they must be considered as one project, regardless of ownership or timing (parts 4410.1000 and 4410.2000 subparts 4). In practice, connected actions occur less frequently than phased actions. One of the more common connected actions occurs when independent landowners with adjoining properties jointly design a residential or commercial project without regard to the ownership boundaries. Multisite feedlot projects provide another example of connected actions. If an individual or group plans to raise animals on several sites, which may be owned by others, the projects may be considered a connected action; they are interdependent parts of a larger whole. If the total number of animals at all sites exceeds the EAW threshold, review of the whole operation is mandatory. Another type of connected actions arises when a major development project triggers construction of a public infrastructure, such as a road or sewer that would not otherwise be needed. In some cases, it may be appropriate to review the infrastructure through its own EAW, especially if the project exceeds the applicable threshold and the RGU complies with parts 4410.1000 or 4410.2000, subparts 4. However, the concept of connected actions is not intended to require that environmental review of public infrastructure projects fully satisfy all review require- ments for future development, unless the infrastructure is planned primarily to serve a specific project rather than to support development generally. This does not relieve the RGU of its responsibility to consider induced development in a generic way when reviewing the infra- structure project. Environmental review may be deferred if all phased action stages or connected action components cannot be ade- quately defined. Part 4410.1000, subpart 4 and part 4410.2000, subpart 4 specify that an EAW or Supplemental EIS must precede approval of each stage or component deferred for review. The initial review should describe the anticipated stages or components to the extent known, providing a general discussion of how they will likely relate to project impacts. Network projects such as highways, utility systems and pipelines may be divided for review if "logical in relation to the design of the total system or network and must not be made merely to divide up a large system into exempted segments" (parts 4410.1000 and 4410.2000, subparts 4). However, an unreviewed stage may not be approved or put into con- struction until the review is completed. Joint review of independent projects Independent projects —those which are neither phased nor connected actions — may be considered jointly for environmental review. Deci- sions about joint review of independent projects are at the RGU's dis- cretion, with the general understanding that joint review may not unduly delay the review of any one project, and that an RGU is obli- gated to consider cumulative impacts from other projects when deter- mining EIS need (part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B). Joint review may be appropriate in the following circumstances: Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Beginning the review Chapter ■ Several projects, each of which requires an EAW, are planned for the same vicinity; the RGU believes that review can be completed more effi- ciently or potential cumulative impacts can be assessed more effectively by preparing a joint EAW. ■ An RGU believes that several projects with potential cumulative impacts on the same area can be reviewed more effectively by a joint EIS. This type of EIS historically has been referred to as a "related actions EIS," (part 4410.2000, subpart 5). ■ An RGU has the authority to prepare a single EAW for a group of projects if the RGU concludes that the projects may have the potential for significant cumulative impacts on the same area. If confirmed by the EAW and comments received, an EIS must be ordered (part 4410.1700). ■ Another possibility for joint review is the Alternative Urban Area - wide Review process, described in Chapter 5. Cumulative impacts The primary purpose of environmental review is to disclose and assess the environmental impacts potentially caused by an action. In addition to impacts directly attributable to the action, some impacts can be the cumulative result of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This type of impact is a cumulative impact (defined at part 4410.0200, subpart 11). The rule states that cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. A common example is the gradual urbanization of undeveloped land: each subdivision by itself may have only a minor effect, but after many subdivisions have been developed, the character of the land is completely changed. The rules contain the following provisions involving cumulative impacts: ■ EIS need decision criteria at part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B. The second of four criteria is "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects." This criterion means that cumulative impacts must be weighed along with the project's direct impacts when deciding if an EIS is needed. It also implies that the RGU must take into account cumulative impacts when preparing the EAW so that sufficient information about cumulative impacts is recorded and available for determining the need for an EIS. ■ Related actions EIS at part 4410.2000, subpart 5. This provision authorizes a single EIS to cover independent projects with cumulative impacts on the same geographic area, if joint review will not unreason- ably delay review of any project. The related actions EIS is one tool available for an RGU to deal with situations with significant cumulative impacts. ■ EIS scoping decision at part 4410.2100, subpart 6. A scoping deci- sion is to include "identification of potential impact areas resulting from the project itself and from related actions." In a nutshell, this provision directs the RGU to identify cumulative impacts along with direct impacts. ■ EIS contents -impacts at part 4410.2300, item H. This provision requires an EIS to discuss indirect as well as direct impacts. Some indi- rect impacts are cumulative impacts. ■ Generic EIS -criteria for ordering at part 4410.3800, subpart 5, item G. One criteria for ordering a Generic EIS is "the potential for significant environmental effects as a result of cumulative impacts of such projects." This was one of the chief reasons why the EQB prepared a Generic EIS on timber harvesting activities, for example. The ability of traditional environmental review — especially the EAW process — to deal with cumulative impacts is limited because review processes are designed to be project -specific. When cumulative impacts from concurrent or future projects are likely to be significant, review can often be better accomplished through the Alternative Urban Areawide Review process or the related actions EIS. In cases when cumulative impacts are of regional or statewide concern, using the Generic EIS process may be appropriate. The EQB is currently studying cumulative impact issues and may ulti- mately propose changes in the rules or statutes to better deal with them. In the meantime, the best source of guidance on cumulative impacts is the federal Council on Environmental Quality's Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act, available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm. PROHIBITIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSTRUCTION Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 2b, calls for one of the following to occur before a project that requires environmental review can be started or can be approved and before any permits or other authorizations can be granted: ■ A petition is dismissed; ■ A negative declaration on the need for an EIS is made; ■ An EIS is determined adequate; or ■ A variance is granted by the Environmental Quality Board Prohibitions on governmental approvals and construction also begin when a valid petition is filed with the board (part 4410.3100); they end with any of the above actions. Once the review process ends, final deci- sions on permits and other forms of approval can be made at any later time, even at the same meeting. The statute and rule prohibit "final decisions" granting permits. In this context, final means "not to be altered or undone," rather than last. Any discretionary step in an approval process that conveys rights to the proposer and is not subject to further review or change is a final decision. Examples include preliminary plat approvals, which convey development rights under Minnesota law, as well as final plat approvals Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning Chapter Beginning the review and conditional use permits. It may also include zoning or rezoning deci- sions if associated with a specific project or concept plan approvals if development rights are conveyed under applicable ordinances. Permits and approvals include virtually any discretionary action by a government unit to entitle or assist a particular project to proceed, including financial subsidies or other assistance (see definition of permit, part 4410.0200, subpart 58). Conditional approvals A conditional approval is merely an indication by an RGU that it views a proposed project favorably based on known information. A conditional approval does not eliminate the requirement to complete environmental review, it is not authorization for a project proposer to commence a project, and it is not binding on the RGU with regard to a final decision after environmental review is complete. Nothing in the statute or in the rules addresses the issue of conditional approval. Project proposers often request an RGU to issue a conditional approval of a project pending completion of environmental review. While in some situations an RGU might want to issue a conditional approval for a project undergoing review, several precautionary notes are worthy of consideration. ■ Since a conditional approval is a distortion of the intended process, the RGU should require a good reason from the project proposer for requesting the conditional approval and the RGU should indicate that it has relied on that representation in considering the request. ■ The RGU should make it clear to the project proposer that nothing in a conditional approval will excuse the project proposer from making project changes or implementing mitigation measures that are war - ranted on the basis of the information collected during the environmen- tal review process. ■ The RGU should make it clear to the project proposer that issuance of a conditional approval will not be a factor in determining whether an EIS will be required on the project. ■ The RGU should make it clear to the project proposer that issuance of a conditional approval will not prejudice the RGU or any other gov- ernmental body from determining that a feasible alternative, or the no - build alternative, is justified under Minnesota law and that authoriza- tion for the proposed project will not be granted. Public project proposers may not take any action to prejudice the ultimate decision prior to a completed environmental review (part 4410.3100, subpart 2). Prejudicial actions are those that limit alternatives or mitigative measures or predetermine subsequent development. In other words, actions that make one option, including the option of not building the project, more or less likely to be chosen are prohibited. This prohibition includes the acquisition of property, if prejudicial to the ultimate decision. If property is acquired prior to com- pleting the review, the governmental unit cannot use the ownership or possession of a property as a justification for choosing one alternative or design over another. A variance allows limited approval and construction to begin prior to a completed environmental review. Requirements and procedures for the EQB to grant a variance are discussed at part 4410.3100, subparts 4 to 8; specifically, the project proposer must demonstrate evidence of the conditions in subpart 6. In addition, the RGU must concur with the variance request. Anyone requesting a variance should consult with Environmental Quality Board staff. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Environmental Assessment Worksheets Chapter Environmental Assessment Worksheets The EAW is a "brief document, which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed project" (part 4410.0200, subpart 24). Its primary, legal purpose is to provide the information needed to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects; it also provides permit information, informs the public about a project and helps identify ways to protect the environment. The EAW process consists of four steps: Step 1. Project proposer supplies completed data to the RGU. Step 2. RGU prepares an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Step 3. The public can comment during a 30-day period. Step 4. RGU makes a decision about the need for an EIS, based on the EAW, comments received and comment responses. Process details are covered in a companion booklet, EAW Guidelines, available from the Environmental Quality Board. 1997 rule amendments to EAW process Content. An EAW must include information about the project's purpose, and if a public project, an explanation of its need and beneficiaries. This information helps reviewers identify appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives. Substitute form. The RGU can use a federal environmental assessment document in place of the regular form without prior approval from the Environmental Quality Board. All requirements of the EAW process must be followed when an environmental assessment document is substituted for an EAW. Preparation. Procedures and timeframes are identical, regardless of how the review was initiated, replacing separate provisions for an EAW initiated by petition. The rule amendment also added further detail about how the RGU handles the proposer's data submittal. EIS need criteria. The fourth such criterion (at part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item D) reads: "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Only information already available can be taken into account. PETITIONS FOR AN EAW The purpose of the petition process is to provide a standard mechanism by which citizens can bring to the attention of the government projects which may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Some projects that do not fall into any mandatory category or are below the EAW threshold nonetheless need review because of their location or unusual features. Steps in the petition process (part 4410.1100): Step 1. Citizens prepare a petition, which to be valid must contain all of the following items: ■ A description of the proposed project. ■ Identification of the project proposer. Petitioners must notify the pro- poser in writing that they have filed a petition with the EQB; a copy of the petition need not be supplied. ■ Identification of a representative for petitioners, including mailing address and telephone number. ■ A brief description of the project's potential environmental effects, including an explanation of how unusual or unique characteristics or the location create a need for an EAW even though no mandatory threshold is exceeded. ■ Material evidence of potential for significant environmental effects because of the project's nature or location. ■ Signatures of at least 25 individuals, with no restriction on location of residence, age or any other factor. Signers must provide a complete mailing address and should certify that they are familiar with the peti- tion content. Petitioners must present a case for why the project should have an EAW prepared even though it does not exceed mandatory thresholds, by doc- umenting unusual features relating to its nature or location. Material evidence can take many forms — maps, site plans, existing reports, letters from experts, testimonial letters from citizens, photographs — but it must be a factual documentation of potential for significant envi- ronmental effects. To be successful, petitioners must do more than express their opposition or raise questions and concerns. Step 2. Petitioners file the petition with the Environmental Quality Board. If a petition fails to contain all of the required items, it will be returned by board staff to the petitioners' representative. When the petition is complete, the board will assign the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit and forward the petition to that unit. Once the petition is accepted, no final decisions to grant approval to the project may be given until environmental review is complete. The EQB is merely the clearinghouse for all petitions, and does not make any recommen- dations about the need for review, however it does advise the RGU of the major steps and criteria for review. Once the petition is sent to the RGU, petitioners should contact the RGU directly to check the petition's status and to provide further input before a decision is made. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning Chapter Environmental Assessment Worksheets The RGU is almost always the unit with the greatest responsibility for approving the project: it makes no difference whether the unit is the sponsor of the project, or is in favor of or opposed to the project. Step 3. The RGU reviews the petition and determines the need for an EAW. The RGU has up to 30 working days from the date the petition is received to make a decision. The rules require only that the RGU con- sider all known evidence, compare that evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significant environmental effects," and document the findings and decision in writing. A hearing or testimony is not required. Once a decision is made, the petitioners' representative and the Environmental Quality Board must be notified within five working days. Any aggrieved party may appeal the decision in district court within 30 days of the date the RGU made the decision. Occasionally, the RGU cannot act on a petition because the project is not yet officially proposed for approval or because the project is with- drawn by the proposer. A petition remains valid for up to one year from its filing date with the Environmental Quality Board. If the petition expires, the citizens must file a new petition for review. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Regardless of whether a petition is filed, any government unit with approval authority can order a discretionary EAW if it determines that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, unless the project is exempt (part 4410.4600). A discretionary EAW is particularly appropriate for public projects with some possibility of significant adverse environmental impacts or with the perception of such. By preparing a discretionary EAW, the govern- mental unit can systematically identify adverse impacts and their severity, forestalling potential delays if a petition is filed. A discretionary EAW may be used to jointly review projects, which inde- pendently do not exceed a mandatory threshold but collectively may impact the same geographic area. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PROCESS 30 CALENDAR DAYS EAW PREPARATION f - RGU Proposer RGU promptly reviews Data submittal RGU RGU completes RGU distributes EAW determines submits EAW's submittal for complete notifies EAW and to distribution list EAW is completed data completeness; returns to proposer approves it for necessary portions to RGU proposer if incomplete distribution TO 5 WORKINGDAYS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EIS NEED DECISION �----- f — Notice published in EQB Monitor 7 to 21 days after receipt of EAW; 30-day comment period begins * Can vary depending on RGU. RGU issues press release 30-day RGU decides if project 30 calendar day RGU distributes Notice published in EQB comment needs EIS, prepares judicial appeal notice of Monitor 7 to 21 days period findings of fact; and period beings decision after receipt of decision ends responds to comments NOTES Time frames are diagramed as prescribed in the rules and should be considered minimum estimates. Day can mean either calendar or working day depending on the timeframe listed for a specific event. If the text lists 15 or fewer days, they are working days; calendar days are 16 or more days (4410.0200, subpart 12). Working days exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal state holidays. How to count a period of time. The first day of any time period is not counted but the final day is counted (part 4410.0200, subpart 12). The last day of the time period ends with normal business hours, generally at 4:30 p.m. No time period can end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal state holiday. The 30-day period for EAW comments begins on the biweekly publication date of the EQB Monitor, which is always on Monday. Thirty days from a Monday always falls on a Wednesday, so the comment periods end on Wednesday unless it is a legal holiday. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Environmental Impact Statements Chapter Environmental Impact Statements The primary purpose of the Minnesota environmental review program is to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for each project with "potential for significant environmental effects," as mandated in Min- nesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 2a. Although prepared much less frequently than an EAW, the EIS is the heart of the program. The EIS provides information about the extent of these potential envi- ronmental impacts and how they may be avoided or minimized. Intended primarily for government decision -makers who must approve the project, the information is used by the proposer and the general public as well. A key point: the EIS is not a means to approve or disapprove a project, but is simply a source of information to guide approval decisions. Occa- sionally, the information results in an alternative site or design being selected. More commonly, the information suggests changes or miti- gative measures to minimize potential impacts that can later be imposed via governmental approvals. However, the legal basis for choosing an alternative other than the proposer's preference or for imposing mitigative measures comes from other statutory authorities. Again, the EIS can only point out problems and solutions, it cannot enforce them. Minnesota has a variety of independent statutory authorities to carry out solutions suggested by an EIS. State agencies can reject the pro - poser's preference in favor of a "feasible and prudent" alternative if the former is "likely to cause pollution, impairment or destruction" of natural resources (Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 6). Citizens have similar authority through judicial action under the Environ- mental Rights Act, Chapter 116B. When is an EIS required? ■ The project fits a mandatory EIS category (part 4410.4400). ■ Based on the EAW, comments and responses, the RGU determines that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects (part 4410.1700). ■ When the proposer and RGU agree that an EIS should be prepared; this generally occurs when both parties recognize an EIS order is the EAW's likely outcome and they wish to expedite the process. An EIS prepared under the first circumstance is referred to as a man- datory EIS. Those prepared under the other circumstances are referred to as a discretionary EIS; the third circumstance is also referred to as a voluntary EIS. The RGU must consider other actions related to the total project when determining the need for an EIS (part 4410.2000), including the project's future stages, other development in its proximity and actions induced if the project is built. Chapter 3 also discusses these issues. Who pays for an EIS? Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.045 directs that the project proposer shall pay for the RGU's full "reasonable costs" for scoping, preparing and distributing an EIS; most cost at least $100,000. Parts 4410.6000 to 4410.6500 — on how to determine allowable costs, how to make payments and other cost -related details — were updated in 1997. Four basic steps to prepare an EIS are: Step 1. Scoping, or deciding what impacts and alternatives will be covered by the EIS and the extent of effort and depth of analysis to be devoted to each topic; Step 2. Preparing the draft EIS based on the work outlined in scoping; Step 3. Public review of the draft and preparing a final EIS that responds to comments and makes any necessary revisions; and Step 4. Determining "adequacy" of the EIS. The RGU is responsible for all steps, however, the Environmental Quality Board will occasionally take over step four, determining adequacy. Com- piling information and analysis of impacts and mitigation measures are frequently handled by consultants under the supervision of the RGU. 1997 rule amendments to the EIS process: ■ Emphasized that only potentially significant issues need to be addressed in an EIS; see wording changes at several places in the rules, including: part 4410.2100, subpart 1, purpose of scoping; part 4410.2300, items G and H, content; and part 4410.2800, subpart 4, adequacy. ■ Provided additional guidance for evaluating alternatives. ■ Explained that the level of detail on any given topic should corre spond to its relevance to decision -making and cost of obtaining the information. ■ Revised how to deal with incomplete or unavailable information (part 4410.2500). ■ Clarified one criterion for EIS adequacy (4410.2800, subpart 4, item A). ■ Explicitly authorized the "tiered" EIS concept, as discussed in the next chapter. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning Chapter Environmental Impact Statements EIS CONTENT AND SCOPING General guidance for EIS content is given at part 4410.2300. Other pro- visions that clarify requirements — primarily alternatives, impacts and mitigation — are found at: ■ 4410.2000, subpart 4, connected and phased actions (defining the project) ■ 4410.2100, subpart 1, purpose of scoping ■ 4410.2400, incorporation by reference ■ 4410.2500, incomplete or unavailable information ■ 4410.2700, subparts 1 and 2, responding to draft comments and preparing the final document ■ 4410.2800, subpart 4, criteria for EIS adequacy Unlike the EAW, the EIS does not have a questionnaire -type form or a standardized list of topics. Instead, the rules give general guidance about the content, which ultimately is determined by the RGU through scoping. Previously the rules required that every impact, even if minor, be addressed to some extent in the EIS. The 1997 rule amendments mod- ified this requirement so that only potentially significant impacts need to be addressed (at part 4410.2300, item H; see also part 4410.2100, subpart 1 and part 4410.2800, subpart 4, item A). However, although this revision removes any legal obligation to include minor impacts in an EIS, in some cases the need for public education may be an overriding reason to be inclusive. The EIS often serves as a basic public document about a controversial project and its audience expects information about all topics related to the project. Information about minor environmental impacts can be added to the EIS by attaching the scoping EAW as an appendix or by inserting infor- mation from the scoping EAW where appropriate. In any case, since the EAW only covers environmental impacts, any minor socioeconomic impacts would have to be added by the RGU in some other way. Another 1997 revision (at part 4410.2300, item H) clarifies the level of detail and effort for each topic. The rule states that the importance of the impact and the relevance of the information to choices among alter- natives and selection of mitigation should dictate the amount of information presented; and the RGU is to consider the cost of obtaining the information compared to its importance and relevance when deciding what information should be included and how it should be obtained. In other words: the RGU should be willing to spend more for the information most needed for project decisions. The purpose of scoping is to streamline the document, to identify only potentially significant and relevant issues and to define alternatives (part 4410.2100, subpart 1). The proposer and the public (including agencies) must be involved in scoping to gain basic information about the project and ascertain public views about issues and alternatives; but the RGU must do more than simply collect comments from interested people about what belongs in the EIS. The RGU must identify all topics and alternatives that potentially could be in the EIS, exercising independent judgment about what the document ultimately will contain and how it will be prepared. If RGUs are too hasty in scoping the EIS, they almost inevitably will face delays later on and may damage their credibility and the EIS in the process. Topics and alternatives that need to be in the EIS are generally more extensive than the issues raised by public comments. EIS scoping documents The scoping process requires preparation of three documents: the scop- ing EAW, the draft scoping decision document and the final scoping decision document. The RGU often also prepares proposer cost agree- ments and documents needed to hire consultants to work on the EIS, and at the end of the scoping process, issues an EIS preparation notice. Scoping EAW. This document uses the standard EAW form to disclose information about the project and its setting to identify potentially sig- nificant environmental impacts. As with the regular process, the rules recommend that the project proposer supply completed data portions of the EAW. The RGU should carefully review this information and modify the EAW as needed. The RGU should be cautious about initiating the review if it discovers any uncertainty or ambiguity about the project description or location. Scoping may need to be repeated if the project changes in a way that influences potential environmental impacts or the people interested in the project. When completing the EAW form, the RGU should answer each question according to how the topic will be treated in the EIS: a. the topic is obviously not relevant or is so minor that it will not be addressed at all in the EIS; b. the topic is minor, but will be discussed briefly in the EIS using the same information as in the EAW; c. the topic is significant but the EAW information is adequate for use in the EIS; or d. the topic is significant; information beyond what was in the EAW will be included in the EIS. For topics that fall under item a, the RGU should provide enough infor- mation in the EAW to justify not addressing them in the EIS. For topics under b and c, the RGU should write text that can be used in the EIS without need to rewrite or edit extensively. For topics under d, little factual information should be included in the EAW; instead the EAW may simply state that the EIS will include a major discussion of the topic and provide a description of its intended scope and study methods. 10 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Environmental Impact Statements Chapter ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS Scoping process for a mandatory or voluntary Environmental Impact Statement* Project proposal RGU prepares and distributes EQB publishes filed with RGU scoping EAW and draft notice in scoping decision document; I EQB Monitor issues press release EIS preparation and review Public scoping 30-day meeting held 15 or comment period more days after ends publication date IF 280 DAYS RGU issues EIS preparation notice published scoping decision in EQB Monitor,- RGU issues press release; 280-day EIS process begins DRAFT EIS PROCESS FINAL EIS PROCESS f--------------------— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - -—————— — — — — — - Draft EIS RGU completes and Notice published preparation distributes draft EIS; in EQB Monitor officially begins issues press release 280 DAYS Public meeting held Draft EIS comment RGU responds period ends to comments and revises EIS FINAL EIS PROCESS - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------------------- Notice RGU responds RGU distributes final EIS; published in EQB Comment RGU determines RGU distributes notice of to comments issues press release Monitor period adequacy of final EIS; adequacy; notice published and revises EIS process repeated if in EQB Monitor i i i inadequate x Scoping process differs for a discretionary EIS. NOTES Time frames are diagramed as prescribed in the rules and should be considered minimum estimates. Day can mean either calendar or working day depending on the timeframe listed for a specific event. If the text lists 15 or fewer days, they are working days; calendar days are 16 or more days (4410.0200, subpart 12). Working days exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal state holidays. How to count a period of time. The first day of any time period is not counted but the final day is counted (part 4410.0200, subpart 12). The last day of the time period ends with normal business hours, generally at 4:30 p.m. No time period can end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal state holiday. The 30-day period for EAW comments begins on the biweekly publication date of the EQB Monitor, which is always on Monday. Thirty days from a Monday always falls on a Wednesday, so the comment periods end on Wednesday unless it is a legal holiday. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 11 Chapter Environmental Impact Statements Draft scoping decision document. This document, which is dis- tributed with the scoping EAW, gives the public a preliminary view of the EIS intended scope, focusing attention on its potential controversial aspects. The document need reflect only the information available at the beginning of scoping; it is acceptable for the draft document to admit uncertainty about scoping issues. Its format is usually the same as that for the final scoping decision document. Final scoping decision document. Prepared after the scoping period, this document is adopted by the RGU governing body as the official "blueprint" for the EIS. At a minimum, the final scoping doc- ument must include the items listed at part 4410.2100, subpart 6: a. issues to be addressed; b. time limits (if shorter than standard 280 day requirement); c. permits for which information will be gathering concur- rently; d. permits which will require a record of decision; e. alternatives to be addressed; f. impacts to be addressed; and g. studies to be done to develop information. In the final scoping decision document, it may be more logical to reorder required items as follows: a, f, g, e, c, d and b. Topics covered under a, f and g could be grouped as described under the scoping EAW. Item e, alternatives, is discussed in the next section; permit -related items c and d are addressed in a later section. Unlike EAW procedures, the rules do not require the scoping decision document to respond to public comments. Nevertheless, this step is typ- ically done and is worthwhile in most cases. The scoping decision document is the basis for the work plan and cost estimates developed for the EIS. As portions of the EIS are prepared, the RGU should check the work against the scoping document to see that all commitments are fulfilled. The RGU should also refer to the scoping decision document when responding to comments on the EIS. EIS preparation notice. This notice announces that work is starting on the EIS document and contains a summary of the scoping decision. It must be published in the EQB Monitor within 45 days after the scoping decision is issued and be sent as a press release to at least one news- paper of general circulation in each county where the project will occur. Copies of the notice may also be sent to individuals who commented on the EIS scope, or the RGU may choose to send the complete scoping decision to commenters. Scoping an EIS ordered through the EAW process When an RGU orders an EIS at the end of the EAW process, the scoping documents and procedures differ from those used if the EIS is manda- tory or voluntary (part 4410.1700, subparts 3 and 5 and 4410.2100, subpart 4). The differences are as follows: ■ No scoping EAW is prepared. The EAW and record of documenting EIS need supply the necessary background information to scope the EIS. ■ Instead of preparing a draft scoping decision document, the RGU announces the proposed EIS scope as part of its "positive declaration" notice, which indicates that an EIS has been ordered. The RGU must send the positive declaration notice to people on the EAW distribution list and to anyone else who submitted substantive and timely com- ments on the EAW within five working days of the decision to order an EIS. This notice must be published in the EQB Monitor and a press release containing the information must be supplied to at least one newspaper of general circulation in the project area. ■ The positive declaration notice must also give the time, date and place of the public scoping meeting. The meeting must be held between 10 working and 20 calendar days after the date of the EQB Monitor notice, which restricts timing to the second week after publication. ■ The RGU must make its final scoping decision within 30 days of pub- lishing the positive declaration, or if the decision is made by a board or council, at its first regular meeting after the public scoping meeting but no later than 45 days after notice publication. After the scoping decision is made, the rest of the EIS process is iden- tical to that for a mandatory or voluntary EIS. Hiring consultants. Information about the project may be obtained from the proposer or its consultants, however, the RGU may want to use an independent consultant to analyze the project's impacts, alternatives and mitigation to ensure an impartial study. ALTERNATIVES One of the main purposes of an EIS is to examine potential environmen- tal impacts of project alternatives. In 1997 the Environmental Quality Board amended the rules to provide more guidance to Responsible Governmental Units for selecting an appropriate range of alternatives. ■ The revised rule requires that an EIS must include the no -build alternative and at least one alternative of each of the follow- ing types or provide a concise explanation of why no alternative is included in the EIS: ■ Sites ■ Technologies ■ Modified designs or layouts ■ Modified scale or magnitude and ■ An alternative incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identi- fied through comments on the scope or the draft EIS Alternatives may be excluded only if they meet any of the following criteria: ■ Underlying need for or purpose of the project is not met. ■ Significant environmental benefit over the proposed project is not provided. ■ Another alternative is likely to be similar in environmental benefits but will have lesser socioeconomic impacts. 12 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules The RGU should keep a written record of alternatives examined and its rationale for any exclusions, providing a summary in the EIS scoping document and complete documentation in the EIS. It is not necessary for the EIS to identify any alternative as preferred. In applying exclusion criteria, the RGU must not be overly restrictive in defining the project's purpose and need. Occasionally, an RGU will claim desirable but nonessential elements as part of the project's purpose or need, thus eliminating alternatives that should be included. In many cases, these are cost -related factors and while important, they cannot overrule environmental considerations. At the same time, the RGU should not examine extraneous alternatives just to make an EIS more complicated. The intent of the 1997 revisions is to ensure that the RGU takes a serious look at whether significant environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized by carrying out the project in another way. ■ In the past an RGU did not always consider alternative sites, espe- cially if the project proposer was a private entity. The 1997 rule revi- sion requires the RGU to always consider alternative sites when scoping the EIS and to evaluate site alternative in the EIS unless they can be excluded based on the three exclusion criteria. The follow- ing factors should be considered by the RGU when deciding whether alternative sites would meet the underlying need and purpose of the project: ■ Whether the proposer owns the proposed site; ■ How long the proposer has owned the site; ■ The likelihood that the proposer could sell or otherwise use the pro- posed site if the project was moved; ■ Whether the proposer has access to other sites. Proposers with emi- nent domain authority have greater access than those who do not; access also depends on whether other sites are for sale; ■ Whether the site is an integral part of the project or whether the project could be built on other sites in the general area. For example, if a farmer wants to develop his land as residential property, no other site would meet the need. Conversely, if a major retailer wants to open a store in a new housing area, multiple sites may satisfy the objective; ■ The likely use of the proposed site if the project did not take place on it and the environmental impacts of other uses. For public projects, the RGU should be careful not to elim- inate alternatives from the EIS based simply on the culmination of a prior planning process. The RGU must take a hard look at the basis for prior decisions to make sure that environmen- tally superior alternatives were not eliminated without sufficient justification based on the rule's three criteria. Eliminated alternatives should be discussed in the EIS and noted in the scoping decision doc- ument. Prior decisions to eliminate options may need to be revisited in the EIS if insufficient consideration was given to environmental impacts. The next chapter describes how the RGU can use the "tiered" EIS concept, added to the rules in 1997, to efficiently incorporate environ- Environmental Impact Statements Chapter lot mental review into complicated public decision -making processes and to help avoid prematurely dismissing alternatives without sufficient justification. Public project proposers are further cautioned against taking any actions regarding site or route acquisitions or project commitments prior to completing the EIS unless it is clear that such action is not prohibited by part 4410.3100, subpart 2 or other laws. Mitigation measures Even if major alternatives to the proposed project are not implemented, mitigation measures identified in the EIS provide decision -makers with a list of possible measures to reduce impacts. These measures can be imposed through permit restrictions or through negotiations with the project proposer. Mitigation measures are not restricted to merely reducing impacts to permit levels. For example, if noise from the project is likely to be a problem, mitigation measures can suggest ways to reduce noise below the levels required by standards. Mitigation measures should be dis- cussed within the impacts sections and listed in a separate chapter of the EIS. This makes it easier for decision -makers to find and consider these measures in their deliberations. Mitigation should be discussed for all alternatives but especially for the proposed project since it is the one most likely to be implemented. EIS adequacy Upon completion of the EIS, the RGU must determine whether the EIS is adequate in accomplishing the following: ■ Includes topics required to be in the EIS or that were in the scoping document and does a reasonable job analyzing the topics ■ Includes responses to comments on the draft EIS ■ Followed procedures for providing an opportunity for public com- ment on the EIS Cumulative impacts analysis The scoping decision is required to include "identification of impact areas resulting from the project itself and from related actions" (part 4410.2100, subpart 6). In addition, EIS content requirements call for discussion of indirect as well as direct impacts; both requirements intro- duce the concept of cumulative impact analysis into the EIS process. The rules define a cumulative impact as "the impact on the environment that results from the incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time" (part 4410. 0200, subpart 11). Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 13 Chapter Environmental Impact Statements Many types of analyses commonly used in EIS preparation such as traffic, air quality or other simulation analyses can account for cumu- lative impacts. Provided they consider reasonably foreseeable future development, these analyses usually satisfy the requirement to consider cumulative impacts. However, other cumulative impact issues may arise that cannot be resolved by using a standard approach. Dealing with cumulative impacts can prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of EIS work. In 1997 the federal Council on Environmental Quality issued compre- hensive guidance for federal agencies on how to handle cumulative impacts in federal environmental impact statements and environmental assessments. This guidance thoroughly covers the conceptual back- ground of cumulative impact analysis, offering a compendium of techniques and methods, which may be useful to practitioners in the Minnesota environmental review process. It is available at http:// ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm. EIS and permit relationships in scoping An RGU may be confused about the relationships between the EIS and various permits needed for the project and how these permits are to be addressed in scoping. A permit can relate to an EIS in three ways: only the first, listed below, is always required in an EIS; the other two ways are optional, at the RGU's discretion. ■ All known governmental permits and approvals are required to be listed in the EIS in the Governmental Approvals section (part 4410.2300, item F). Since this is a firm requirement, it does not require mention in the scoping decision, although it is usually included in a pro- posed EIS content list. ■ Some permits and approvals can require a "record of decision," which documents how EIS information was considered in making the decision. Permits included in this group (if any) are determined by the RGU in its scoping decision. The RGU can require other agencies to pre- pare a record of decision. The record of decision is only appropriate for major discretionary decisions on the whole project, such as plat approval or a conditional use permit, or a major element that directly impacts the environment, such as an air emissions permit or a storm water management system permit. Whether or not the EIS scoping decision imposes the record of decision requirement, permitting agen- cies must consider EIS information in their decision -making, which should be reflected in the permitting record (listed at part 4410.2900). ■ The scoping decision may identify permits for which information will be gathered concurrently with the EIS. The permitting agency must issue such permits within 90 days of the EIS adequacy decision, unless in conflict with federal or state law or the proposer agrees to an exten- sion (part 4410.2900). This provision in no way reduces the information needed for a permit. If permit -related information is missing, either the 90-day time limit for the permit will be extended or the EIS adequacy decision will be delayed. The usefulness of this provision is debatable; it has never been used to the knowledge of Environmental Quality Board staff. Another aspect of the EIS and permit relationship, which is not part of the EIS scoping, must be clear to RGU and proposer. The proposer must realize that the EIS is not a generic permit application: it does not replace permit applications or supporting data requirements. The pro- poser needs to file any necessary permit information directly with the permitting agencies. Changes in the project Occasionally, the proposer will modify the project after scoping is sub- stantially complete. The rules prescribe minimal requirements for amending the scoping decision (part 4410.2100, subpart 8,) however, in some situations the RGU will need to exceed the legal minimum to maintain credibility. If the proposed change could result in different or substantially greater impacts, different reasonable alternatives or differ- ent people becoming concerned, the RGU should consider repeating the scoping process. For minor changes, the Environmental Quality Board staff recommends that interested people be notified of the proposed revision, in advance if possible, and offered an opportunity to comment or object. If a project is scaled back substantially so that an EIS is no longer required, the rules provide a specific process to terminate (part 4410.2100, subpart 11). This provides opportunity for the public to comment on the need to continue with an EIS. The 1997 amendments establish different procedures depending on whether the modified project exceeds any mandatory EAW threshold. Procedures to prepare an EIS supplement are found at part 4410.3000, subparts 4 and 5. They are similar to those for a regular EIS with the following exceptions: ■ A procedure is provided for requests for supplements and RGU responses (subpart 4). ■ The 30-day scoping period, scoping EAW and scoping decision doc- ument are eliminated. Instead, the RGU must adopt a scope in the "preparation notice," which also is the official order and rationale for the supplement. Interested people have 20 days after the preparation notice release to object to the scope, in which case the RGU must pro- vide a written response in the draft scoping EIS document. However, the rules allow the RGU to go through a more public scoping process, including scoping meetings, if advisable. ■ The time limit to complete the supplement is 120 days from the date the preparation notice is adopted to adequacy determination. 14 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Substitute methods of environmental review Substitute methods of environmental review Several options for environmental review are found at parts 4410.3600 to 4410.4000. In appropriate circumstances, a Responsible Govern- mental Unit may consider the following substitute methods: 4410.3600. Alternative Review. This rule allows the Environmental Quality Board to approve a substitute review process that can replace an EAW or EIS. An RGU with a review process that might qualify under 4410.3600 should contact board staff to discuss the feasibility of approval. Since requirements are stringent, only a few approvals have been issued to date. 4410.3610. Alternative urban areawide review. This substitute process is covered in detail in the next section. 4410.3700. Model ordinance. This option is available to any local unit that adopts the model ordinance found at part 4410.3700. The ordinance does not apply to any project that requires a state agency permit, therefore, it can only be used for a limited number of projects. 4410.3900. Joint federal and state review. Any RGU or federal agency contemplating environmental review under federal law is advised to contact board staff about coordinating federal and state review to minimize duplication and delays. Federal and state review documents are often prepared jointly, however, in some cases it is more expeditious to complete one review and use the completed documents in a subsequent review under the other process. Board staff can help determine the best approach for the situation. Although the same factual information can often be used, each process has separate and independent legal requirements. In other words, the state EIS process requirements cannot be met by following federal procedures. 4410.4000. Tiered EIS. Added to the rules in 1997, this provision is derived from federal NEPA procedures. It applies to projects for which decisions are made sequentially over time, allowing environmental review to be done in stages — or tiers — corresponding to decisions. In each tier, only information relevant to that stage is developed. The level of detail usually becomes greater and more site -specific as the review proceeds from one tier to the next. An appropriate situation for a tiered review is the siting of a major facility where a general area for the facility is selected first and the best site within the area is selected later. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PROCESS The regular environmental review process is best suited for distinct projects with environmental impacts that do not overlap. In 1988 the Environmental Quality Board adopted a process to review incremental impacts accumulating from a series of sequential projects, development typical of the rapidly growing suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Alternative Urban Areawide Review process substitutes for any EAW or EIS required for specific qualifying projects, provided they comply with the review assumptions and mitigation measures. The review's key feature is that its subject is a development scenario or several scenarios for an entire geographical area rather than a specific project. Development scenarios are established by the local unit based upon the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances, developers' plans and other relevant information. More than one scenario can be reviewed, providing at least one is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. A maximum development, "worst case" scenario is usually included. Development scenarios chosen by the local unit serve as the project description for the environmental impacts analysis. Specific projects ready for review within the area can be included, however, the review can also be done before any specific projects are proposed. The AUAR process can be used by a local governmental unit if the area to be reviewed is covered by an acceptable comprehensive plan (defined at part 4410.3610, subpart 1, criteria derived from Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859). Any city, county or township with planning and zoning authorities, which has adopted a comprehensive plan meeting these requirements, qualifies to use the AUAR process; the RGU is required to certify that requirements are met. Types of development projects that can be reviewed through the Alter- native Urban Areawide Review process were clarified in the 1997 rule amendments. Specifically, an AUAR can now substitute for review of: residential development, commercial development, warehousing, light industrial development and infrastructure associated with any develop- ments such as roadways, water, sewer and stormwater systems. Light industrial development is defined as the assembly of products from components that are produced off -site. Development with character- istics that meet thresholds of any industrial mandatory EAW or EIS categories (part 4410.4300, subparts 2 to 13, 15 to 18 or 24; part 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13 or 25) are not eligible for AUAR. A hybrid of the EAW and EIS review processes, the AUAR uses a standard list of questions adapted from the EAW, providing a level of analysis for typical urban area impacts comparable to an EIS. Since its content is uniform, scoping is not necessary; however, it has been vol- untarily added to several reviews. A draft and final document is prepared and distributed in a manner similar to an EIS to ensure ade- quate review. A process for appeal to the Environmental Quality Board can be invoked by state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 15 Chapter Substitute methods of environmental review Benefits of the AUAR process. The process offers several significant advantages to developers, city governments, reviewing agencies and to the environment. It is an excellent tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given area. AUAR enables city planners to better integrate environmental review into their comprehensive planning process. A single review process can address both public infra- structure construction scheduled in the near future as well as the ensuing residential and commercial development slated for later years. By examining multiple development scenarios through the AUAR process, planners are able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area without significant environmental impacts. Moving review to an earlier planning stage helps anticipate and correct potential problems while project plans are still flexible. Projects will not be subject to individual environmental reviews if designers conform to AUAR assumptions and mitigation plan require- ments. Failure to conform exposes the project to additional time delays and expenses, thereby encouraging projects to be designed in an envi- ronmentally conscientious manner. Initiating the AUAR process. Any local unit considering the AUAR process should consult with the Environmental Quality Board staff early in planning. An AUAR process is formally initiated by RGU order, which must define the review area boundaries and the "anticipated nature, location, and intensity" of development (part 4410.3610, subpart 3.) Several development scenarios may be designated. At least one must be consistent with the most current adopted comprehensive plan; if the plan is outdated and being revised, but has not yet been adopted, the AUAR must include a scenario based on the former comprehensive plan. This scenario takes the place of the no -build alternative required in an EIS, although the RGU can also include less intense development sce- narios if it has reason to do so. The review area may be subdivided into smaller subareas so that variations in land uses and intensities can be delineated. It is presumed that the RGU will discuss potential devel- opment scenarios and how to pay review costs with property owners. The rules do not address the issue of how an AUAR is funded, leaving this up to the RGU. If disputes or uncertainties arise about the nature, location or intensity of development within the review area, the RGU can proceed by incorporating multiple scenarios that reflect differing view points. In defining development scenarios, the RGU should keep in mind the fundamental principal that if actual development — in total or in any subarea —exceeds the "maximum development" scenario, the AUAR is invalid as a substitute for an EAW and EIS; therefore, the RGU should include one that represents the maximum development expected or allowed. This approach has another advantage to the RGU and devel- opers: namely if the maximum development level is inconsistent with state environmental laws —for example, the resulting traffic will cause air quality standard violations — the AUAR will reveal the problem and appropriate planning can be done prior to development. Steps of the AUAR are detailed at part 4410.3610, subpart 5, and summarized below. The process needs to be completed in 120 days from the RGU's order for the AUAR to adoption of the final document or mitigation plan. Step 1. The RGU selects area boundaries to be reviewed and defines anticipated levels of development on various parcels. Step 2. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review document is drafted. Guidance on contents and format is available from Environmental Quality Board. A draft mitigation plan may be included. Step 3. The draft document is reviewed in a manner similar to an EAW. The basic comment period is 30 days, but any state agency or the Metropolitan Council must be granted a 15-working day extension upon request. Step 4. Based on comments received, the RGU revises the document and adds a "mitigation plan," specifying mitigation measures or procedures to protect the environment from identified potential impacts. The RGU may also need to revise development assumptions or set development limits to protect environmental resources. Step 5. The finalized document and mitigation plan is distributed for review. Step 6. If objections are filed by any state agency or the Metropolitan Council, negotiations ensue after which, if no resolution can be reached, the Environmental Quality Board decides if the review is adequate or must be revised. If revised, the documents are again reviewed according to procedures above. The mitigation plan. The mitigation plan is probably the most important result of the AUAR process, commanding careful attention by both the RGU and reviewers. This plan must specify not only physical mitigation measures but also the legal and financial measures and insti- tutional arrangements to ensure mitigation. The mitigation plan is not merely a list of ways to avoid significant envi- ronmental effects, rather an action plan for how the effects will be avoided. It is a commitment by the RGU and other agencies to take action to prevent impacts that otherwise could occur from project devel- opment. Failure to develop and implement an adequate mitigation plan could leave projects exposed to legal action under the Environmental Rights and Environmental Policy acts for causing "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment for which there are "feasible and prudent" alternatives. Updating the AUAR. Subpart 7 provides guidance on when the review needs to be updated to remain valid, listing six specific examples of such circumstances. Regardless of any significant changes, the review must be updated every five years until all development in the area has been approved. Revisions to the documents are distributed for review in the same manner as for a final AUAR document. 16 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Substitute methods of environmental review Audits. Subpart 8 provides that the board chair may ask the RGU at any time for a status report on development progress in the area and on mitigation plan implementation. This provision allows the board to investigate any allegations of procedural abuse, to make sure that agreed upon mitigation is being implemented and to make sure that development is consistent with review assumptions. Failures to conform to the original assumptions or to implement the mit- igation plan void the status of the AUAR as a substitute form of review, which means that individual projects are then subject to EAW and EIS requirements. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PROCESS Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 17 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories Mandatory and exemption categories The following tables list mandatory requirements and exemptions for environmental review from Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400 and 4410.4600. Each section presents EAW, EIS and exemption requirements, describing how to determine if review is man- datory or exempt for a particular type of project. It also indicates in bold the assigned Responsible Governmental Unit. If a project does not fit in any category, its review is discretionary. Notes accompany cate- gories when needed to define terms, provide guidance and give examples. Notes that apply to the entire table ■ Two frequently used terms are: construction, any activity that directly alters the environment, including land preparation or facilities fabrication, excluding surveying or mapping; and expansion, a facil- ity's capability to produce or operate beyond its existing capacity, excluding repairs or renovations that do not increase capacity. ■ The "complete project" must be compared to appropriate categories in the table. Guidance about defining the complete project can be found in Chapter 2. A requirement adopted in 1997 requires existing project stages begun after April 21, 1997, to be included under some circumstances. ■ A project may fit several different categories: compare each project to columns within and among categories. If the RGU listed is different, follow procedures at part 4410.0500. ■ Mandatory categories overrule exemption categories, except stan- dard exemptions listed at part 4410.4600, subpart 2. Guide to Minnesota state agencies in the table ■ Department of Natural Resources, DNR ■ Department of Transportation, DOT ■ Environmental Quality Board, EQB ■ Department of Agriculture, MDA ■ Department of Health, MDH ■ Pollution Control Agency, PCA ■ Public Utilities Commission, PUC 18 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter NUCLEAR FUELS AND NUCLEAR WASTE 4410.4300, subpart 2 A. Construction or expansion of a facility for the storage of high level nuclear waste, EQB B. Construction or expansion of a facility for the storage of low level nuclear waste for one year or longer, MDH C. Expansion of a high level nuclear waste disposal site, EQB D. Expansion of a low level nuclear waste disposal site, MDH E. Expansion of an away -from -reactor facility for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, EQB F. Construction or expansion of an on -site pool for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, EQB 4410.4400, subpart 2 A. Construction or expansion of a nuclear fuel or nuclear waste processing facility, including fuel fabrication facilities, reprocessing plants, and uranium mills, DNR for uranium mills; otherwise, PCA. B. Construction of a high level nuclear waste disposal site, EQB C. Construction of an away -from -reactor facility for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, EQB D. Construction of a low level nuclear waste disposal site, MDH None ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES MANDATORY EAW MANDATORY EIS 4410.4300, subpart 3 4410.4400, subpart 3 EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 3 Construction of an electric power generating Construction of a large electric power generating Construction of an electric generating plant or plant and associated facilities designed for or plant pursuant to part 4410.7000, EQB combination of plants at a single site with a capable of operating at a capacity of 25 mega- combined capacity of less than five megawatts. watts or more, EQB NOTES Large electric power generating plants and associated facilities include power generating plants of 50 or more megawatt capacity (EQB power plant siting rules at part 4400.0200). Special procedures apply to integrate EIS review into EQB siting process (4410.7000 to 4410.7100). 4410.4300, subpart 4 Expansion of an existing petroleum refinery facility that increases its capacity by 10,000 or more barrels per day, PCA PETROLEUM REFINERIES 4410.4400, subpart 4 Construction of a new petroleum refinery facility, PCA None FUEL CONVERSION FACILITIES 4410.4300, subpart 5 A. Construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, peat, or biomass sources to gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 25,000 dry tons or more per year of input, PCA B. Construction or expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels which would have or would increase its capacity by 5,000,000 or more gallons per year of alcohol produced, PCA 4410.4400, subpart 5 A. Construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, peat, or biomass sources to gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 250,000 dry tons or more per year of input, PCA B. For construction or expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels which would have or would increase its capacity by 50,000,000 or more gallons per year of alcohol produced, PCA 4410.4600, subpart 4 Expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels that would have or would increase its capacity by less than 500,000 gallons per year of alcohol produced. NOTES Biomass sources are animal wastes and all forms of vegetation, natural or cultivated (4410.0200, subpart 6). Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 19 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories 4410.4300, subpart 6 Construction of a transmission line at a new loca- tion with a nominal capacity of 70 kilovolts or more with 20 or more miles of its length in Minnesota, EQB TRANSMISSION LINES 4410.4400, subpart 6 4410.4600, subpart 5 Construction of a high voltage transmission line Construction of a transmission line with a pursuant to part 4410.7400, EQB nominal capacity of 69 kilovolts or less. NOTES High voltage transmission line is a conductor of electricity designed to operate at a nominal voltage of 200 kilovolts or more; associated facilities include insulators, towers, switching yards, substations, and terminals (4400.0200). Special procedures apply to integrate EIS into EQB route selection process (4410.7400 and 4410.7500). PIPELINES MANDATORY.-CATEGORIES4410.4300, subpart 7 4410.4400, subpart 24 None A. Routing of a pipeline, greater than six inches Routing of a pipeline subject to the full route in diameter and having more than 0.75 miles of selection procedures under Minnesota Statutes, its length in Minnesota, used for the transporta- section 1161.015, EQB tion of coal, crude petroleum fuels, or oil or their derivates, EQB B. Construction of a pipeline for distribution of natural or synthetic gas under a license, permit, right, or franchise that has been granted by the municipality under authority of Minnesota Stat- utes, section 216B.36, designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than: (1) five miles if the pipeline will occupy streets, high- ways, and other public property; or (2) 0.75 miles if the pipeline will occupy private property; EQB or municipality C. Construction of a pipeline to transport natural or synthetic gas subject to regulation under the federal Natural Gas Act, United States Code, title 15, section 717, et. seq., designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than: (1) five miles if the pipeline will be constructed and oper- ated within an existing right-of-way; or (2) 0.75 miles if construction or operation will require new temporary or permanent right-of-way; EQB D. Construction of a pipeline to convey natural or synthetic gas that is not subject to regulation under the federal Natural Gas Act, United States Code, title 15, section 717, et. seq.; or to a license, permit, right, or franchise that has been granted by a municipality under authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 21613.36; designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than 0.75 miles, EQB NOTES Items A to D do not apply to repair or replacement of an existing pipeline within an existing right-of-way or to a pipeline located entirely within a refining, storage or manufacturing facility. Item C (interstate natural gas pipelines) does not apply if the application is expressly preempted by federal law, or under specific circumstances when a conflict exists with applicable federal law. The EQB has approved an alternative pipeline routing review process (4410.3600); any pipeline reviewed under chapter 4415 automatically satisfies EAW and EIS requirements. 20 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter 4410.4300, subpart 8 A. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring 300 tons or more of coal per hour or with an annual throughput of 500,000 tons of coal from one mode of transpor- tation to a similar or different mode of transpor- tation; or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, PCA B. Construction of a new facility or the expansion by 50 percent or more of an existing facility for the bulk transfer of hazardous materials with the capacity of 10,000 or more gallons per transfer, if the facility is located in a shoreland area, delin- eated flood plain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi head- waters area, PCA TRANSFER FACILITIES None 4410.4600, subpart 6 Construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring less than 30 tons of coal per hour orwith an annual throughput of less than 50,000 tons of coal from one mode of transportation to a similar or different mode of transportation, or the expansion of an existing facility by these respec- tive amounts. NOTES Water -related land use management district is any of the following designated zones: shorelands, flood plains, wild or scenic rivers districts, Mississippi Headwaters and Minnesota Project Riverbend districts. UNDERGROUND STORAGE MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 9 MANDATORY EIS 4410.4400, subpart 7 EXEMPTION CATEGORIES None A. Expansion of an underground storage facility A. Construction of an underground storage for gases or liquids that requires a permit, facility for gases or liquids that requires a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 1031.681, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), DNR 1031.681, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), DNR B. Expansion of an underground storage facility B. Construction of an underground storage for gases or liquids, using naturally occurring facility for gases or liquids, using naturally occur - rock materials, that requires a permit pursuant to ring rock materials, that requires a permit Minnesota Statutes, section 1031.681, subdivi- pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section sion 1, paragraph (b), DNR 1031.681, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), DNR STORAGE FACILITIES MANDATORY EAW MANDATORY EIS 4410.4300, subpart 10 None EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 7 A. Construction of a facility designed for or Construction of a facility designed for or capable capable of storing more than 7,500 tons of coal of storing less than 750 tons of coal or more, or with an annual throughput of more than with an annual throughput of less than 12,500 125,000 tons of coal; or the expansion of an tons of coal, or the expansion of an existing existing facility by these respective amounts, facility by these respective amounts. PCA B. Construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials, PCA C. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing on a single site 100,000 gallons or more of liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas, or anhydrous ammonia, PCA NOTES Item C includes all types of natural or synthetic gas stored in a liquid state. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 21 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories METALLIC MINERAL MINING AND PROCESSING 4410.4300, subpart 1 A. Mineral deposit evaluation of metallic mineral deposits other than natural iron ore and taconite, DNR B. Expansion of a stockpile, tailings basin, or mine by 320 or more acres, DNR C. Expansion of a metallic mineral plant processing facility that is capable of increasing production by 25 percent per year or more, provided that increase is in excess of 1,000,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for processing natural iron ore or taconite, DNR 4410.4400, subpart 8 A. Mineral deposit evaluation involving the extraction of 1,000 tons or more of material that is of interest to the proposer principally due to its radioactive characteristics, DNR B. Construction of a new facility for mining metallic minerals or for the disposal of tailings from a metallic mineral mine, DNR C. Construction of a new metallic mineral processing facility, DNR 4410.4600, subpart 8 A. General mine site evaluation activities that do not result in a permanent alteration of the envi- ronment, including mapping, aerial surveying, visual inspection, geologic field reconnaissance, geophysical studies, and surveying, but excluding exploratory borings. B. Expansion of metallic mineral plant processing facilities that are capable of increasing produc- tion by less than ten percent per year, provided the increase is less than 100,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for processing natural iron ore or taconite. C. Scram mining operations. NOTES Mineral deposit evaluation is examining an area to determine the quantity and quality of minerals, excluding exploratory boring, but including bulk samples obtained by excavating; trenching; constructing shafts, tunnels or pits; producing refuse and other associated activities (4410.0200, subpart 47, citing Minnesota Statute, section 1031.605, subdivision 2). Scram mining operations produce natural iron ore or ore concentrates from previously developed stockpiles, tailings, basins, underground mines or open pits. Land can be no more than 80 acres previously not affected by mining, that is: from which no materials have been removed or on which no mine wastes have been deposited. (4410.0200, Subpart 78, citing part 6130.0100). NONMETALLIC MINERAL MINING 4410.4300, subpart 12 A. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of peat which will result in the excavation of 160 or more acres of land during its existence, DNR B. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonme- tallic minerals, other than peat, which will exca- vate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, local governmental unit 4410.4400, subpart 9 None A. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of peat which will utilize 320 acres of land or more during its existence, DNR B. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonme- tallic minerals, other than peat, which will exca- vate 160 acres of land or more to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, local governmental unit NOTES Item B requires a mine to be both at least 40 acres in extent and of 10-foot average depth. PAPER OR PULP PROCESSING MILLS 4410.4300, subpart 13 Expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facility that will increase its produc- tion capacity by 50 percent or more, PCA 4410.4400, subpart 10 Construction of a new paper or pulp processing mill, PCA 4410.4600, subpart 9 Expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facility that will increase its produc- tion capacity by less than 10 percent. 22 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 4410.4300, subpart 14 A. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, local govern- mental unit: (1) unincorporated area,150,000 (2) third or fourth class city, 300,000 (3) second class city, 450,000 (4) first class city, 600,000 B. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, other than a warehousing or light indus- trial facility, equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, local governmental unit: (1) unincorporated area, 100,000 square feet (2) third or fourth class city, 200,000 square feet (3) second class city, 300,000 square feet (4) first class city, 400,000 square feet 4410.4400, subpart 11 A. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, local govern- mental unit: (1) unincorporated area, 375,000 (2) third or fourth class city, 750,000 (3) second class city, 1,000,000 (4) first class city, 1,500,000 B. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, other than a warehousing or light indus- trial facility, equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, local governmental unit: (1) unincorporated area, 250,000 square feet (2) third or fourth class city, 500,000 square feet (3) second class city, 750,000 square feet (4) first class city, 1,000,000 square feet 4410.4600, subpart 10 A. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commer- cial, or institutional facility of less than the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, if no part of the development is within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area: (1) third or fourth class city or unincorporated area, 50,000 square feet (2) second class city, 75,000 square feet (3) first class city, 100,000 square feet B. Construction of a warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility with less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor space, and with associated parking facilities designed for 20 vehi- cles or less. NOTES Warehousing facility's primary function is storage of goods or materials; a small portion may be used for office or sales space. (4410.0200, subpart 89a) Light industrial facility's primary function is that other than manufacturing with fewer than 500 employees (4410.0200, subpart 42a). Gross floor space is the total square footage of all floors, including all structures on the site, but not including parking space or approach areas (4410.0200, subpart 35). Ground area is total area converted to impervious surface in conjunction with the project, including parking and approach areas (4410.0200, Subpart 36). City classes by population First class: Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth (and any other city that reaches population of 100,000) Second class: 20,000 to 100,000 Third class: 10,000 to 20,000 Fourth class: under 10,000 Based on the most recent population census or the latest reliable population estimate from the State Demographer or Metropolitan Council. AIR POLLUTION MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 15 MANDATORY EIS None EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 10, item C A. Construction of a stationary source facility that Construction of a new parking facility for less generates 100 tons or more per year or modifica- than 100 vehicles if the facility is not located in a tion of a stationary source facility that increases shoreland area, delineated flood plain, state or generation by 100 tons or more per year of any federally designated wild and scenic rivers single air pollutant after installation of air pollu- district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend tion control equipment, PCA area, or the Mississippi headwaters area. B. Construction of a new parking facility for 2,000 or more vehicles, PCA, except that this category does not apply to any parking facility which is part of a project reviewed pursuant to part 4410.4300, subpart 14,19, 32, or 34, or part 4410.4400, subpart 11, 14, 21, or 22. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 23 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories 4410.4300, subpart 16 A. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste disposal facility, PCA B. Construction of a hazardous waste processing facility with a capacity of 1,000 or more kilo- grams per month, PCA C. Expansion of a hazardous waste processing facility that increases its capacity by ten percent or more, PCA D. Construction or expansion of a facility that sells hazardous waste storage services to genera- tors other than the owner and operator of the facility or construction of a facility at which a generator's own hazardous wastes will be stored for a time period in excess of 90 days, if the facility is located in a water -related land use management district, or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock, PCA HAZARDOUS WASTE 4410.4400, subpart 12 A. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste disposal facility for 1,000 or more kilo- grams per month, PCA B. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste disposal facility in a water -related land use management district, or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock, PCA C. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste processing facility if the facility is located in a water -related land use management district, or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock, PCA None NOTES Water -related land use management district is any of the following designated zones: shorelands, flood plains, wild or scenic rivers districts, Mississippi Headwaters and Minnesota Project Riverbend districts. SOLID WASTE MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 17 MANDATORY EIS 4410.4400, subpart 13 EXEMPTION CATEGORIES None A. Construction of a mixed municipal solid waste A. Construction of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100,000 cubic yards of disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more waste fill per year, PCA of waste fill per year, PCA B. Expansion by 25 percent or more of previous B. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste ipal solid waste disposal facility in a water - disposal facility for up to 100,000 cubic yards of related land use management district, or in an waste fill per year, PCA area characterized by soluble bedrock, PCA C. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- C. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- ipal solid waste transfer station for 300,000 or ipal solid waste energy recovery facility or incin- more cubic yards per year, PCA erator, or the utilization of an existing facility for D. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- the combustion of mixed municipal solid waste ipal solid waste energy recovery facility or incin- or refuse -derived fuel, with a capacity of 250 or erator, or the utilization of an existing facility for more tons per day of input, PCA the combustion of mixed municipal solid waste D. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- or refuse -derived fuel, with a capacity of 30 or ipal solid waste compost facility or a refuse - more tons per day of input, PCA derived fuel production facility with a capacity of E. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- 500 or more tons per day of input, PCA ipal solid waste compost facility or a refuse- derived fuel production facility with a capacity of E. Expansion by 25 percent or more of previous 50 or more tons per day of input, PCA capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste dispos- al facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of F. Expansion by at least ten percent but less than waste fill per year, PCA 25 percent of previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year, PCA G. Construction or expansion of a mixed munic- ipal solid waste energy recovery facility ash land- fill receiving ash from an incinerator that burns refuse -derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste, PCA NOTES Water -related land use management district is any of the following designated zones: shorelands, flood plains, wild or scenic rivers districts, Mississippi Headwaters and Minnesota Project Riverbend districts. 24 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS 4410.4300, subpart 18 None A. Expansion, modification, or replacement of a municipal sewage collection system resulting in an increase in design average daily flow of any part of that system by 1,000,000 gallons per day or more, PCA B. Expansion or reconstruction of an existing municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility which results in an increase by 50 percent or more and by at least 50,000 gallons per day of its average wet weather design flow capacity, or construction of a new municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility with an average wet weather design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day or more, PCA C. Expansion or reconstruction of an existing industrial process wastewater treatment facility which increases its design flow capacity by 50 percent or more and by at least 200,000 gallons per day or more, or construction of a new indus- trial process wastewater treatment facility with a design flow capacity of 200,000 gallons per day or more, 5,000,000 gallons per month or more, or 20,000,000 gallons per year or more, PCA. This category does not apply to industrial process wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to a publicly -owned treatment works or to a tailings basin reviewed pursuant to subpart 11, item B. 4410.4600, subpart 11 Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility with a capacity of less than 5,000 gallons per day average wet weather flow or the expan- sion of an existing wastewater treatment facility by less than 5,000 gallons per day average wet weather flow or the expansion of a sewage collection system by less than 5,000 gallons per day design daily average flow or a sewer line of 1,000 feet or less and eight -inch diameter or less. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 25 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 4410.4300, subpart 19 1 4410.4400, subpart 14 Local governmental unit is the RGU for construc- Local governmental unit is the RGU for construc- tion of a permanent or potentially permanent tion of a permanent or potentially permanent residential development of: residential development of: A. 50 or more unattached or 75 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area; A. 100 or more unattached or 150 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 400 unattached units or 600 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area; B. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in B. 400 unattached units or 600 attached units in a city that does not meet the conditions of a city that does not meet the conditions of item D; item D; C. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a city meeting the conditions of item D if the project is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan; or D. 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven -county Twin Cities metro- politan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859, or in a city not located within the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed with the EQB chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the elements listed in the Notes. C. 400 unattached units or 600 attached units in a city meeting the conditions of item D if the project is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan; or D. 1,000 unattached units or 1,500 attached units in a city within the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a compre- hensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859, or in a city not located within the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed with the EQB chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the elements listed in the Notes below. 4410.4600, subpart 12 A. Construction of a sewered residential develop- ment, no part of which is within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, of: (1) less than ten units in an unincorporated area, (2) less than 20 units in a third or fourth class city, (3) less than 40 units in a second class city, or (4) less than 80 units in a first class city. B. Construction of a single residence or multiple residence with four dwelling units or less and accessory appurtenant structures and utilities. NOTES How to count units. All contiguous land must be included if: a. the developer owns it or has a purchase option; and b. it is zoned for residential development or is identified for future residential development by an adopted comprehensive plan. To calculate number of units: a. If known, use the number of units planned by the proposer, or b. Use the maximum number of units per acre allowed by the zoning ordinance, or c. If option b is not available, use the average number of units per acre in the proposer's plan. Attached units are dwelling units that are grouped together with four or more units per structure. Unattached units are single-family, duplex and triplex structures. Sewered area is one served by a sanitary sewer system connected to a wastewater treatment or a publicly owned, operated or supervised centralized septic system, or one that lies within the Metropolitan Council's designated Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Water -related land use management district is any of the following designated zones: shorelands, flood plains, wild or scenic rivers districts, Mississippi Headwaters and Minnesota Project Riverbend districts. Mixtures of attached and unattached units. An arithmetic computation must be performed to determine if mixed unit developments require an EAW or EIS. The formula is: S = A/B + C/D, where: A = # of unattached units B = applicable unattached unit threshold C = # of attached units, and D = applicable attached unit threshold. If S equals or exceeds 1.00, review is required. Example: Determine if an EAW is required for a development of 300 apartments and 50 single- family units; and the development is consistent with a certified comprehensive plan. Step 1: divide the number of unattached units, 50, by the applicable unattached EAW threshold, 250: 50/250 = 0.20. Step 2: divide the number of attached units, 300, by the applicable attached unit threshold, 375: 300/375 = 0.80. Step 3: Add the quotients from steps 1 & 2: 0.20 + 0.80 = 1.00. Step 4: Compare the sum to 1.00: Since 1.00 equals 1.00, an EAW is mandatory for this project. Requirements for a qualifying comprehensive plan. The overall plan must include the following elements: (1) a land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity and extent of use of land and water for residential, industrial, agricultural and other public and private purposes; (2) a transportation plan describing, designating and scheduling the location, extent, function and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation facilities and services; (3) a sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the areas to be served by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, and the standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewage treatment systems will be permitted; (4) a capital improvements plan for public facilities; and (5) an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices and other actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan, and a description of official controls for zoning, subdivision and private sewage systems, and a schedule for their implementation. 26 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter CAMPGROUNDS AND RV PARKS MANDATORY EAW MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4300, subpart 20 None None Construction of a seasonal or permanent recre- ational development, accessible by vehicle, consisting of 50 or more sites, or the expansion of such a facility by 50 or more sites, local governmental unit AIRPORT PROJECTS MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 21 MANDATORY EIS 24410.4400, subpart 15 EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 13 A. Construction of a paved, new airport runway, Construction of a paved and lighted airport A. Runway, taxiway, apron, or loading ramp the DOT, local governmental unit or Metro- runway of 5,000 feet of length or greater, local construction or repair work including reconstruc- politan Airports Commission governmental unit or Department of tion, resurfacing, marking, grooving, fillets, and B. Construction of a runway extension that would Transportation jet blast facilities, except where the project will upgrade an existing airport runway to permit create environmental impacts off airport property usage by aircraft over 12,500 pounds that are at B. Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting least three decibels louder than aircraft currently systems, including beacons and electrical distri- using the runway, the DOT, local govern- bution systems mental unit or Metropolitan Airports C. Construction or expansion of passenger Commission handling or parking facilities, including pedes- trian walkway facilities. D. Grading or removal of obstructions and erosion control projects on airport property, except where the projects will create environ- mental impacts off airport property NOTES RGU for the airport categories shall be selected according to part 4410.0500, subpart 5. HIGHWAY PROJECTS -CATEGORIES MANDATORY. 4410.4300, subpart 22 4410.4400, subpart 16 4410.4600, subpart 14 A. Construction of a road on a new location over Construction of a road on a new location which A. Highway safety improvement projects one mile in length that will function as a collector is four or more lanes in width and two or more B, Installation of traffic control devices, individual roadway, local governmental unit or DOT miles in length, local governmental unit or noise barriers, bus shelters and bays, loading B. For construction of additional travel lanes on DOT zones, and access and egress lanes for transit an existing road for a length of one or more and paratransit vehicles miles, local governmental unit or DOT C. Modernization of an existing roadway or C. For the addition of one or more new inter- bridge by resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilita- changes to a completed limited access highway, tion that may involve the acquisition of minimal local governmental unit or DOT amounts of right-of-way D. Roadway landscaping, construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities within existing right-of-way E. Any stream diversion or channelization within the right-of-way of an existing public roadway associated with bridge or culvert replacement F. Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge structure on essentially the same align- ment or location that may involve the acquisition of minimal amounts of right-of-way NOTES Collector roadway is a road that provides access to minor arterial roadways from local roadways and adjacent land uses. Highway safety improvement projects are those at specific hazardous locations, including geometric corrections with minimal additional right-of-way. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 27 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories BARGE FLEETING MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 23 MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4400, subpart 17 None Construction of a new or expansion of an Construction of a barge fleeting facility at a new existing barge fleeting facility, DOT or port off -channel location that involves the dredging of authority 1,000 or more cubic yards, DOT or port authority WATER APPROPRIATION AND IMPOUNDMENTS 4410.4300, subpart 24 A. New appropriation for commercial or indus- trial purposes of either surface water or ground water averaging 30,000,000 gallons per month; or a new appropriation of either ground water or surface water for irrigation of 540 acres or more in one continuous parcel from one source of water, DNR B. New permanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres or an additional permanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres, DNR C. Construction of a dam with an upstream drainage area of 50 square miles or more, DNR 4410.4400, subpart 18 4410.4600, subpart 15 Construction of a Class I dam, DNR A new or additional permanent impoundment of water creating a water surface of less than ten acres. NOTES Class I dam is a dam whose failure would probably result in loss of life; serious hazard; damage to health; damage to main highways, high -value industrial or commercial properties, major public utilities; or serious economic loss to the public. MARINAS MANDATORY. 4410.4300, subpart 25 -CATEGORIES 4410.4400, subpart 19 4410.4600, subpart 16 Construction or expansion of a marina or harbor Construction of a new or expansion of an Construction of private residential docks for use that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total existing marina, harbor, or mooring project on a by four or less boats and utilizing less than 1,500 or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of state or federally designated wild and scenic square feet of water surface. water surface area used temporarily or perma- river, local governmental unit nently for docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft, local governmental unit NOTES Marina is an inland or offshore area for the concentrated mooring of five or more watercraft where at least one of the following ancillary services is provided: boat storage, fueling, launching, repair, sanitary pumpout or restaurant service. STREAMS AND DITCHES MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 26 MANDATORY EIS None EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 17 Diversion, realignment or channelization of any Routine maintenance or repair of a drainage designated trout stream, or affecting greater ditch within the limits of its original construction than 500 feet of natural watercourse with a total flow capacity, performed within 20 years of drainage area of ten or more square miles unless construction or major repair. exempted by part 4410.4600, subpart 14, item E, or 17, local governmental unit NOTES See also exemption at subpart 14, item E, highway projects. 28 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter WETLANDS AND PROTECTED WATERS 4410.4300, subpart 27 A. Projects that will change or diminish the course, current or cross-section of one acre or more of any protected water or protected wetland except for those to be drained without a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103G, local governmental unit B. Projects that will change or diminish the course, current or cross-section of 40 percent or more or five or more acres of types 3 through 8 wetland of 2.5 acres or more, excluding protected wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project River - bend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, local governmental unit 4410.4400, subpart 20 1 None Projects that will eliminate a protected water or protected wetland, local governmental unit NOTES Protected waters and wetlands are identified on official maps of the Department of Natural Resources, which requires permits for work within their beds. Wetlands regulated by a local governmental unit under the Wetland Conservation Act are generally not covered by EQB categories, except as specified under item B. Circular 39 wetland classes are described in an appendix to the EQB's EAW Guidelines. Wetlands are covered by item B only if: a. a type 3 to 8 wetland, b. not on the DNR protected wetland inventory, c. at least 2.5 acres; and d. at least partially in a shoreland, flood plain, wild or scenic river zone. Item B threshold is triggered if a project cumulatively affects five acres or 40 percent of any wetland. FORESTRY MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 28 MANDATORY EIS None EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4600, subpart 18 A. Harvesting of timber for commercial purposes A. Harvesting of timber for maintenance on public lands within a state park, historical purposes area, wilderness area, scientific and natural area, B. Public and private forest management prac- wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota tices, other than clear cutting or the application River Project Riverbend area, the Mississippi of pesticides, that involve less than 20 acres of headwaters area, or critical area that does not land have an approved plan under Minnesota Stat- utes, section 86A.09 or 116G.07, DNR B. Clear cutting of 80 or more contiguous acres of forest, any part of which is located within a shoreland area and within 100 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark of the lake or river, DNR NOTES Items C and D, formerly in subpart 28, are in subpart 36, effective 1997. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 29 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories 4410.4300, subpart 29 Construction of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more or the expansion of an existing facility by 1,000 animal units or more or construction of a total confine- ment animal feedlot facility of 2,000 animal units or more or the expansion of an animal feedlot facility by 2,000 animal units or more if the expansion is a total confinement facility, PCA ANIMAL FEEDLOTS None 4410.4600, subpart 19 Construction of an animal feedlot facility of less than 100 animal units or the expansion of an existing facility by less than 100 animal units no part of either of which is located within a shore - land area, delineated flood plain, state or feder- ally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area. NOTES Multisite feedlots are usually treated as a single project and animal units at all sites must be added together. Animal units are as follows per one animal mature dairy cow 1.4 slaughter steer/heifer 1.0 horse 1.0 swine over 55 lbs. 0.4 duck 0.2 sheep 0.1 swine under 55 lbs. 0.05 turkey 0.018 chicken 0.01 NATURAL AREAS MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 30 MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES None None Projects resulting in the permanent physical encroachment on lands within a national park, state park, wilderness area, state lands and waters within the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, scientific and natural area, or state trail corridor when the encroachment is inconsistent with laws applicable to or the management plan prepared for the recreational unit, local governmental unit or DNR NOTES The Department of Natural Resources is the RGU if the area is state-owned or state -managed; for all other areas, including federally managed lands, the local governmental unit is the RGU. HISTORICAL PLACES MANDATORY EAW 4410.4300, subpart 31 MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES None None Destruction, in whole or part, or the moving of a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places, except this does not apply to projects reviewed under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, United States Code, title 16, section 470, or the federal policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites pursuant to United States Code, title 49, section 303, permitting state agency or local governmental unit NOTES If a state permit is involved, the state agency is the RGU, otherwise the local governmental unit. The State Historical Society is never the RGU. 30 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIAL PROJECTS 4410.4300, subpart 32 If a project includes both residential and indus- trial -commercial components, the project must have an EAW prepared if the sum of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of residential units by the applicable residential threshold of subpart 19, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the amount of industrial -commercial gross floor space by the applicable industrial - commercial threshold of subpart 14, equals or exceeds one, local governmental unit 4410.4400, subpart 21 None If a project includes both residential and commercial -industrial components, the project must have an EIS prepared if the sum of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of resi- dential units by the applicable residential threshold of subpart 14, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the amount of industrial - commercial gross floor space by the applicable industrial -commercial threshold of subpart 11, equals or exceeds one. NOTES Calculations needed for this category are similar to those for mixed -unit residential projects. 4410.4300, subpart 33 Construction of a communications tower equal to or in excess of 500 feet in height, or 300 feet in height within 1,000 feet of any protected water or protected wetland or within two miles of the Mississippi, Minnesota, Red, or St. Croix rivers or Lake Superior, local governmental unit COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS None None NOTES Official maps showing protected waters and wetlands are available at many local unit offices and at DNR hydrology offices. DNR issues permits for protected waters and wetlands rather than a local unit, as under the Wetland Conservation Act. When a river flows through an impoundment or lake, distance is measured from its shoreline. SPORTS OR ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES 4410.4300, subpart 34 Construction of a new sports or entertainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 5,000 or more persons, or the expansion of an existing sports or entertain- ment facility by this amount, local govern- mental unit 4410.4400, subpart 22 None Construction of a new outdoor sports or enter- tainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 20,000 or more persons or a new indoor sports or enter- tainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 30,000 or more persons, or the expansion of an existing facility by these amounts, local governmental unit NOTES Sports or entertainment facility is any facility for sports events or various forms of entertainment or amusement that attract large numbers of people within a limited period of time, including: sports stadiums and arenas; racetracks; concert halls or amphitheaters; theaters; facilities for festivals or pageants (if other than temporary facilities such as grandstands, amplification systems, or lighting are to be constructed); fairgrounds; amusement parks; and zoos. The number of participants is to be counted as part of the attendance. WATER DIVERSIONS MANDATORY EAW None MANDATORY EIS 4410.4400, subpart 23 EXEMPTION CATEGORIES None Diversion of waters of the state to an ultimate location outside the state in an amount equal to or greater than 2,000,000 gallons per day, expressed as a daily average over any 30-day period, DNR Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 31 Chapter Mandatory and exemption categories RELEASE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS MANDATORY EAW MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4300, subpart 35 None None Release of a genetically engineered organism that requires a release permit from the EQB under chapter 4420, EQB. For all other releases of genetically engineered organisms, permit- ting state agency. This subpart does not apply to the direct medical application of genetically engineered organisms to humans or animals. NOTES The EQB is required to prepare an EAW for the release of any genetically engineered organism except those regulated under a significant environmental permit. Presently, only certain agriculturally related organisms regulated by the Department of Agriculture qualify for this exception. Agriculturally related organism is any organism that is used in agricultural production or processing of agricultural products, including livestock and livestock products; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; domestic fur -bearing animals; animal feeds; horticultural stock; nursery stock; fruit; vegetables; forage grain; wild rice; seeds; bees; apiary products; and products for the control or mitigation of noxious weeds. It excludes vaccines and drugs for use in humans; genetic engineering of human germ cells and human somatic cells intended for use in human gene therapy; vaccines for use in livestock, dairy animals, poultry, domestic fur -bearing animals, or private aquatic life; genetically engineered wild animals; and forestry products. Genetically engineered organism is an organism derived from genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the introduction of new genetic material to an organism or the regrouping of an organism's genes using techniques or technology designed by humans. This does not include selective breeding, hybridization or nondirected mutagenesis. Organism is any animal, plant, bacterium, cyanobacterium, fungus, protist or virus. Release is the placement or use of a genetically engineered organism outside a contained laboratory, greenhouse, building, structure, or other similar facility or under any other conditions not specifically determined by the EQB to be adequately contained. LAND USE CONVERSION, INCLUDING GOLF COURSES MANDATORY EAW MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4300, subpart 36 None None A. Golf courses, residential development where the lot size is less than five acres, and other projects resulting in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural, native prairie, forest, or naturally vegetated land, except that this subpart does not apply to agricultural land inside the boundary of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area established by the Metropolitan Council, local governmental unit B. Projects resulting in the conversion of 640 or more acres of forest or naturally vegetated land to a different open space land use, local governmental unit NOTES Permanent conversion is a change that impairs the ability to convert the land back to its agricultural, natural or forest capacity. It does not include changes in management practices such as the conversion to parklands, open space or natural areas. (4410.0200, Subpart 57.) In practice, the EQB considers almost all intensified land development to be permanent conversion, even when it would be physically possible to reconvert the land, unless the intensified use is clearly temporary. Open space land use is a function particularly oriented to an area's outdoor character including agriculture; campgrounds, parks and recreation areas (4410.0200, subpart 55). PCB INCINERATION MANDATORY EAW None MANDATORY EIS EXEMPTION CATEGORIES 4410.4400, subpart 25 None Incineration of wastes containing PCBs for which an EIS is required by Minnesota Statutes, section 116.38, subdivision 2, PCA 32 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Mandatory and exemption categories Chapter 4410.4600 Subpart 2. Standard exemptions Projects are exempt when: A. No governmental decisions are required. B. All governmental decisions have been made. However, this exemption does not in any way alter the prohibitions on final governmental decisions to approve a project under part 4410.3100. C. A governmental unit has denied a required governmental approval. D. A substantial portion of the project has been completed and an EIS would not influence remaining implementation or construction. E. Environmental review has already been initiated under the prior rules or for which environmental review is being conducted at parts 4410.3600 or 4410.3700. Subpart 20. Utilities A. Water service mains of 500 feet or less and 1-1/2 inches diameter or less. B. Local electrical service lines. C. Gas service mains of 500 feet or less and 1-inch diameter or less. D. Telephone services lines. Subpart 21. Construction projects A. Construction of accessory appurtenant structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, agricultural structures excluding feedlot or other similar buildings not changing land use or density. B. Accessory signs appurtenant to any commercial, industrial or institutional facility. C. Operation, maintenance or repair work having no substantial impact on existing structures, land use or natural resources. D. Restoration or reconstruction of a structure, provided that the structure is not of historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or recreational value. E. Demolition or removal of buildings and related structures, except where they are of historical, archaeological or architectural significance. Subpart 22. Land use A. Individual land use variances, including minor lot line adjustments and side yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of a new subdivided parcel of land or any change in land use character or density. B. Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effect on the environment. C. Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth and water supply reservoirs, excluding the use of pesticides. Subpart 23. Research and data collection Basic data collection, training programs, research, experimental management and resource evaluation projects that do not result in an extensive or perma- nent disturbance to an environmental resource, and do not constitute a substantial commitment to a further course of action having potential for significant environmental effects. Subpart 24. Financial transactions A. Acquisition or disposition of private interests in real property, including leaseholds, easements, right-of-way or fee interests. B. Purchase of operating equipment, maintenance equipment or operating supplies. Subpart 25. Licenses A. Licensing or permitting decisions related to individual persons or activities directly connected with an individual's household, livelihood, transportation, recreation, health, safety and welfare, such as motor vehicle licensing or individual park entrance permits. B. All licenses required under electrical, fire, plumbing, heating, mechanical and safety codes and regulations, but not including building permits. Subpart 26. Governmental activities Proposals and enactments of the legislature, rules or orders of governmental units, executive orders of the governor or their implementation by govern- mental units, judicial orders and submissions of proposals to a vote of the people of the state. Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning 33 NEW HISTORY H I STO R I CAL EVALUATION 10301 Grey Cloud Trail, Cottage Grove November 2021 575 9TH STREET SE, STE 215 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 1 612.843.4140 1 NEWHISTORY.COM Historical Evaluation 10301 Grey Cloud Trail Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 Prepared for: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Pkwy South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 By: New History 575 Ninth Street Southeast, Suite 215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (612) 843-4140 www.newhistory.com For questions and comments: Lauren Anderson, anderson@newhistory.com Meghan Elliott, elliott@newhistory.com (612) 843-4140 02021 New History TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Site History Historic Context 10301 Grey Cloud Trail City of Cottage Grove Local Designation Past Determinations of Historic Significance Designation Criteria Integrity National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Designation Sources Consulted Appendix A: Current Photos 1 2 2 5 11 11 11 12 12 14 17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes our historical research on the 10301 Grey Cloud Trail property in Cottage Grove. The purpose of our research was to provide additional information on the history of the site. We have also provided our preliminary recommendations and professional opinion on the property's ability to qualify for local landmark and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) designation. Site History: • The current site features a house and barn on 2.75 acres of land. The house was likely constructed between 1850 and 1886. The associated barn was constructed at an unknown date, but it is possible that it dates to the same time period. From the time of its construction until the mid-1900s, the property was associated with dozens of acres of surrounding farm land. • For most of its history, the house appears to have primarily operated as a single-family residence for individuals and/or families who farmed the surrounding acreage. Past Determinations of Historic Significance: The property is not currently locally designated as a historic site. A 1990 survey of Cottage Grove recommended the property for additional research and local designation. • The property is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Local Landmark Designation: For a property to be locally designated by the City of Cottage Grove, it must demonstrate historical significance by meeting at least one of the City's five criteria for designation and retain integrity (the physical materials and features that were present during the time when the property achieved historical significance). • Based on our research, we believe that the property meets Criterion 1 for its association with Cottage Grove's history as a rural, agricultural community. Additionally, the property likely meets Criterion 4 as a unique local example of limestone building construction. The building has experienced several alterations since its construction, which may impact its integrity. National Register of Historic Places Designation: • For a property to be listed on the National Register, it must demonstrate historic significance by meeting at least one of the National Park Service's Criteria for Evaluation and retain integrity. • Based on our research, additional information is needed to assess the property's eligibility for the National Register. Alterations to integrity may pose a challenge to NRHP listing. SITE HISTORY HEM "; 11Ki]RIO31 10301 GreyCloud Trail Parr �.i I� . ! :° 27. 1.' .1/i r: is located in the southwest corner of the city of Cottage Grove in Section 30 of Township 27 North, Range 21 West. Historically, the house and barn on this property were surrounded by and associated with dozens of " J acres of farmland, and they are best understood within the context of the agricultural history of Cottage Grove. This section a x, f.V n R. 14 L presents a brief summary of this ! I agricultural history followed by- 1 an in-depth discussion of the;, i history of the property itself. b; ' The City of Cottage Grove is located between the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers in ;+ an area historically known as the N St. Croix Triangle (modern-day Washington and Ramsey Figure 1. 1847 plat map of Township 27 North, Range 21 West. Section 30 is Counties). Most of the land highlighted in red. Map courtesy of United States Bureau of Land Management and within the boundaries of the Minnesota General Land Office. modern-day Cottage Grove is located in Township 27 (see Figure 1). Township 27 was first surveyed in 1847 when the St. Croix Triangle was claimed by the United States government as part of Wisconsin Territory. The area was subsequently incorporated into Minnesota Territory in 1849.1 The first Euro-American settler in the Cottage Grove area was likely James Sullivan Norris, who staked his claim to a portion of Section 12 of Township 27 in 1843. Norris was followed by 1 George W. Jones, "Township No. 27N, Range No. 21 West 7th Mer.," March 15, 1848, United States Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Historic Plat Map Retrieval System, https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/index.htmi; Robert Vogel, The New England of the West: A Survey of Historic Properties Associated with EarlyAmerican Settlement in Cottage Grove (City of Cottage Grove, September 1990), 12; Robert Vogel, Cottage Grove History: A Palimpset (Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, 1997), 2 — 3. 2 7� + ! — .•`--� i1 ° ` other Euro-Americans mostly µ . ;;,, RT - ,� 1 r • from New England states, such e �' ""im,. "..,..�- �� W ..,G,, '�•�,� as New York, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. According C M & SP to historian Robert Vogel, "by _ + . r ;; w} 1855, Cottage Grove was one of _z1.. x °il :, the fastest -growing rural ` � _ c .. � u 'rti •�+ t S. -, � i .. - I�. .{rip A lY � Sm • � �hn TM.M.n �• ' .L. , , - 777 - townships in Minnesota, with schools, churches, a lyceum hall, and perhaps twenty or thirty 1'. S•l�....r1. .Y Shorn•. 11 i ' , ( ° E _ ,: farms."' The township of F e & 4 }tick r.� x. . '" m. Cottage Grove was officially organized in May of 1858, days after Minnesota achieved statehood.' 4 �� �''"" Cottage Grove's earliest settlers were largely subsistence �,• �' r -`� � u -�� a ,a� � u "`n' - •' � farmers who cultivated spring .-� ,'a--• = -=E wheat or potatoes as cash crops. -=° a By 1871, concentrated c .._ Innµ l - 3 i n ���---11111f. a• a :�•;=�'^� d .• � � s - settlement within the township f was limited to two small villages Figure 2. 1886 plat map of the Cottage Grove area showing the Chicago, — East Cottage Grove in Section Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad (C M & St P) and the Chicago, Burlington and 12, near the northeast corner of Quincy (C B & Q) Railroads. Location of Section 30 indicated in red. Map courtesy of the university of Minnesota's uMedia. the township, and Langdon in Section 21, near the center of the township. Cottage Grove was originally connected to river towns along the Mississippi River and St. Croix River via wagon roads. The township received its first railroad line in 1869 when the St. Paul and Chicago Railroad (later the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad or C M & SP) constructed a station at Langdon (see Figure 2). The Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy (CB & Q) z Vogel, Cottage Grove History, 2 — 3; Duane D. Fisher, "The Development of Cottage Grove, The First Rural Settlement in Minnesota," term paper (Macalaster College, 1954), 5; Robert C. Vogel, "Historic Houses of Cottage Grove: A Field Guide," Perspectives in Cottage Grove History, no. 1 (February 1986), "A Brief History of Cottage Grove," on file at the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota; Robert Vogel, Preliminary Inventory of Pre- 1940 Houses in the City of Cottage Grove, (Prepared for the City of Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, September 1988), 9. 3 Edward D. Neill, A History of Washington County and the St. Croix Valley: Including the Explorers and Pioneers of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: Northstar Publishing Company, 1881), 328. 'Vogel, The New England of the West, 10 —12. 3 was extended through the township in the late 1880s, passing along the southwest edge of Cottage Grove Township to connect Prescott, Wisconsin to St. Paul (see Figure 2).5 During the early 1860s, the Civil War created an increased demand for grain and livestock. This demand, combined with the arrival of the railroads and innovations in farm machinery, shifted the focus of agricultural production in Cottage Grove from subsistence farming to commercial agriculture. Throughout Washington County, the number of farms and the amount of acreage under cultivation increased. Concurrently, Cottage Grove experienced a second wave of immigration, including newcomers from Germany, Scandinavia, England, and Ireland. Until about 1880, agricultural production focused on wheat, which was sold and shipped to other locations. During the late 1800s, farmers expanded beyond wheat into feed grains (such as corn and oats), raising livestock, and dairy farming.b Demand for agricultural products remained strong through the first World War, benefitting Cottage Grove farmers. However, increased agricultural production during this time period led to a decrease in farmland value in the 1920s. This was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, which brought economic challenges for farmers. According to Vogel, the result of this period of economic strain was that farming "became less of a way of life and more a highly competitive business, with fewer farmers producing more goods."' In the years following World War Il, the number of Washington County farms decreased, and the average farm size became larger. Agriculture continued as Cottage Grove's primary economic driver until into the 1950s, when the community began to develop into a residential suburb. Between 1958 and 1960 alone, 1,200 houses were constructed in the township. Cottage Grove grew rapidly, with 800 residents in 1950, 5,000 residents in 1960, 14,300 residents in 1970, and a population of 25,000 in 1995. The Village of Cottage Grove was incorporated in 1965; it became a city in 1974.$ Though the city has evolved substantially from its nineteenth century origins, it still retains a considerable amount of land within its borders that is zoned for agricultural and rural residential uses.' 5 Robert Vogel, A History of Washington County: Gateway to Minnesota History (Stillwater, MN: Washington County Historical Society, 2008), 231— 232; Andrew J. Schmidt, Daniel Pratt, Andrea Vermeer, and Betsy Bradley, Railroads in Minnesota, 1862 —1956, Multiple Property Documentation Form, 2013, Section E, page 51; Neill, A History of Washington County and the St. Croix Valley, 336, 372; Vogel, Cottage Grove History, 3 — 6. 6 Vogel, The New England of the West, 12 -13; Carole Zellie, Washington County Historic Contexts (prepared for Washington County Land Management, 1999), 165; Vogel, "Historic Houses of Cottage Grove," 3. ' Vogel, The New England of the West, 24; Zellie, Washington County Historic Contexts, 167. $ Vogel, "Historic Houses of Cottage Grove," 5; Robert Vogel, Cottage Grove History, 5; Willard E. Rosenfelt, Washington: A History of the Minnesota County (Stillwater, MN: Croixside Press, 1977), 244; MetroCouncil, "Cottage Grove: Suburban Edge Where Urban Meets Farmland and Open Space," July 17, 2017, https:Hmetrocouncil.org/N ews-Events/Communities/News letters/Cottage-G rove -Su bu rba n-edge-where-u rban- meets-far.aspx. 9 City of Cottage Grove, "Cottage Grove 2016 Zoning Map," June 13, 2016, https://listi ngs prod. blob.core.windows. net/ourlisti ngs-usa/fc2443b4-28bc-40f6-9d 13-a4f09a816bcc/b8b4f092- f528-40e2-985 b-cb 191fc16aOa. 4 10301 Grey Cloud Trail This broader history of Cottage Grove is reflected in the history of 10301 Grey Cloud Trail. Today, the property addressed at 10301 Grey Cloud Trail includes a house and barn on 2.75 acres of land in the northeast quarter of Section 30 of Township 27. For most of its history, however, the property has comprised a small portion of much larger parcels of farm land.10 The earliest recorded owner of the northeast quarter of Section 30 was Alexander Fell, a private in the Sixth Regiment of the United States Infantry. Fell received 160 acres of land — the northeast and northwest quarters of Section 30 and the southeast and southwest quarters of Section 19 (see Figure 2) — under the Scrip Warrant Act of 1850, which provided free land to United States military veterans. As was common practice for recipients of these i j ! - iF`� f�;( fly --f — — rr-SW f r'' Cum Figure 3. 1850 land grant and current parcel boundaries. Red dashed lines indicate section and quarter boundaries. Background map courtesy of Washington County. grants, Fell granted or sold his rights to this land to Jeremiah Lamb, who filed a claim for the property with the General Land Office in 1854.11 More research is necessary to determine the property's earliest owners with certainty. However, Washington County property records suggest that the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 30 was owned by a succession of at least three individuals between 1854 and 1864.1' These included William B. Dibble, Louis [Lewis] Dibble, and Peter Pfiefer. According to a history of the St. Croix River Valley written in 1881, William Burris Dibble was one of the early Euro-American settlers of Washington County. Born in New York in 1815, Dibble moved to Marine Mills (11 miles north of current day Stillwater) by 1838. Around 1845, Dibble moved to Point Douglas in Denmark Township to the east of Cottage Grove. Dibble's first wife, Eliza, died in 1847, and Dibble remarried 10 Washington County Property Information, https://maps.co.washington.mn.us/wcgis/. 11 Military Warrant, accession number MW-0759-034, March 3, 1854, General Land Office, https:Hglorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/defauIt.aspx?accession=0759- 034&docClass=MW&sid=jg5vpuvb.sfl#patentDetailsTabindex=l; James W. Oberly, "Military Bounty Land Warrants in the United States, 1847-1900," February 17, 1992, ICPSR, https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09514.vl 12 The completion of a chain of title for the property was beyond the scope of this research. More research is necessary to confirm early ownership of the property. See tract pages for the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 27, Range 21, on file at the Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services, Stillwater, MN. 5 Mary Ann Wright in 1853. Dibble appears to have continued to farm in Point Douglas until his death in 1883. It is unclear why Dibble acquired land in Cottage Grove Township. Given his brief ownership of the property, the land may have been a speculative investment.13 The next owner of the property, Louis (or Lewis) Dibble, is listed in the 1857 Minnesota Territorial Census as a resident of Point Douglas. By 1860, Louis was living in Cottage Grove and considered farming his primary occupation. As Louis was also from New York, he may have been related to William. At the time of the 1860 census, Louis and his wife Hannah had five children.14 Little is known about Peter Pfiefer; research did not reveal any definitive information about this individual. The next owner of the property, William Cowan, appears to have acquired the land from Peter Pfiefer in 1873. By 1886, a plat map of Cottage Grove indicates that Cowan owned 247 acres in Section 30, including the 2.75 acres that now comprise the 10301 Grey Cloud Trail property. Cowan is listed as a resident of Cottage Grove in both the 1875 and 1885 Minnesota Territorial Censuses. Cowan, who was 56 years old at the time of the 1875 census, was a native of Scotland. His wife Harriet (45 years old in 1875) was born in Canada, while two younger household members — Hannah (18) and Harriet (14) — were also born in Scotland. By 1885, three individuals named John (28), Anna (26), and Harriet (23) were residing with William and Harriet." The 1886 plat map of Cottage Grove shows a structure on Cowan's property in the location of the current house, just to the east of the road that is now Grey Cloud Trail and west of the tracks of the CB & Q Railroad (see Figure 4). Possibly, this structure is the existing two -and -one -half - story, gable -roofed, limestone house. No historic photographs of the property have been uncovered. Based on its existing appearance, the house was not designed as high -style architecture. Rather, like most of the pre-1940 houses in Cottage Grove, it is best classified as "folk" or "vernacular" 13 Minnesota State Population Census Schedules, 1875, Washington County, Denmark Township, family 117, accessed via Ancestry.com; United States Bureau of the Census, Tenth Census of the United States, Minnesota, Washington County, Denmark Township, dwelling no. 213; "William B. Dibble," Minnesota, U.S., Marriages Index, 1849-1950, ancestry.com; "William Burris Dibble," Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current, Ancestry.com; "Marine Mills," Minnesota Historical Society, accessed November 18, 2021, https://www.mnhs.org/media/kits/marinemill; Neill, A History of Washington County and the St. Croix Valley, 193, 260, 326, 354 — 361, 477. 14 Vogel, The New England of the West, 54; United States Bureau of the Census, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Washington County, Cottage Grove, dwelling no. 1376, Ancestry.com; Minnesota Territorial Census, 1857, Washington County, Cottage Grove, dwelling no. 634, Ancestry.com. "Tract pages for northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 27, Range 21, on file at the Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services Department, Stillwater, Minnesota; Minnesota State Population Census Schedules, 1865-1905, 1875, Washington County, Cottage Grove, family no. 124, Ancestry.com; Minnesota State Population Census Schedules, 1865-1905,1885, Minnesota, Washington County, Cottage Grove, family no. 91, Ancestry.com; Warner and Foote, Map of Ramsey and Washington Counties: with Adjacent Portions of Anoka, Dakota & Hennepin counties, Minnesota, and Parts of St. Croix & Pierce Counties, Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: Warner and Foote, 1886), Sheet 7. 11 71 d#i I architecture. The house's limestone ►;. walls are now covered with stucco �AiLV�r1x (installed in the 1960s or 1970s) but were originally exposed. This 80 limestone may have been obtained n- from one of several local limestone Z+ quarries historically present within k: r rn Cottage Grove. Vogel notes that the 7ra+u house at 10301 Grey Cloud Trail is one of only a few buildings in Cottage Grove constructed completely of this Z 7M Cowan, material and the only one of the city's —,r 7 140 houses built before 1940 that is - — not constructed of wood.16 Though �r k char7es not an example of high -style architecture, the building's front gabled form reflects a common 048 0 80 subtype of the Greek Revival style, i' F which was popular in the United Figure 4. 1886 plat map of the Cottage Grove area showing Section 30. Map courtesy of the university of Minnesota's uMedia. States from about 1825 until about 1860. According to a description of the house in a 1990 architectural -history survey, it formerly had a front entry portico, another feature of Greek Revival houses.17 Like the house, the existing barn cannot be dated with certainty. However, a 1990 study of barns in Cottage Grove found that the oldest are generally simple gable - roofed structures like this one, suggesting that the barn was likely constructed in the nineteenth century.18 By 1901, William Cowan had sold much of his land, retaining only 19.25 acres to the west of modern-day Grey Cloud Trail. The new owner of most of Cowan's former land (200.95 acres) was 16 Vogel, Preliminary Inventory of Pre-1940 Houses, 181; Robert Vogel, "Minnesota Historic Properties Inventory Form," WA-CGC-034, Okey House, 1984, on file at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota; Vogel, The New England of the West, 53. 11 Vogel, Preliminary Inventory of Pre-1940 Houses, 180, 183; Virginia McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, rev. ed (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014), 134 — 136. 18 Larry Klueh, "Barns in the City: Agrarian Landmarks in Cottage Grove," Perspectives in Cottage Grove History, No. 4 (August 1989), 6; Vogel, Preliminary Inventory of Pre-1940 Houses, 11-12. 7 listed as the Security Trust Company (see Figure 5).19 Little is known about this firm. Preliminary newspaper research suggests that it was based in St. Paul and specialized in backing mortgages and bonds.20 The next available plat map of Cottage Grove, dated 1912, shows Dorothea Fritz as the owner of these 200.95 acres (see Figure 6). Fritz, who immigrated from Germany in 1888, was married to Minnesota native Herbert Casper Fritz. According to the 1910 federal census, farming was Herbert's primary occupation. Though the 1912 plat map does not show the location of residential _ LL } a L � . 37.5 0 oc � F- o Trrtst c 1111 .+ . 1' 1r' . firr f os structures, census information indicates that the Fritz family Figure 5.1901 plat map of Cottage Grove owned a mortgaged farm, indicating that there were still showing Section 30. Map courtesy of Minnesota Digital Library. buildings on the Fritz property at this date. At the time of the 1910 census, the family had a three -year -old daughter c i 1 .7 , 4a Dorothea, a two -year -old son Anthony, and an infant named Herbert. A hired laborer, Lanis Perow, also lived with the family. Another daughter, Clara, was born to the couple in 1912.21 The elder Dorothea died in 1916, and her property was distributed to her children and husband. By 1926, 76.95 acres surrounding the 10301 Grey Cloud Trail property were owned by "Dorothea Fritz et. al.," presumably, the younger Dorothea and her siblings (see Figure 7).22 Figure 6. 1912 plat map of Cottage Grove showing Section 30. Map courtesy of Minnesota Digital Library. 19 Northwest Publishing Company, Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: Northwest Publishing Company, 1901), Sheet 41. 20 See for example "Notice of Mortgage Sale," St. Paul Globe, January 18, 1885, p. 7; "Money Has Been Paid for Bonds," Bemidji Daily Pioneer, June 24, 1909, p. 1. 21 The Farmer, The Farmer's Atlas and Directory of Washington County, Minnesota (St. Paul, MN: Webb Publishing Company, 1912), Sheet 27; United States Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, Minnesota, Washington County, Cottage Grove Township, District 0166, Sheet 7B, accessed via Ancestry.com; United States Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, Minnesota, Washington County, Cottage Grove Township, District 0169, Sheet 6A, accessed via Ancestry.com 12 Samuel Larson and George Tibbets, "Inventory and Appraisement in the Matter of the Estate of Dorothea Fritz," February 20, 1917, and "Final Decree of Distribution in the Matter of the Estate of Dorothea Fritz," June 18, 1917, Probate Case File No. 4358-4395, 1916 — 1917, accessed via Ancestry.com; Hudson Map Company, 1926 Plat Map of Washington County; "Dorothea Fritz," Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current, Ancestry.com. 0 - — By 1938, these 76.95 acres had passed to Otto J. �275 Radusch (see Figure 8). Otto is not listed in the 1940 census ax for Washington County, so little is known about his t,, n rftl" nrr-_ " . background. According to a 1990 historical architecture 31 XCFr1,{r ,£41/ .zs ti Figure 7. 1926 plat map of Cottage Grove showing Section 30. Map courtesy of the University of Minnesota's John R. Borchert Map Library. .Jf Z.V TP.l�rf.�a Kr+oe � �qxs J2 f s survey of the property, the house's one-story addition dates to 1942, so it is possible that this addition was constructed by Radusch.23 The next available plat map, dated 1949, shows Anthony and Mary Kulvich as the owners. By 1956, the property had passed to Mary O'Boyle (see Figure 10). Little information could be uncovered about either of these occupants.24 During the mid -twentieth century, Section 30 did not experience immediate subdivision and residential development as did some other areas of Cottage Grove. A 1964 aerial photograph indicates that this portion of ��� Cottage Grove was still relatively undeveloped at that time • '33 �arsor� (see Figure 9). By 1969, the five acres surrounding the 4e Cowan House had been parceled off from the rest of the X.9S �X 1 c9 11 AWascb aArrl�s�oe Figure 8. 1938 plat map of Cottage Grove showing Section 30. Map courtesy of the Library of Congress. surrounding land and were owned by an individual identified on plat maps only as "E.B." Changes made to the house in the 1960s or 1970s include the addition of shed - roofed dormers to the north and south elevations and the addition of stucco to the exterior. In 1972, 10301 Grey Cloud Trail was included (apparently for the first time) in the South and West St. Paul city directory; its owner was listed as Mary Okey. From 1973 until at least the mid- 1980s, much of the surrounding land around the subject property was owned by Mary O'Boyle. Some or all of this land was sold in the early 1990s to develop the existing golf course.2' By 1995, 10301 Grey Cloud consisted of the 2.75- zs Vogel, The New England of the West, 53. za Hudson Map Company, Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: Hudson Map Company, 1938), 19; Atlas Company, Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota (St. Paul, MN: Atlas Map Company, c. 1949); Thomas Nelson Company, Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota, 1956, "Cottage Grove," https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/1912/1956_platbook. 21 Vogel, Preliminary Inventory of Pre-1940 Houses, 92; "Village of Cottage Grove," map, Rockford Map Publishers, 1969, on file at the John R. Borchert Map Library; "Village of Cottage Grove," map, Rockford Map Publishers, 1973, on file at the John R. Borchert Map Library; "Village of Cottage Grove," map, Rockford Map Publishers, 1976, on file at the John R. Borchert Map Library; "East Part of Village of Cottage Grove," map, Rockford Map Publishers, 1982, on file at the John R. Borchert Map Library; "East Part of Village of Cottage Grove," map, Rockford Map Publishers, 0 acre parcel that it is today. Following Mary Okey's death in c. 1995, the property was owned by the Thompson family and then Doebler Real Estate before it was purchased in 2019 by the adjacent golf course.26 Figure 9. 1964 aerial photograph of the southwest corner of Cottage Grove. Photograph courtesy of the University of Minnesota's John R. Borchert Map Library. Figure 10. 1956 plat map of Cottage Grove showing Section 30. Map courtesy of the University of Minnesota's John R. Borchert Map Library. 1986, on file at the John R. Borchert Map Library; personal communication, Mike Mrosla, November 12, 2021; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk's South St. Paul and West St. Paul City Directory (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1972), 177. 26 Quit Claim Deed, November 15, 2019, Document No. 4218540, on file at Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services; Limited Warranty, April 20, 2005, Document No. 3517977, on file at Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services; Quit Claim Deed, August 9, 1999, Document No. 3063839, on file at Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services; Personal Representative Deed, June 28, 1995, Document No. 849102, on file at Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services. 10 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE LOCAL DESIGNATION PAST DETERMINATIONS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE 10301 Grey Cloud Trail is not currently locally designated by the City of Cottage Grove, nor is it listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 1990, a history -architectural survey noted that the property "could probably be nominated to the City Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks solely on the basis of its architectural significance." However, the survey also recommended additional research "to firmly establish its historical associations. ,21 DESIGNATION CRITERIA The City of Cottage Grove defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of five criteria as outlined in Chapter 9 of the City Code of Cottage Grove, Minnesota. The criteria that must be considered when determining the historic significance of a property include: 1. Its character, interest, or value as part of the history or cultural heritage of the city, the state or the United States; 2. Its association with persons or events that have made a significant contribution to the cultural heritage of the city; 3. Its potential to yield information important in history or prehistory; 4. Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of architectural type or style, or elements of design, detail materials or craftsmanship; and 5. Its unique location or singular physical appearance representing an established or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or community of the City. Our research on the history of the property suggests that the property may be historically significant under Criterion 1 for its association with Cottage Grove's history as an agricultural community and under Criterion 4 as a unique local example of limestone construction. Our research did not uncover any associations with significant persons or events (Criterion 2) or suggest that the property represents an established and familiar feature of its neighborhood (Criterion 5). No information was uncovered to suggest that the property was formerly used as a hotel. It is unknown if the property meets Criterion 3 as it has not been evaluated for archaeological significance. Z' Vogel, New England of the West 53 — 54. 11 INTEGRITY In order to be locally designated, a property must not only meet criteria for historic significance but also retain integrity. In other words, it must retain enough of its physical features and materials to convey its historic significance. As Chapter 9 of the City Code of Cottage Grove does not provide criteria for evaluating integrity, we have considered the integrity of the subject property using the National Park Service (NPS) definition of integrity. According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,28 a property's integrity is recognized through seven aspects or qualities: 1) Location 2) Setting 3) Design 4) Workmanship 5) Materials 6) Feeling 7) Association Research and on -site investigation suggest that the property has experienced some significant alterations since its original construction. There have been some changes to the property's setting, most noticeably the development of the golf course to the southeast. Alterations to the house's original materials, design, and workmanship include a one-story addition added around 1942, roof dormers added in the 1960s, stucco cladding applied to the exterior in the mid-1960s or early 1970s, and roofing replaced with asphalt shingles at an unknown date. Additionally, it is likely the house originally had an entrance portico later replaced by a porch, which has since been removed. Though in poor condition, the associated barn appears to retain much of its original materials, design, and workmanship. The property appears to meet local Criterion 1 and Criterion 4 for historic significance. However, alternations to the property have impacted integrity. It may no longer be eligible for local designation due to the loss of integrity. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP) DESIGNATION NRHP listing and local designation are two separate processes and designations. NRHP listing is overseen by the NPS and must meet NPS requirements for historical significance and integrity. The NPS Criteria for Evaluation define historically significant properties as properties: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or "Nation a I Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: 1995), 44, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web5O8.pdf. 12 B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.29 Significant changes to the house since its construction might pose a challenge to listing the property on the NRHP. Additionally, more information is needed to determine if the property has historical significance under NPS Criteria for Evaluation. This includes: • Additional research to compile a complete list of all building owners and occupants • Comparison against similar properties in Cottage Grove to determine if this property is unique and therefore more likely to be significant • Determination of a period of significance for the property (the time period during which the property obtained historical significance) Additional research is needed to determine if the property has historical significance as defined by the NPS Criteria for Evaluation. Alterations to the property have impacted integrity, and it may not be eligible for the NRHP due to a loss of integrity. "Nation a I Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: 1995), 2, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web5O8.pdf. 13 SOURCES CONSULTED Atlas Company. Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Atlas Map Company, c. 1949. Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current. Ancestry.com. Fisher, Duane D. "The Development of Cottage Grove, The First Rural Settlement in Minnesota." Term paper, Macalaster College, 1954. On file at the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Hudson Map Company. 1926 Plat Map of Washington County. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Hudson Map Company. Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Hudson Map Company, 1938. https://www.loc.gov/item/2007633510/. Jones, George W. "Township No. 27N, Range No. 21 West 7`h Mer." March 15, 1848. United States Bureau of Land Management. General Land Office Historic Plat Map Retrieval System, https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/index.html. Klueh, Larry. "Barns in the City: Agrarian Landmarks in Cottage Grove." Perspectives in Cottage Grove History, No. 4. August 1989. McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses. Rev. ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Military Warrant, accession number MW-0759-034, March 3, 1854, General Land Office, https:Hglorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=0759- 034&docClass=MW&sid jg5vpuvb.sfl#patentDetailsTabindex=l. Minnesota State Population Census Schedules, 1875 and 1885. Accessed via Ancestry.com. Minnesota Territorial Census, 1857. Accessed via Ancestry.com. Neill, Edward D. A History of Washington County and the St. Croix Valley: Including the Explorers and Pioneers of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Northstar Publishing Company, 1881. https:Hcontent.wisconsinhistory.org/digital/collection/wch/id/70736. Northwest Publishing Company. Plat Book of Washington County, Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Northwest Publishing Company, 1901. https:Hcollection.mndigital.org/catalog/spl:2062#/image/0. Oberly, James W. "Military Bounty Land Warrants in the United States, 1847-1900." February 17, 1992, ICPSR, https:Hdoi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09514.vl. Probate Case File No. 4358-4395. 1916 — 1917. Accessed via Ancestry.com. 14 R. L. Polk & Co. Polk's South St. Paul and West St. Paul City Directory. St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1972. Rockford Map Publishers. "Village of Cottage Grove." 1969. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ---. "Village of Cottage Grove." "Village of Cottage Grove." 1973. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ---. "Village of Cottage Grove." 1976. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ---. "East Part of the Village of Cottage Grove." 1982. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ---. "East Part of the Village of Cottage Grove." 1986. On file at the John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Rosenfelt, Willard E. Washington: A History of the Minnesota County. Stillwater, MN: Croixside Press, 1977. Schmidt, Andrew J., Daniel Pratt, Andrea Vermeer, and Betsy Bradley. Railroads in Minnesota, 1862 — 1956 Multiple Property Documentation Form, 2013. United States Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Accessed via Ancestry.com. ---. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880. Accessed via Ancestry.com. ---. Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910. Accessed via Ancestry.com. ---. Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920. Accessed via Ancestry.com U.S. Marriages Index, 1849-1950. Ancestry.com. The Farmer. The Farmer's Atlas and Directory of Washington County, Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Webb Publishing Company, 1912. https://collection.mndigital.org/catalog/p 15160co116:161#/image/O. Thomas Nelson Company. Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota. 1956. https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenterNiew/ 1912/1956_platbook. Vogel, Robert. A History of Washington County: Gateway to Minnesota History. Stillwater, MN: Washington County Historical Society, 2008. ---. Cottage Grove History: A Palimpset. Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, 1997. On file at the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 15 "Historic Houses of Cottage Grove: A Field Guide." Perspectives in Cottage Grove History, no. 1 (February 1986). On file at the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. ---. "Minnesota Historic Properties Inventory Form." WA-CGC-034. 1984. On file at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota ---. Preliminary Inventory of Pre-1940 Houses in the City of Cottage Grove. Prepared for the City of Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, September 1988. On file at the Park Grove Library, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. ---. The New England of the West: A Survey of Historic Properties Associated with Early American Settlement in Cottage Grove. Prepared for the City of Cottage Grove, September 1990. On file at the Park Grove Library, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Warner and Foote. Map of Ramsey and Washington Counties: with Adjacent Portions of Anoka, Dakota & Hennepin counties, Minnesota, and Parts of St. Croix & Pierce Counties, Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Warner and Foote, 1886. https:Hcollection.mndigital.org/catalog/spl:2062. Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services, Stillwater, MN. Zellie, Carole. Washington County Historic Contexts. Prepared for Washington County Land Management, 1999. On file at the Park Grove Library, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. 16 APPENDIX A: CURRENT PHOTOS 17 art.*, .r; a• "� tY . '\ � a •� ;� Pik - �- �_ 61 `.t. . a• aA � .. w f `*}.,�' � • s J 4''R �• .w �`�, �} ..: '" ,Say ',� J�� _ .�' �lp1�, lit. yi kllk c. NNI H IMP F -10 F A .4d TA z- N 0 iw ik . T_- -tic . W. .1 ZA, AQO�l I Ov X;% A r SPS