Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 06.n
October 2, 2014 Item No. _____ RECEIVE THE AVONLEA EAW AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OCTOBER 6, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to receive and authorize distribution of the Avonlea Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Approval of this motion will authorize distribution of the Avonlea EAW for public comment. Overview Mattamy Homes representatives have submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Avonlea residential development. Consistent with Minnesota State Statutes and Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules, the City Council must formally receive the EAW and authorize its distribution for public comment. The Avonlea development proposes 832 single family lots (which includes 128 detached townhomes) and 249 multiple family units on approximately 470 acres of land located along Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23), east of Highview Avenue, and south of 179th Street. An EAW is required for residential developments with more than 250 unattached units in a city within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area. Due to the size of the EAW document (149 pages) a copy will be available in the Planning Department at City Hall for public review. Primary Issues to Consider • What is the EAW review process? • Who will receive copies of the EAW? Supporting Information • Staff analysis of primary issues • Avonlea EAW ___________________________ Daryl Morey, Planning Director Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: ________________________ Related Documents (CIP, etc.): ____________ ________________________________________ Notes: ________________________________________________________________________ Staff Analysis of Primary Issues • If the EAW is approved for distribution, the following process will occur: One copy of the EAW will be provided to EQB staff within 5 business days. A notice of availability of the EAW will be published in the EQB Monitor. Copies of the EAW will be distributed to required parties. A press release will be issued within 5 business days to local newspapers containing notice of the availability of the EAW and other required information. A 30 day review and comment period begins the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor. During the 30 day comment period, the EAW may be reviewed by appropriate City advisory boards. The City may hold a public hearing. Not less than 3 days and no more than 30 days after the close of the 30 day comment period, the City Council must adopt a resolution and record of decision on the need to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The City’s decision is distributed within 5 business days after the decision is made. The decision is distributed to everyone who commented on the EAW. The City’s decision is published in the EQB Monitor. • Who will receive copies of the EAW? The following agencies will receive a copy of the EAW: Dept. of Agriculture Dept. of Commerce Environmental Quality Board Dept. of Health Dept. Natural Resources Pollution Control Agency Dept. of Transportation Board of Water and Soil Resources Hennepin County Library – Minneapolis Central U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Metropolitan Council State Archeologist Minnesota Historical Society Indian Affairs Council Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Dakota County A copy will be available for public review at City Hall during the comment period. Other jurisdictions or agencies not included on this list will be provided a copy upon request. 2 Avonlea Residential Development EAW City of Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota September 19, 2014 Prepared For: Mattamy Homes 7201 Washington Avenue South Edina, MN 55439 Prepared By: Version 8/08rev ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) i Avonlea Residential Development, Lakeville CONTENTS Page List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... i List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................ ii List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... ii 1. Project Title ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Proposer .............................................................................................................................. 1 3. RGU .................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ............................................................................................. 1 5. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 6. Project Description ............................................................................................................. 2 7. Cover Types ........................................................................................................................ 4 8. Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................ 4 9. Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 6 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms ....................................................................... 10 11. Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 13 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes .................................................................... 24 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) ..... 28 14. Historic properties ............................................................................................................ 30 15. Visual ................................................................................................................................ 31 16. Air ..................................................................................................................................... 31 17. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 32 18. Transportation ................................................................................................................... 32 19. Cumulative potential effects ............................................................................................. 36 20. Other potential environmental effects .............................................................................. 38 TABLES 7.1 Estimated Before and After Cover Types ....................................................................... 4 8.1 Permits and Approvals Required. ................................................................................... 5 10.1 Soils Classification........................................................................................................ 11 11.1 Delineated Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 14 11.2 MNDNR Water Appropriations Permit Numbers ........................................................ 22 18.1 Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................ 33 18.2 Intersection Summary ................................................................................................... 35 Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 ii EXHIBITS Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 1 USGS Topography ...................................................................................................................... 2 Post-Construction Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 3 Adjacent Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 4 Zoning Map ................................................................................................................................. 5 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 6 NRCS Soils ............................................................................................................................ 7 Approved Delineated Wetland Boundaries ................................................................................ 8 Cover Types ........................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDICES Braun Phase I & Phase II Maps ................................................................................................. A Wetland Decision Notices.......................................................................................................... B County Well Index Well Log ..................................................................................................... C DNR Natural Heritage Database Search .................................................................................... D State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence ................................................................... E Traffic Impact Study ................................................................................................................... F Version 7/13rev ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) 1 Avonlea Residential Development, Lakeville This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title: Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville 2. Proposer: Mattamy Homes 3. RGU: City of Lakeville Contact person: Daren Laberee Contact person: Daryl Morey Title: Land Development Manager Title: Planning Director Address: 7201 Washington Avenue South Address: 20195 Holyoke Avenue Edina, MN 55439 Lakeville, MN 55044 Phone: (952) 898-6106 Phone: (952) 985-4420 Fax: (952) 898-2187 Fax: (952) 985-4409 E-mail daren.laberee@mattamycorp. com E mail dmorey@lakevillemn.gov 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW Discretionary: Citizen Petition RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Part 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D.- Residential Development 5. Project Location County: Dakota County, Minnesota City/Township: Lakeville PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): T114, R20, S15 and 16 Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River (Red Wing) and Lake Pepin #38 GPS Coordinates: 44.684,-93.227 (Project Center) Tax Parcel Numbers: 037-220160025010; 037-220160001010; 037-220150026023; 037-220160002012; 037-22016007601; 1037-220160050010; 037-220160077010 (All tax parcels within overall project site are listed.) Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 2 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project; See Exhibit 1. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and See Exhibit 2. Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Post-construction site plan (Exhibit 3) and Pre-construction site plans (Exhibits 4-8). 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Avonlea residential development is proposed on approximately 469.6 acres of primarily agricultural land in the northern portion of Lakeville. The project proposes 832 single-family lots, and 249 multi-family lots. Approximately 171 acres of open space is also planned, which will include greenway corridors, parks, trails, wetlands, and stormwater basins. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. Mattamy is proposing construction of a single family, townhouse and multi-family residential development on approximately 469.6 acres of land. The two parcels that constitute the project are referred to as the Darrow-Kohls (west) and Mattamy (east) Properties, and are approximately 158.3 and 311.3 acres in size, respectively. The proposed project is located in Section 15 and 16 of T114, R20, City of Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota (Exhibits 1 & 2), and is generally located south of Dodd Boulevard, on the east and west sides of Cedar Avenue. Project development will convert approximately 298 acres of agricultural fields, woodlands, grassland, and wetland to streets, homes, lawns, landscaping, parkland, trails, and stormwater ponding as shown on the Post-Construction Site Plan (Exhibit 3). Land use within the site will include construction of up to 832 single-family lots, and 249 multi-family lots (93 row townhomes and 156 high density residential units). A combination of public and private streets will service the development including the construction of a new north/south minor collector roadway and a new east/west minor arterial roadway. Each residential dwelling will be served by City of Lakeville sanitary sewer and water systems. No on-site sewage systems and no private wells are proposed. Potential adverse effects on the environment will be mitigated by preserving and creating approximately 171 acres of open space in the form of greenway corridors, parks, trails woodlands, wetlands, and ponds. The project proposes landscaping, buffering, and berming along adjacent arterial and major collector roadways to offset possible visual and noise impacts. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in five phases, with the first phase expected to begin in spring 2015. Full build-out is anticipated by 2025; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. It is anticipated that construction will entail moving approximately 2.8 million cubic yards of soil. Approximately 375 acres of 469.9 acres will be graded for streets, house pads, and stormwater features. Construction dewatering will likely be required, and will be conducted on an as-needed and permitted basis to install sanitary sewer, Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 3 municipal water, and storm sewer. Best Management Practices will be implemented during and after construction to protect water quality and reduce the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. Public and private infrastructure improvements will need to be constructed in association with this development. These include but are not limited to: internal roadways, trails, stormwater systems, electrical lines, telephone lines, and continued improvements and upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water supply systems. The superintendent for Independent School District 194 (Lakeville Area Public Schools) was contacted and has indicated that they do not see a capacity concern at this time given that the project is slated to build out over a 10-year period. The Comprehensive Plan calls for municipal water facilities to be extended from the southeast corner of the Lakeville Public Works Central Maintenance Facility, near Cedar Avenue. A looped connection to the water stub in the northwest corner of the project area is also anticipated in future project phases. Municipal sewer service will be achieved through required trunk sewer improvements that will connect to existing infrastructure located near the intersection of 179th Street and Glacier Way, northeast of the site. An 18-inch trunk line will be constructed that extends through the northeast part of the site and will subsequently connect to planned 12-, 10-, and 8-inch sanitary lines that will service the site. The project will also include construction of a minor collector roadway oriented north to south through the center of the site, as well as several local residential streets to access planned residential housing. An A-Minor Expander street (185th Street extension) is planned east to west through the south-central part of the site, which will be a public improvement project. Impacts related to public improvements directly associated with the proposed development project are discussed throughout this document. A 66.5-acre regional city park is proposed for the southeastern portion of the project area. The park is proposed as an active-use park for resident enjoyment. c. Project Magnitude Total Project Acreage 469.6 Linear project length N/A Number and type of residential units 832 Unattached/249 Attached Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A Industrial building area (in square feet) N/A Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A Other uses – specify (in square feet) Structure height(s) Unattached 25’; Attached 35’. d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the Avonlea residential development project is to meet the demand for additional residential housing units within the City of Lakeville. The project will be carried out by a private entity, Mattamy Homes. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 4 e. 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 the present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. There are currently no planned future stages of the Avonlea residential development project. f. Is the project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No. If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and any past environmental review. The Avonlea residential development project is not a subsequent stage of an earlier development project. 7. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Table 7.1. Estimated Before and After Cover Types Land Cover Before (acres) After (acres) Wetland 20.6 20.1 Deep water/streams 0.0 3 0.0 3 Wooded/Forest 15.7 0.0 1 Brush/Grassland 13.1 0.0 1 Cropland 402.5 0.0 Lawn/landscaping 0.0 170.1 Impervious Surface 17.5 128.0 Stormwater Pond 0.2 0.0 2 Other: Regional Park 0.0 66.5 Other: Greenway Corridors 0.0 17.5 Other Open Space 0.0 67.4 Totals 469.6 469.6 1 Some grassland and woodland area will be retained by the project within areas of greenway corridors and areas represented as Other Open Space. 2 Post-construction stormwater ponding acreage is included in the category of “Other Open Space”. 3 Public watercourse acreage is included under the wetland acreage. If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: Totals are equal and estimated from available land cover mapping. 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 h as been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 5 Table 8.1. Permits and Approvals Required Note: The project proposer will apply for and receive applicable permits prior to project construction. Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Lakeville Concept Plan Approval In process City of Lakeville Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment In process City of Lakeville PUD Rezoning Application In process City of Lakeville Preliminary Plat Application In process City of Lakeville Final Plat Approval To be applied for City of Lakeville EAW Negative Declaration In process City of Lakeville Grading Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Building Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Electrical Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Electrical Utility Affidavit To be applied for City of Lakeville Plumbing Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Mechanical Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Wetland Delineation Confirmation Completed City of Lakeville Wetland Conservation Act Permit To be applied for Dakota County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Dakota County Access Permit To be applied for Dakota County Obstruction Permit To be applied for (if needed) Dakota County Utility Permit To be applied for (if needed) Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Well Sealing Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Approval To be applied for Minnesota DNR Division of Waters Appropriation/Dewatering Permit To be applied for (if needed) Minnesota DNR Division of Waters Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for (if needed) Minnesota DNR Division of Lands and Minerals License to Cross Public Waters To be applied for (if needed) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for MN Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS General Permit Covered under general permit; submit NOI prior to construction. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit To be applied for Vermillion River Watershed Watershed Review To be applied for Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 6 Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19 9. Land Use a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands. Existing land use within, and adjacent to, the project site is depicted on Exhibit 4. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted on a portion of the project area in July 2013 by Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun). Maps depicting the extent of the Phase I and Phase II ESA investigation areas are included in Appendix A. Unless otherwise noted, the Phase I ESA information provided in this section is applicable only to the portion of the subject properties included in the investigation area. The report indicates that the subject properties were historically used for agriculture, which remains the current use to date. A farmstead is located in the north-central portion of the site, and dates back to 1916. Automotive repair and maintenance has been conducted at the site for at least the last 20 years. At the time of the site reconnaissance, the farmstead included a home and several outbuildings. It was evident that automotive repair was recently conducted in the storage shed adjacent to the house and in the small garage north of the house. Abutting land use consists of agricultural land on all sides; however, urban commercial and residential development surrounds the area of agricultural parcels that includes the subject site. The City of Lakeville Maintenance Facility and a Metro Transit Park and Ride are also located north of the site. There are currently no designated parks or recreation areas within the project boundary as shown on the City’s Parks and Trails map. A multi-purpose recreational trail runs adjacent to the project boundary just west of Cedar Avenue. King Park, located approximately 1,300 feet west of the project area, contains several baseball diamonds. Cherryview Park, a neighborhood park, is located approximately 1,600 feet to the north. Prime and Unique Farmlands According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 14 of the 18 soil types found on the site are classified as prime farmland (Table 10.1). These soils comprise 437.75 acres or approximately 93 percent of the site area. Prime farmlands consist of land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, and oilseed crops. According to the NRCS, prime farmlands have “an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content and few or no rocks.” This does not mean all soils listed as prime farmland produce exceptionally high crop yields. No farmland preservation measures have been considered at this time. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 7 ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. The City of Lakeville’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan maps the projected 2030 land use (zoning) of the proposed project area for low, medium, and high residential development. The southern part of the property, which is outside of the current Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA), is subject to the Rural/Agricultural Overlay (ROA) District. Waterways bisecting the project from west to east are also subject to the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. The 2008 Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the project area falls within Neighborhood Planning Districts 3 (North Dodd Corridor) and 12 (Cedar Corridor) and is guided for a range of residential densities that would allow more than 3,000 dwelling units to be developed. The proposed project will have an overall net density of 3.18 units per acre. The number of dwelling units proposed within the project is consistent with anticipated level of density guided for and contemplated in the City of Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2008). The Metropolitan Council has adopted the 2030 Regional Development Framework to ensure orderly, economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in relation to regional infrastructure for transportation, water resources, and regional parks and open space. In 1996, the Council established a Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, which serves as the framework for development for the Twin Cities seven-county area. Only land designated by the Metropolitan Council as being within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) can receive city sewer service. The Lakeville Comprehensive Plan must address not only local issues but also be consistent with regional benchmarks included as part of the 2030 Regional Development Framework for population, household and employment growth, transportation, housing and natural resources. The 2030 Regional Development Framework designated the City of Lakeville as a Developing Community. This designation is based on the location of Lakeville at the periphery of developed areas of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with land available for new urban development through 2030. Designation as a Developing Community means that the growth that has occurred in Lakeville starting in the 1970’s will continue through the year 2030 (2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan). The project is subject to the City of Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan includes the 2030 Land Use Plan, which guides future land use on the subject parcels to include a range of housing densities from high to low/medium density residential development. The southern-most parcels are indicated within a Special Plan Area. The Comprehensive Plan also includes a map indicating Staged MUSA Expansion Areas for the City of Lakeville. Lakeville has adopted staged growth areas, identified on the MUSA map, which facilitates the extension of sanitary sewer in approximately five-year intervals to manage growth within the City. The subject properties are identified within an existing MUSA where trunk sewer improvements are required in order to support future development. The rest of the subject properties are indicated within Urban Reserve Area in which no expansion is slated before 2020. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, the City anticipates significant growth with an estimated increase in the number of households from 18,683 in 2010, to a forecasted 28,400 Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 8 households by 2020. The residential land use and housing goals for the City of Lakeville are to provide a variety of high-quality housing types and choices, from single-family to townhome and multi-family alternatives to meet changing life cycle needs of Lakeville residents for various income levels. Parallel land use goals with regard to residential development is to promote the sense of community and identity in the design of individual neighborhoods by creating a cohesive focal point or landmark such as parks or open space, as well as promoting connectedness among neighborhoods through compatible land use, convenient access to streets, trails, and greenways for transportation. The City of Lakeville has been divided into 12 neighborhood planning districts in order to allow for detailed examination of needs of specific areas of the community. The boundaries of the planning districts are based on existing land use patterns, MUSA boundaries, and physical barriers. The subject properties are within the southernmost portion of District 3 (North Dodd Corridor) and District 12 (Cedar Corridor). District 12 generally corresponds to the Urban Reserve Area on the MUSA Staging Plan map. Primary concerns within District 3 are the integration of future development with existing land uses and addressing transportation needs. Recommendation for District 3 relevant to the subject properties include medium and medium to high density Residential areas proposed in close proximity to planned commercial areas at the Cedar Avenue and 179th Street intersections to promote and diversify high quality housing options in the area. The development of Cedar Avenue as a Bus Rapid Transitway (BRT) is already underway with the construction of a BRT station in the southeast quadrant of Cedar Avenue and 179th Street. Some of the primary recommendations for the long range planning objectives for District 12 include designating the Urban Reserve Area as a Special Plan Area deferring decisions on land use until the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update. However, the City of Lakeville established as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan that it may initiate planning for development this area prior to 2018 if the Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway is sufficiently underway and other infrastructure is provided for. The City has provided general guidelines for development of the Urban Reserve Area that would guide land use decisions on the portion of the subject parcels within that area. The project is consistent with the goals of Lakeville Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed housing units across the site correspond to the location and extent of housing densities in the future land use plan. Medium to high density housing units are proposed near transportation corridors while maintaining sufficient buffering between residential land uses and adjacent commercial and transportation uses. A variety of housing options are provided across the project area and interspersed so that different housing options are available across the site. The project conforms to the future land use plan by limiting residential development to those areas slated for that future land use. Portions of the project within the Special Plan Area are proposed as a community park, which is consistent with acceptable land use for those areas and the recommendations of the Lakeville 2006 Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan. The project also incorporates a greenway west to east through the center of the site which is consistent with the location of the greenway in the Lakeville 2006 Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 9 The proposed site development is generally consistent with Lakeville’s comprehensive zoning plans, which guide the area for development. The 2013 city zoning plan identifies the majority (approximately 350 acres) of the project area for residential development (e.g., single-, two-, multi- family, and medium density residential districts). Approximately 120 acres of the southern edge of the property is zoned as an agricultural district. The Lakeville Zoning Map is provided on Exhibit 5. The City of Lakeville Zoning Map indicates five different residential zoning districts designated across the subject properties including RS-4, RST-2, RM-1, RM-2 and Districts, which variously allows for single family dwellings, townhouses and multiple family dwellings. An unnamed MnDNR Public Watercourse drains southeast, then east across the site from the northwest corner of the property. The watercourse continues east under Cedar Avenue and intersects the part of the property east of Cedar Avenue at two locations. Because of decades of agricultural land use, the location of the current channel of the MnDNR Watercourse in the central part of the site differs from the historically mapped watercourse location. Areas within 300 feet of the public watercourse fall within the City of Lakeville Shoreland Overlay District as mapped on Exhibit 5. Shoreland issues specific to the project will be addressed under the proposed PUD District development standards in accordance with the Lakeville Zoning Ordinance and subject to review of the DNR. According to FEMA Floodplain mapping (accessed April, 2014), the project is located within Flood Panels 27037C0211E, 27037C0203E, 27037C0204E, and 27037C0212E; HUC 07040001. The entire project is identified as being outside of either a 100 or 500-year flood zone (Exhibit 6). The site is also not in or adjacent to state or federally-designated wild or scenic river land use zone or near trout streams. There are no wild and scenic rivers, critical areas, or agricultural preserves within the project area. 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 surrounding properties are zoned as residential districts to the north, west, and south of the site and areas of Public and Open Space. Areas south of the site are also zoned within the RAO District and areas to the east, within Lakeville City limits, are within an AP District for agricultural preservation. A concentration of commercial zoned properties is also located northeast of the site. The proposed project is compatible with existing land use and planned land uses in the area because it offers a range of housing options and densities next to a key transportation corridor consistent with implementation of the 2008 Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Portions of the project are also planned as public open space to include a community park, which is consistent with 2030 Parks System Plan adopted as part of the 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Incompatibility of land uses is not anticipated as discussed in Section 9b. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 10 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. Topographic mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from approximately 1,040 above mean sea level in the northwest corner of the site to 970 above mean sea level towards the eastern border of the site. Consequently, the maximum depth to groundwater is estimated at about 115 feet. Because surficial groundwater is sometimes encountered in seasonally wet areas, the minimum depth to groundwater is estimated at 0 feet. The approximate average depth to groundwater was calculated by averaging the topographic elevations on the site (1,005) and subtracting the anticipated depth shown on the Dakota County Atlas (925). Depth to bedrock was estimated from The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota (1990) C-6, Plate 6. The Geologic Atlas indicates that the distance to bedrock ranges between approximately 100 and 200 feet below grade. The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota (1990) C-6, Plate 1 indicates there are no known sinkholes, exposed bedrock, springs, or seeps on or near the site. However, based on Minnesota Karst Lands Mapping (Alexander 2002), the project is in an area of potential karst lands topography. Shallow limestone formations and unconfined/shallow aquifers are not known to exist within the project area. If such features are encountered on the site during planned subsurface investigations, actions will be taken to mitigate potential effects such as stormwater routing, soil stabilization, and groundwater protection practices. The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota, C-6, Plate 7, Sensitivity of the Prairie Du Chien- Jordan Aquifer to Pollution map (1990) indicates that the sensitivity of groundwater to pollution in the project areas is generally L (Low), with areas along one of the ditches on-site mapped as L-M (Low-Moderate). Sensitivity of groundwater systems to pollution is defined as the approximate time it takes from the moment a contaminant infiltrates the land surface until it reaches an aquifer. Although shallow groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination, low permeable soils with very fine textures will significantly slow or restrict the movement of water. This extends the time needed for chemicals to break down before reaching the water table. In the L-M mapped areas, moderately permeable soils with finer textures will also slow or restrict the movement of water, which extends the time needed for chemicals to break down before reaching the water table. As stated in Item 19, the average depth to groundwater on the site is estimated at approximately 80 feet below ground surface, providing a meaningful buffer between the soil surface and the groundwater aquifer. Because development will be typical of residential uses, no unusual wastes or chemicals are anticipated to be spread or spilled that would cause significant groundwater contamination. The proposed project may offer continued groundwater protection and mitigation by providing adequate stormwater treatment and vegetated infiltration areas such as rain gardens, bio-filtration swales, or buffers to help capture runoff and filter pollutants. The project will adhere to the City of Lakeville and Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) infiltration requirements for stormwater. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 11 Because of the site’s elevated position in the watershed, and the propensity for runoff to drain away from rather than towards the site, the potential for infiltrating contaminated surface waters on the site is low. The residential development will offer a higher level of groundwater protection and mitigation than exists under current conditions. Chemical applications can be high in agriculturally-dominated landscapes. The conversion of the site to urban uses will ensure greater protection of groundwater by: (1) covering exposed soils with turf and landscape plants to reduce infiltration of nutrients and pesticides; (2) reducing hazardous materials on the property to include only household quantities; (3) providing 171.4 acres of park, woodland, wetlands, and open space; (4) providing stormwater treatment systems; (5) abandoning old septic systems and wells, and (6) not drilling new wells for the project. b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital database for Dakota County (USDA NRCS, Accessed 2014) indicates the soils that occur within the project area (Exhibit 7) are classified as summarized in Table 10.1. Soils on the site are predominantly non-hydric silty and sandy loams. Table 10.1. Soils Classification Map Symbol Soil Classification Hydric1 Percent of Map Unit Hydric1 Category Prime Farmland2 176 Garwin silty clay loam 95 Predominantly hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 203B Joy silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 5 Predominantly non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 208 Kato silty clay loam 95 Predominantly hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 213B Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 5 Predominantly non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 285A Port Byron silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 285B Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 2B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 12 Table 10.1. Soils Classification Map Symbol Soil Classification Hydric1 Percent of Map Unit Hydric1 Category Prime Farmland2 2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 301B Lindstrom silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 320B Tallula silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 320C2 Tallula silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 378 Maxfield silty clay loam 95 Predominantly hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 39B Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 409B Etter fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 411B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 41B Estherville sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 611C Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric Not Prime Farmland 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded 95 Predominantly hydric Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season 1 Based on the NRCS List of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (1995). 2 Based on the USDA/NRCS Prime Farmland of Dakota County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS WebSoils, accessed 2014). A geotechnical subsurface investigation has been initiated. Results of the investigation will be published separately. The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (accessed May, 2014) indicates there are no highly erodible soils within the subject property. Soil units identified within the site are rated as having a slight risk for soil loss, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Soil classification slope percentages range from 0-12 percent. Contour mapping indicates that the overall surface topography slopes gently downward from west to east across the site. The highest elevations in the west part of the site are generally 1,030 to 1,040 Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 13 feet above mean sea level and slope down to approximately 970 feet above mean sea level in the eastern part of the site. In the northern two-thirds of the site, topography also slopes down to the main drainageway (Wetland A) through the north-central part of the site. Similarly, topography slopes down to an historic drainageway in the southern third of the site. It is anticipated that construction will entail moving approximately 2.8 million cubic yards of soil, and approximately 375 acres of 469.9 acres will be graded for streets, house pads, and stormwater features. Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented. Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs related to stormwater runoff are discussed in greater detail within Item 11.b.ii. NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10. 11. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Westwood Professional Services conducted delineations in 2011 and 2013 on the subject property to identify jurisdictional lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Westwood delineated four wetlands on the site, labeled Wetlands A through D (Exhibit 8). Westwood also identified one stormwater pond along Cedar Avenue which was subsequently determined non-jurisdictional by the City of Lakeville (WCA LGU) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The agency decision notices approving the wetland delineation are included in Appendix B. Table 11.1 summarizes the water features delineated on the site. There are no known trout streams/lakes, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or outstanding resource value waters within the project area. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 14 Table 11.1. Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (Acres) Type Mapped Soils Vegetation Mapped NWI, PWI, NHD? Wetland Upland A 15.49 Type 1/2/6 PEMAdf/Bd/ PFO1Ad/Bd/ PSS1Ad/Bd Seasonally flooded basin, Fresh wet meadow, Shrub swamp Colo, Garwin and Maxfield American elm, clearweed, jewelweed, common red raspberry, box elder, and reed canary grass, Common red raspberry, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, climbing nightshade, box elder, American elm, eastern cottonwood, bare ground cropland NWI, PWI, and NHD B 1.26 Type 1/2 PEMAd/Bd/ PFO1Ad/Bd Fresh wet meadow Garwin Silver maple, reed canary grass, creeping Charlie, and black willow, red osier dogwood, field horsetail, and timothy Bare ground cropland No C 3.56 Type 1 PEMAfd Seasonally flooded basin Garwin and Kato Bare ground Giant ragweed, pigweed, field pennycress, and lamb’s quarters NWI, PWI, NHD D 0.32 Type 1 (PEMAfd) Seasonally flooded basin Maxfield Lady’s thumb, field pennycress, and yellow rocket Giant ragweed, pigweed, field pennycress, lady’s thumb and lamb’s quarters No Pond E - Not jurisdictional 0.20 Type 4, (PUBFx) Garwin Reed canary grass and sandbar willow Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass No Wetland A consisted of a large Y-shaped drainageway that drained east across the site and subsequently under Cedar Avenue. The two channels widen at the westernmost extent to accommodate areas of forested, scrub shrub and wet meadow wetland. The east half of the drainageway was cropped to the ditch edge and vegetated with invasive and agricultural weeds. Wetland B was a wet meadow wetland north of the farmstead in the west part of the site. Wetland C was a mostly unvegetated, defined drainageway, traversing the north-central part of the site and draining east under Cedar Avenue. Just west of Cedar Avenue, Wetland C widened into a sediment-filled flat in the lowest part of the site. Wetland D was a small seasonally flooded basin located along the north edge of the site. Pond E was a stormwater basin constructed in association with Cedar Avenue improvements in 2001/2002. Prior to delineating the site, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Map, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Public Water Inventory Map (PWI), the Dakota County Soil Survey Map, the latest version of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) were reviewed. Westwood also reviewed aerial photos from three sources covering 32 different years between 1937 and 2012. The USGS map showed intermittent drainageways oriented west to east in the north and south parts of the site. The MN DNR PWI showed an unnamed Public Watercourse in the north part of the site that is generally consistent with the location of the delineated Wetland A drainageway. NWI mapping showed four PEMC, one PEMCd, one PSS1/EMC, one PEM/SSIC, one PEMA, and one PEMAd wetlands mapped within the site. The NHD depicted a network of flowlines in the north part of the site that are generally consistent with Wetlands A Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 15 and C, and a second flowline in the south part of the site (Exhibit 6). Soils that are predominantly hydric are mapped throughout the lower portions of the site. The subject property lies within the Vermillion River Watershed. Dakota and Scott counties formed the VRWJPO to implement the 2005 Vermillion River Watershed Plan. The VRWJPO includes rules governing alterations in floodplain and wetlands, and requiring buffers adjacent to identified water features based on a functional classification. In addition, the VRWJPO has completed stream classifications on area waterways and applied corresponding buffer standards. The portion of Wetland A mapped as a PWI Watercourse is also identified as a Principle Connector of an Aquatic Corridor according to the Vermillion River Watershed Stream Classification and Buffer Standards Map. VRWJPO requires a 100-foot wide average buffer (65-foot minimum) for Principle Connectors of an Aquatic Corridor. The VRWJPO Buffer Standards Map also identifies an aquatic corridor along the southern part of the Site as a Water Quality Corridor which requires a 30-foot average buffer (20-foot minimum). However, it is worth noting that no water features were delineated in this area as part of the approved wetland delineation for the site. Impaired Waters According to the 2012 Minnesota impaired waters inventory and the MPCA’s impaired waters viewer (IWAV), the unnamed ditch/stream (No. 07040001-546) that flows through the northern portion of the site is considered impaired for Escherichia coli, or E. coli. The stream segment was last assessed in 2011. There is one other unnamed stream within one mile to the north of the project area that is also identified as impaired. These impaired waters are part of the Vermillion River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy. The VRWJPO is a key sponsor for this project, which will address the 27 impaired water bodies in the watershed, as well as develop protection strategies for those water bodies that are currently not listed as impaired. The impairments range from biological impairments (Fish and Macroinvertebrates), Turbidity, Low Dissolved Oxygen, E. Coli and Fecal Coliform, and excess nutrients. 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. Groundwater elevations within the vicinity of the site are around 925 feet above sea level based on The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota (1990) C-6, Plate 5. Topographic mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from approximately 1,040 above mean sea level in the northwest corner of the site to 970 above mean sea level towards the eastern border of the site. Consequently, the maximum depth to groundwater is estimated at about 115 feet. Because surficial groundwater is sometimes encountered in seasonally wet areas, the minimum depth to groundwater is estimated at 0 feet. The approximate average depth to groundwater was calculated by averaging the topographic elevations on the site (1,005) and subtracting the anticipated depth shown on the Dakota County Atlas (925). As shown in the City of Lakeville Water Resources Management Plan (2008), the project is partially within a Minnesota Department of Health Wellhead Protection Area. The City of Lakeville is currently in the process of revising its Wellhead Protection Plan. In general, the project will be designed with wellhead protection in mind, by reducing overall threats to groundwater. The project will provide open spaces within the wellhead protection area, which is encouraged within the City’s WRMP. The project will also properly abandon existing wells and septic systems to further promote groundwater resource protection. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 16 No new water wells are planned for the project. The Minnesota Geological Survey’s (MGS) County Well Index (CWI) indicates there is one registered well within the project site, Unique Well No. 474609. The CWI is accessed through the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Other Unique Well numbers identified nearby, but outside, the project area include: 623888 – Lyndale Garden Center, 124319 – Private Well, 124316 – Private Well, 180425 – Private Well, 207718 – Private Well, 207527 – Private Well, and 207526 – Private Well. b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Only normal domestic wastewater production is expected from the project. The types of wastewater produced will be typical of new residential developments. No on-site municipal or industrial wastewater treatment is anticipated or planned. Because wastewater is from domestic sources, pre-treatment measures have not been contemplated. According to the City’s approved Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (http://ci.lakeville.mn.us/departments/departmentspdf/SanitarySewerPlan.pdf, February 22, 2008), the majority of the site, including portions proposed for development, is within an existing MUSA. The northern and western portions of the project area are mapped in the existing MUSA boundary and labeled as areas where “Extension of the Trunk Sanitary is Necessary”. The far southeast portion of the site, designated to be a City Community Park, is mapped in a Staged MUSA Expansion Area. This portion of the property is designated “Urban Reserve (No Sooner than 2020-2025)”. According to the City of Lakeville Ultimate Trunk Sanitary Sewer System Plan, a 10-inch main and a 12-inch main will merge in the western portion of the site, and flow northeast as a 15- inch main. This 15-inch main will flow northeast and connect with an 8-inch main near the north-center portion of the property. An 18- inch main will be formed at this connection point and continue to flow east off of the property and across Cedar Avenue. A comprehensive sanitary capacity analysis has been completed for the project by Mattamy Homes. The project area is predominately in the North Creek Sanitary Sewer District; a small portion at the south end of the site is in the Farmington Outlet Sanitary Sewer District. According to mapping in the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (2008), it is anticipated that flow through portions of the existing trunk sanitary sewer in the North Creek District will exceed capacity once the District is fully developed. The critical section is from Node NC19 to NC17b, which has an anticipated shortfall of 1.835cubic feet per second (CFS). The Mattamy Homes development is proposed to have less density than what is presented in the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and will generate less sanitary sewer flow to the critical trunk sewer sections than is anticipated by the City of Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 17 Lakeville Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. Applying the estimated sanitary sewer flow as defined in the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan to each proposed land use results in an estimated peak flow of 0.240 MGD or 0.37 CFS from the project. The proposed Mattamy Homes development will generate less sanitary sewer flow to the critical trunk sewer sections than is anticipated by the City of Lakeville Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan by an estimated 0.21 CFS. However, because the downstream trunk sewer is expected to have an eventual shortfall, the City of Lakeville will continue to monitor the critical trunk sewer sections as recommended in the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan as well as compare the existing flow through the critical trunk sewer sections to determine the amount of development that can occur before the critical sections reach capacity. Both of the sewer districts described above are served by the Empire Treatment Facility, located near 197th Street East and the Vermillion River in Section 21 of Empire Township. The Empire Plant is a two-stage activated sludge treatment facility with tertiary filtration and an on-land sludge disposal system. The plant was recently expanded and has a current capacity of 24 MGD. The plant has provisions for future expansion to 50 MGD. A 13-mile effluent (treated wastewater) pipeline to the Mississippi River in Rosemount has been completed, ending discharges to the Vermillion River. The effluent pipeline has a 60 MGD maximum capacity. The Metropolitan Council has recently studied the future of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. There are two MCES interceptors that convey wastewater flow to the Empire Plant from Lakeville. The Apple Valley Interceptor has adequate capacity to convey projected long-term wastewater flows from its service area. The Lakeville-Farmington Interceptor has capacity to convey projected wastewater flow from its service area through the year 2030. A capacity relief interceptor will be needed sometime thereafter. Consequently, no wastewater facility or treatment capacity issues are anticipated (MCES 2007). 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Wastewater discharge will not be to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Wastewater discharge is not to surface water. No effects are anticipated to surface or groundwater as treatment will to a publicly owned treatment facility. ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 18 stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. The development must comply with stormwater management, wetland conservation, floodplain, shoreland, and public waters requirements administered by: the City of Lakeville, the VRWJPO, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Wetland Conservation Act), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the MPCA through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. The site is located in the Farmington Stormwater District as shown in the City of Lakeville’s Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) and is tributary to the Vermillion River. The City of Lakeville Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is available on the City’s website. Lakeville is also a mandatory small MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) city, and is required by federal and state law to obtain and implement a NPDES Stormwater permit administered by the MPCA. MS4s are required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan program (SWPPP), and submit an annual report to the MPCA. Prior to preparing this document, the project proposer organized and attended a pre-kickoff meeting on April 16, 2014 with the City of Lakeville, Dakota County, the Department of Natural Resources, and VRWJPO at the Western Service Center in Apple Valley to discuss stormwater requirements and issues on the site. Topics discussed include volume control (infiltration), rate control, dead storage, and buffer requirements. Pre-Construction Site Runoff Existing site runoff from the project area likely contains pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer residues due to the presence of agricultural fields. There is also likely a minor amount of runoff that flows to the site from Cedar and Highview Avenues. However, because the site is located in the headwaters of two small tributary ditches of the Vermillion River, runoff primarily drains away from the site to the southeast. It is expected that a portion of the runoff infiltrates into the site’s soils, but the majority of runoff likely leaves the site via overland flow through existing drainage swales and ditches. Post-Construction Site Runoff The change in land use will decrease the amount of agricultural chemicals and suspended solids, and increase other components typical of urban runoff. It is expected that the volume of runoff will increase during significant storm events as a result of the increase in impervious surface area. It is anticipated that only extreme conditions such as those occurring in connection with 50- or 100-year storm events will result in measurable increases in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport. The preservation and creation of open space in the form of buffers, parks, woodlands, wetlands and ponds will help to mitigate potential adverse effects from the increase in impervious surface. Runoff water quality will be typical of residential developments, and will likely be slightly degraded due to pollutants deposited on streets, roofs, private driveways and other impervious surfaces. Similar to current conditions, sediment, nutrient, and other pollutant removal will occur when much of the stormwater filters through upland vegetation, vegetated drainage swales, stormwater ponds, and other best management practices, including infiltration. Preserved and newly seeded vegetation will provide filter strips to help remove sediment and nutrients before runoff discharges to area wetlands and surface waters, mitigating potential effects on water quality. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 19 Potential adverse effects of runoff volume and quality will be further mitigated by the construction of stormwater basins, which will be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and meet the requirements of the City of Lakeville and VRWJPO. The design of ponding areas and the quality of stormwater discharging from the development will meet the requirements of the MPCA General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (Minnesota Stormwater Manual), and applicable local regulations. In a storm event, stormwater will be retained in the ponds and discharged at or below existing peak runoff rates. BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs during construction will be consistent with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements, including site inspection after rainfall events, perimeter sediment control maintenance, and sediment removal. Volume Control (Infiltration) The VRWJPO has a pre- vs. post-construction 2-year standard, which means that the increase in runoff generated from a 2-year storm event must be infiltrated on site. The site is composed of primarily B/D soils where stormwater management is planned, which have a relatively low infiltration potential. Where infiltration cannot be achieved, the project proposer anticipates using constructed wetlands or bio-filtration BMPs, which can be used towards infiltration credits in these situations according to City staff. Water reuse is also a possibility on the site and is being considered by the project proposer. The City has a successful water reuse system in place to irrigate baseball fields at King Park, just west of the site. The VRWJPO has a credit system for incorporating volume control in site design. For instance, credit can be provided for disconnecting impervious surfaces, using swales instead of pipes, amending soils, restoring prairies/forests, installing green roofs, permeable pavements, etc. The project proposer will work closely with both the city and the VRWJPO as the project progresses to identify possible credit opportunities for addressing volume control and infiltration facilities needed to meet infiltration requirements. Rate Control The VRWJPO requires rate control to match existing conditions (2005) for the 1-year 24-hour, 10-year 24-hour and 4-day, 100-year events. The majority of rate control on the project will take place within constructed wetlands. Atlas-14 precipitation data will be used to model rate control on the site. Because of the temperature buffering capabilities of a large wetland downstream of the project, thermal pond heating is not anticipated to be a problem for the project. This has been confirmed with VRWJPO staff. Dead Storage Dead storage is specified in the City of Lakeville’s Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) as 2.5” of runoff volume over the proposed impervious surface. Buffer Requirements There are intermittent drainages that flow through the site from west to east as shown on Exhibit 6. The VRWJPO buffer standards are 30’ minimum width for “Water Quality Corridors” or 100’ average width with a 65’ minimum width for “Principal Connectors”. These buffers are maintained under the existing concept plan. Conversations in the initial kickoff meeting with watershed and City staff indicate that because of the very poor condition (row crop) of these channels under existing conditions, they could be improved if desired by the project proposer. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 20 Based on available watershed boundary mapping, the project site is located within the Vermillion River Watershed (http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/maps/VRW.htm). Surface waters within the project area generally flow east-southeast in an unnamed creek which connects to the Vermillion River. Because the site is located relatively high in the watershed, the site does not receive much directed runoff. The directed runoff the site does receive is contained in ditches and appears to flow through the property and is not, for the most part, retained on the property. The goal of the project will be to maintain peak discharge rates at or below the existing condition. Post-construction drainage will follow similar pathways, with minor differences in drainage routes and increases in the volume of road ditches and swale flows. Post-development stormwater runoff will either travel overland, into stormwater ponds, or through storm sewers prior to discharging to receiving waters. Other BMPs, such as natural swales and infiltration technologies, will be considered as project designs advance. For the following reasons, it is anticipated that site development will have minimal effects on receiving water quality: Preservation and creation of approximately 171.4 acres of buffers, parks, woodlands, and ponds (36 percent of the site), and Hydraulic storage within sediment basins will be designed, and BMPs implemented, in accordance with the General NPDES/SDS Permit for Construction Activities to protect water quality and control erosion. Stormwater and Erosion Control BMPs Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion, and that erosion controls be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Erosion control practices that will be implemented on the site include: 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for stormwater ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. 2. Silt fence and other erosion control features installed prior to initiation of earthwork and maintained until viable turf or ground cover is established on exposed areas. 3. Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce tracking of dirt onto public streets. 4. Stabilization of exposed soils, phased with grading, within 7 days for slopes steeper than 3:1, 14 days for slopes less than 3:1 but greater that 10:1, and 21 days for slopes flatter than 10:1. 5. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 6. Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. Erosion control plans must be reviewed and accepted by the City of Lakeville and the VRWJPO prior to project construction. Because the above BMPs will be implemented during and after construction, potential adverse effects from construction-related sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 21 iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Surface/Groundwater Appropriations and Dewatering The project is not proposing new water wells, and no surface waters will be appropriated. According to the CWI record, one well exists on the site. Well No. 474609 is a 280-foot deep domestic well which was completed in 1991 (Appendix C). This well will be abandoned in accordance with MDH regulations, and with the necessary permits and approvals. According to the Phase I Environmental Assessment report, no other municipal or private water wells were noted on the property. If other active or inactive wells are discovered on the property, they will be field-located, abandoned, and sealed in accordance with MDH regulations prior to site development. Dewatering will become necessary if surficial groundwater is encountered during utility installation. As indicated in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report (GER) conducted by Braun Intertec (2013), there may be areas of perched groundwater on the site, particularly where there are layers and lenses of sand. Perched groundwater areas would likely require some level of dewatering during construction. According to data gathered from Unique Well No. 474609, upon installation in February, 1991, static groundwater levels in the northeast part of the property are approximately 90 feet below grade. Based on the GER (2013), groundwater was observed from 1.5 to 25 feet below the ground surface in a series of 26 soil bores across the site. Groundwater elevations ranged from a 965 elevation in the northeast part of the site to 1,038 in the southwest part. The quantity and duration of potential construction dewatering is not known at this time, but it is expected that necessary dewatering for construction will be temporary. If groundwater is encountered during utility installation, it will be discharged to temporary sediment basins located within the project site. If construction dewatering and pumping from the proposed development exceeds the 10,000- gallon per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year thresholds, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be obtained. If it becomes apparent that construction dewatering will not exceed 50 million gallons in total and duration of one year from the start of pumping, the contractor or project proposer will apply to the DNR Division of Waters for coverage under the amended DNR General Permit 97-0005 for temporary water appropriations. It is not anticipated that construction dewatering or pumping from the proposed development will be extensive or continue long enough to require a permit from the DNR, or impact nearby domestic or municipal wells. Connection to a public water supply system The City of Lakeville currently operates seventeen wells for municipal use, which are permitted under the DNR Water Appropriations Permit Numbers listed in Table 11.2. The City of Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 22 Lakeville also has one additional Water Appropriations Permit (No. 751646) for non-crop irrigation use. Table 11.2. MNDNR Water Appropriations Permit Numbers Permit Well Number 1980-6107-2 207708 1980-6107-3 207727 1980-6107-4 212650 1980-6107-6 161409 1980-6107-7 161439 1980-6107-8 433296 1980-6107-9 554192 1980-6107-10 554193 1980-6107-11 554215 1980-6107-12 562991 1980-6107-13 596650 1980-6107-14 603073 1980-6107-15 651737 1980-6107-16 655907 1980-6107-17 694913 1980-6107-18 745558 1980-6107-19 686288 *Wells in bold represent those within one mile of the Subject Property. The wells range in depth from 460 to 864 feet deep, and draw water from the Prairie Du Chien/Jordan aquifer and the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville formation (2008 LWRMP). The city’s DNR water appropriations permit allows a total system pumping capacity of 47,804 million gallons per year (MGY). Eight of the seventeen wells are located within one mile of the property and combined allow for a pumping capacity of 22,496 MGY. According to DNR Water Appropriation records as of 2011, the city reported pumping 1,816 MGY (average 4.97 million gallons per day) from these eight wells. The estimated peak water demand for the proposed development is 96.4 MGY (264,000 gallons per day) based on the assumption that consumption is approximately 110 percent of wastewater generation (see Item 11). Consequently, there are no water supply issues anticipated as a result of adding the development to the city’s water supply system. Water will be supplied to the development via the Lakeville municipal water supply system. Water facilities will be extended to the site from an existing 16-inch water line located along Cedar Avenue which connects to a water tower located at the City Public Works Central Maintenance Facility adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. The 16-inch water line will be extended south along Cedar Avenue, then west along proposed 185th Street, then north along Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 23 Highview Avenue to eventually connect to an existing line along Highview Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. 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. The project will involve minor physical alterations of wetlands within the subject property. Unavoidable wetland impacts are anticipated to be limited to approximately 0.50 acres of fill within portions of two Type 1/2 wetlands (Wetlands A and C). Wetland impacts have been limited to approximately six locations necessary for road crossings to allow for safe ingress and egress on the project. Otherwise, housing, ponding, and open space have been placed in a manner that avoids impacts to water resources. Water resources within the project area will be regulated under: The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended, administered in this area by the City of Lakeville, and The VRWJPO Floodplain Alteration Rule, Wetland Alteration Rule, Buffer Rule, Stormwater Management Rule, and the Drainage Alteration Rule. Section 102, Shoreland Overlay District of the Lakeville Zoning Ordinance as administered by the City of Lakeville. Water resources within the project area may be regulated under: Section 404 and 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Minnesota Statute 103G.245, administered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Impacts to wetlands to accommodate road crossings are anticipated to have only minor effects, if any, to the host watershed. Most of these impacts are proposed along linear drainage features that will be crossed with culverts. The project proposer evaluated alternatives as the site was designed to avoid and minimized impacts, and will further analyzed opportunities for reductions as required through the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing process. Compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, to the degree practicable. There is at least one certified wetland bank within the same major watershed that currently has available credits, and approximately 11 banks in the same wetland Bank Service Area (BSA). Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 24 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. Anticipated physical effects and alterations to surface water features are discussed in 11 iv. Direct effects to the drainages will include fill to accommodate road crossing; indirect effects are not anticipated. As discussed, unavoidable impacts, as determined through the wetland permitting process, will be compensated via purchase of offsite banking credits, or on-site replacement. The required wetland permitting process will fully evaluate opportunities to further avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental effects to surface water features on the site. In-water Best Management Practices to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the drainages and wetlands (such as silt fence, bio rolls and silt booms) will be described in the project SWPPP, and deployed as needed. The project site does not encompass surface waters that are used by watercraft, and therefore will not change the number or type of watercraft on any waterbody. 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. Environmental Hazards Associated with Past Land Use According to the Phase I ESA completed by Braun Intertec, Inc., an automotive repair service was operated at the farmstead in the northeast part of the property for the last approximately 20 years. Depending on the nature and handling of automotive fluids used in this enterprise at the time, the existence of a former automotive repair service presents the potential for environmental hazards. In 1995, a farm chemical spill was reported to the Dakota County Environmental Management Office (DCEM); however, little information about the spill was available for review. Because of the lack of information regarding this spill, it represents a potential for soil or groundwater contamination at the site. Otherwise, agricultural land use is not typically associat ed with the presence of environmental hazards. The Phase I ESA also noted the presence of numerous piles of debris and burn areas on the farmstead. The potential exists that materials, including asbestos-containing materials (ACM), are present at the site that require management as solid or hazardous waste. The disposal of solid waste through the process of open burning has the potential to have negative environmental impacts on the Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 25 site. Potentially carcinogenic compounds, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, may be produced by incomplete waste combustion and contaminants such as heavy metals may be concentrated in the residual ash material. These materials have the potential to be leached to the soil and/or groundwater beneath the site. No underground storage tanks for petroleum products were observed on the property, or reported to Braun Intertec. Based on information in the Phase I ESA, one above-ground storage tank was present on the site in the past, but was removed sometime early in 2013. Two septic systems were identified near the farmstead in the northeast part of the site. It is currently not anticipated that above or below ground tanks for storage of petroleum or other materials will be located on the project site. However, if above or below ground tanks are proposed by the project, they will be installed according to MPCA regulations, and consideration will be given to spill and leak detection and prevention technologies, as well as double-walled tank construction. The portion of the site not included in the investigation area (160-acre parcel in the northwest of the overall subject properties) was reviewed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency “What’s In My Neighborhood” (WIMN) website. According to WIMN, there are no records associated with that part of the site. In addition, there are no know abandoned dumps, closed landfills, abandoned storage tanks or hazardous liquid or gas pipelines within the project area. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed by Braun Interec, Inc. revealed the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) on the subject properties: Auto repair activities have taken place at the house/former farmstead area on the northeast portion of the site for at least 20 years. A burn pit was located south of the house on the northeast part of the site. Pieces of partially burned wood with nails in them, metal, metal washers, and what appeared to be tar paper were observed in the burn pit. Numerous piles of debris were observed throughout the farmstead area. The Dakota County Environmental Management Department (DCEMD) file review indicated that a spill was reported at the farmstead on May 20, 1995. The Braun Intertec, Inc. report also provided additional considerations regarding the condition of the property. It was noted that outbuildings on the northeast farmstead have been demolished on the site historically and it is unknown whether demolition debris has been buried on the site. As such, the potential exists that buried materials are present that require management as solid or hazardous waste. Braun Intertec, Inc. also noted the presence of one water well and two septic system located on the site and recommended the wells and septic systems be properly abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Braun Intertec, Inc. completed a Phase II ESA for the site with the objective to evaluate potential soil, groundwater and/or soil-vapor impacts associated with REC’s identified in the Phase I ESA. Based upon the environmental conditions noted, Braun Intertec, Inc. completed the following scope of services as part of the subsurface Phase II ESA: Advanced ten push-probe soil borings labeled PP-1 through PP-10 to obtain soil samples for field screening and chemical analysis. Collected one groundwater sample from boring PP-2 for chemical analysis. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 26 Advanced three soil vapor probes labeled SV-1 through SV-3 to collect soil-vapor samples for chemical analysis. Collected one sample of potential asbestos containing material for analysis. Evaluated the data and prepared the Phase II ESA report. Braun Intertec, Inc. originally proposed to collect two groundwater samples; however, due to lack of groundwater in boring PP-1, only one groundwater sample was collected. The soil samples were analyzed at the Braun Intertec, Inc. laboratory for a combination of the following chemical parameters: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260. PAHs using EPA Method 8270. Diesel range organics (DRO) using the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Method. 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals using EPA Methods 6010 and 7471. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using EPA Method 8081. Pesticides (List 1) using EPA Method 8081. Samples collected for VOC, DRO, PCB, and pesticide analyses were collected as grab samples, while samples collected for metals and PAHs analyses were composited prior to placing the soil in the sampling containers. The roofing shingles were analyzed for asbestos content using polarized light microscopy. The groundwater sample was analyzed at the Braun Intertec, Inc. laboratory for the presence and concentration of VOCs using EPA Method 8260, DRO using the WDNR Method, and pesticides (List 1) using EPA Method 8081. Soil-vapor samples were analyzed for VOC’s using EP Method TO-15. Based upon the findings of the Phase II ESA, Braun Intertec, Inc. concluded the following: Elevated concentrations of VOCs, relative to 10x the Residential ISV, were detected in soil vapor samples collected at the site. 1, 3-butadiene was detected in one location at a concentration exceeding 100x the Residential ISV. Groundwater and soil-vapor impacts have been identified at the site. According to Minnesota Statute 115.061, the property owner and/or responsible parties associated with this release may have a duty to notify the MPCA via the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management (DEM) Duty Officer. Mattamy Homes will prepare a Construction Contingency Plan for the site prior to development to manage known impacted soils within the project area. 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. Construction activities will generate wastes typical of residential development operations. No solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge, and ash, will be produced during Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 27 construction and/or operation. The contractor will dispose of wastes generated at the site in an approved method by using commercial dumpsters and disposing construction wastes at an MPCA- permitted landfill. The contractor will minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of solid waste by recycling construction waste that can be recycled, when feasible. Following project construction, solid waste generation will be typical of occupied residential developments of this size. The majority of the solid waste generated will include materials such as paper, organics (food wastes, wood, and rubber products), yard waste, and inert solids. The remaining wastes will likely include plastics, metals, and glass. According to the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan 2010-2030 (MPCA, 2011), a Minnesota family of five generates approximately six tons of garbage per year, or 1.2 tons per occupant. The following residential solid waste generation rates were based on the conservative figures that the average single-family dwelling consists of 2.96 persons based on 2010 City of Lakeville census data. The household occupant number was then multiplied by 1.2 tons per person per year, based on the MPCA estimate for Minnesota families. Using these conservative figures, the proposed development could generate as much as 3,840 tons per year (1,081 units X 2.96 people/unit X 1.2 tons/person/year) of residential municipal solid waste per year. Residents within the new development will contract individually with waste haulers for solid waste collection and recycling services under the city’s open trash and recycling collection system. According to the cities web page, there are currently six licensed residential and/or commercial waste haulers. Curbside recycling, including paper, plastics, glass, and metals, is available to Lakeville residents through their solid waste collector. Participation in the recycling program by future residents of the project area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal, and generally minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of solid waste. c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will generate, or require storage of, significant amounts of wastes that would be considered hazardous aside from typical household cleaners, paints, lubricants, and fuel storage for small power equipment. Toxic or hazardous material such as fuel for construction equipment and materials used during the normal construction process of residential units (paint, adhesives, stains, acids, bases, herbicides, and pesticides) will likely be used in typical quantities during site preparation and unit construction. These materials will be properly stored during on-site use and according to state and federal regulations to prevent accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Builders and contractors are responsible for proper management and disposal of wastes generated during construction, which is typically handled by using construction dumpsters and the appropriate certified landfills. The contractor will minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of hazardous wastes by recycling wastes that can be recycled, and by developing a spill prevention plan for the project. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 28 Use of toxic or hazardous materials, outside of vehicle fuels, standard household cleaners, and lawn care chemicals, is not anticipated within the project area in conjunction with the proposed residential development. 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. Outside of the materials described above, the project is not anticipated to generate or require the storing, handling or disposal of hazardous wastes during or after construction or during operation. Consequently, potential environmental effects from hazardous wastes, and measures to avoid minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling, have not been considered. 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 near the site. Fish and wildlife resources on and near the site are directly related to the composition, quality, size, and connectivity of natural communities including woodlands, wetlands, and grasslands. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. used aerial photography to map the existing cover types and to conduct off-site analysis of habitats (Exhibit 9). Based on this analysis, the site contains five major habitat components: 402.5 acres of cultivated crop, 17.5 acres or development/roads, 13.1 acres of grassland, 15.7 acres of woodland, and 20.6 acres of wetland. These habitats are used by a variety of animals common to the Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion of Minnesota. Wildlife that exist throughout the site likely include those species that have adapted to cropland and fragmented woodland and grassland habitats such as pheasant, meadowlark, field sparrow, eastern cottontail, red fox, skunks, white-tailed deer, and small mammals such as mice and shrews. The open fields and woodland areas provide seasonal food and cover for these species. b) Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-NA) and/or correspondence number (ERDB- 20140333) 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 Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program conducted a database search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) to determine if there are listed plants and animals; native plant communities; wildlife aggregations; geological features; or state rare features that are known to occur within or near the project site. The database search did not identify rare features within the project boundary. However, one state-listed endangered species, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), was recorded approximately one mile north of the proposed project boundary. This documented loggerhead shrike observation is from 2008. The DNR letter also identified Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, as having been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 29 The DNR Natural Heritage Review response letter is provided in Appendix D. In this letter, the DNR identifies the loggerhead shrike as being documented in the vicinity of the project area, and indicated that if the project boundary contains suitable habitat, then it is possible that loggerhead shrikes may breed in the area. The DNR also identified the Blanding’s turtle as having been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project. The DNR has no records of this species from directly within the project site, but indicates that turtles may use the site if it contains suitable habitat. According to the Natural Communities and Rare Species of Dakota County Map (Minnesota County Biological Survey, 1997), the project site does not contain rare plant or animal species or other significant or otherwise designated natural features or habitat areas. 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. Project development is expected to convert approximately 298 acres of cultivated crop fields, grassland, woodland, and wetland area to single-family homes and roads. Conversion of agricultural fields, woodlands, wetlands, and grasslands to residential development may result in some local decline in wildlife abundance. Populations of species that depend primarily upon cropland and woodland remnants, such as ring-necked pheasants, wild turkey, and meadowlarks, will likely be displaced. Migratory birds are expected to respond to the development by looking for alternative nesting sites upon their return from wintering habitats. However, given the significant acreage of stormwater basins, wetlands and wetland buffers, and greenway corridors planned for the project, migratory birds tolerant of urban areas, like Canadian geese and mallards, will likely continue to utilize the area. Some songbirds that readily adapt to suburban habitats such as house finches, robins, and eastern bluebirds, may become more numerous. Non-migratory species with small home ranges such as small mammals may experience more adverse effects. These species will compete with other individuals of the same or other species to claim territories in neighboring habitats or succumb to mortality during project construction. However, it is anticipated that some of these non- migratory species will re-introduce into the greenway corridor and open space portions of the project as those become established. Approximately 36 percent of the 469.6-acre project area will be open space (i.e. parkland, greenway corridor, wetland, wetland buffer, stormwater basins, and woodland), which is expected to help mitigate adverse effects on wildlife. While cultivated croplands will be completely converted and removed as an available habitat type, it is anticipated that woodlands, wetlands, and stormwater basin areas will be enhanced and increased from existing conditions. Greenway connections (wooded travel corridors), particularly east to west through the site, will be enhanced and widened, providing cover for wildlife. Consequently, the project is not expected to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity. Measures expected to provide additional habitat for wildlife and help mitigate adverse effects include the preservation of approximately 20 acres of wetland area, the creation of stormwater basins and a 66.5-acre community park, and maintaining connections between existing wetlands and woodlands in the development by retaining and enhancing greenway corridor networks along wetland and wetland buffers. Such efforts will reduce habitat fragmentation and allow for wildlife movement on the property and from adjacent, off-site resource areas. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 30 A review of available loggerhead shrike habitat on-site indicated that there are limited grassy open areas, and no pastures, within the project area that this species prefers. The predominantly cropped nature of the site does not constitute the most suitable and preferred habitat of this species. Consequently, it appears unlikely that the species would utilize the site for breeding. The applicant also reviewed the availability of Blanding’s turtle habitat within the project area. Because of the primarily agriculturally-disturbed nature of the site, and the relative lack of preferred marsh and pond habitats, suitable habitat does not appear to be present on-site for Blanding’s turtle, and therefore the species is not likely to be impacted. Invasive Species The project proposer understands that the introduction and spread of invasive weed species from project construction and operation requires consideration. While there is the opportunity for invasive weed species to be introduced during project construction, it is unlikely that these species would persist in a meaningful way following construction. The Avonlea project will be fully landscaped with turf grass and landscape trees and shrubs per a city-approved landscaping plan. Consequently, large areas of exposed soils where invasive weed species might appear is not anticipated, or expected. If present, large areas of invasive species will be controlled by the applicant in accordance with local and state invasive and noxious weed regulations. d) Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. In their May 29, 2014 letter, the DNR requested that they be contacted if tree or shrub removal would occur during the loggerhead shrike breeding season of April through July. The applicant contacted the DNR in late August 2014 and again in early September with a plan to demolish buildings and remove trees and shrubs, where necessary, to avoid potential conflicts with the spring 2015 breeding season. Consistent with the DNR’s letter and request, trees and shrubs will not be removed by the project between the months of April and July. The project proposer understands that Blanding’s Turtles could potentially occur on the site, and is committed to reducing the potential for impacts by notifying contractors regarding the possibility for the species to occur on-site and moving turtles by hand if they are identified and in imminent danger from construction equipment. 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. A database search request was made to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) who conducted a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structure Inventory for the project area (Appendix E). Based on their review, no previously recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or traditional cultural properties were identified in the database for the project area. One inventoried structure (the Donnelly Farmstead) was identified ¾ mile east of the project area, but will not be impacted by the proposed project. Additionally, background research was conducted at the MN SHPO and the MN Office of the State Archaeologist. No other previously recorded archaeological sites Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 31 or historic properties were identified at or immediately adjacent to the project area. Effects to historic properties during project construction and operation are not anticipated. 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. There are no scenic views or vistas located on or near the property, and no non-routine impacts or visual nuisances are anticipated. The proposed residential land use is consistent with other established uses in the area, and therefore will not create a significant change in visual aesthetics. Measures to soften visual transitions include providing buffers between existing and proposed homes, preservation of tree and wetland cover where possible, developing a community park, and providing berms and landscaping adjacent to proposed collector and arterial streets and adjacent higher intensity land uses. 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. Because development of heavy industrial facilities is not proposed, no stationary source air emissions are anticipated as a result of this project. b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Increased traffic will generate a relatively small corresponding increase in carbon monoxide levels and other vehicle-related air emissions. The project is expected to have a negligible impact on air quality. Consequently, baseline air quality monitoring, or predictive air quality modeling, has not been scheduled at this time, and no measures to mitigate air quality impacts have been 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. Project development will not generate odors, noise or dust in excess of levels emitted during typical construction practices of suburban developments. Odors, noise, or dust produced during construction will meet the requirements of the MPCA and applicable local regulations. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 32 The project will not generate significant odors during construction or operation. Minor odors generated during construction will be typical of those associated with residential development processes, such as exhaust from diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment. The construction process is expected to generate some dust, but it is not anticipated that fugitive dust will be generated in objectionable quantities. The nearest receptors to the proposed project are several farmsteads located south of the project boundary along 190th Street, a farmstead east of Cedar Avenue, and a couple more farmsteads located along Highview Avenue. The City of Lakeville Public Works building is located to the north of the project boundary along Cedar Avenue, the Apple Valley/Lakeville Cedar Avenue Park & Ride is located to the northeast, and King Park ball diamonds are located approximately ¼-mile to the west. Consideration will be given to suppression of airborne dust by application of water if significant fugitive dust generation occurs during site grading and equipment operation that is greater than routinely expected during normal construction practices. 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. The project will be constructed in accordance with the city’s established noise ordinance as outlined in City Code Sections 4-1-4-2. It is anticipated that noise levels will temporarily increase locally during project construction, but are expected to return to intensities consistent with existing levels and sources following project completion. Noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably during construction depending on the pieces of construction equipment being operated simultaneously, the percent of time in operation, and the distance from the equipment to the receptors. The nearest receptors to the proposed project are several farmsteads located south of the project boundary along 190th Street, a farmstead east of Cedar Avenue, and a couple more farmsteads located along Highview Avenue. The City of Lakeville Public Works building is located to the north of the project boundary along Cedar Avenue, the Apple Valley/Lakeville Cedar Avenue Park & Ride is located to the northeast, and King Park ball diamonds are located approximately ¼-mile to the west. In accordance with Section 4-1-4-2 of the City Code, construction equipment will not be operated between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Planned landscaping within and adjacent to project boundaries will help to minimize and mitigate the effects of the anticipated negligible noise generated from the project following construction. 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. 1. Existing and Proposed Additional Parking Spaces – The existing land use is agricultural with two farmhouses on the parcel. Each farmhouse has parking for 5-10 personal and farm implement vehicles. Therefore the existing parking supply is 10-20 parking spaces. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 33 The proposed land uses and corresponding parking supply proposed for this site include: a. 832 single family residential units – 1,664 parking spaces; b. 93 townhomes – 158 parking spaces; c. 156 high density residential units – 218 parking spaces d. 66.5 acre regional city park – approx. 173 parking spaces Therefore the proposed additional parking spaces would be approximately 2,200 parking spaces, comprised mostly of garages attached to single family dwelling units. 2. Estimated Total Average Daily Traffic Generated – The table below shows the total average trip generation for the site as being approximately 9,600 trips per day. Please note that while the development site shows a 66.5-acre “regional city park”, its size and traffic generating potential is more akin to a county park, and has thus been identified as such for trip generation purposes. 3. Estimated Maximum Peak Hour Traffic Generated and Time of Occurrence – The table above shows the trip generation for AM and PM Peak Hours. The estimated maximum peak hour traffic will be generated in the PM Peak Hour (977 trips/hour). 4. Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates – Source: Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2012. 5. Availability of Transit and/or Other Alternative Transportation Modes – Currently, the only available transit at or adjacent to this site is Minneapolis Express Route 477 of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA). This route provides transit service at the Lakeville Cedar Park & Ride Lot at 181st Street and Cedar Avenue (just to the east of the project site). Buses run northbound from the Park & Ride between 5:51 AM and 7:31 AM during the morning commute, and run southbound to the Park & Ride between 4:35PM and 6:04PM during the evening commute. The MVTA has plans to extend the RED Line Bus Rapid Transit system southward along Cedar Avenue beyond 185th Street. This extension of the BRT will one day bring additional transit opportunities to the commuters in the area. Net New Trips ITE Type Land Use Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Residential Single Family Housing 210 832 units 3,960 3,960 156 468 524 308 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 93 units 270 270 7 34 32 16 Residential Low-Rise Apartment 221 156 units 514 514 15 57 59 32 Recreational County Park 412 66 acres 75 75 1 1 4 2 4,819 4,819 179 560 619 358 9,638 739 977 AM peak PM PeakWeekday Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 34 Regarding alternate modes of transportation, the City of Lakeville has constructed a multi- purpose trail on the west side of Cedar Avenue along the entire frontage of the Avonlea development parcel. This 10-foot wide paved trail serves pedestrians and bicyclists. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance, The table shown in the response to Question 18.a.2 indicates that the peak hour traffic generated by the site does exceed 250 vehicles, and that the total daily trips generated does exceed 2,500 vehicles per day. Therefore a traffic impact study is required, and has been conducted, for the site. Appendix F comprises the Traffic Impact Study for the Avonlea development. Analysis was conducted for the following scenarios: • Existing Condition • 2025 No-Build Condition • 2025 Build Condition • 2025 Build Condition with the 185th Street Connection between Dodd Blvd. & Highview Avenue • 2025 Build Condition with the 185th Street Connection (as listed above) and the reroute of CSAH 9 to Cedar Avenue at 179th Street. Assumptions were made regarding access control at intersections for each scenario in the project study area: Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 35 To assess traffic operations, the software packages Synchro and SimTraffic, Version 9.0 were used in this analysis. Synchro is used to model the traffic operation using the concepts adopted in 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. SimTraffic provides a simulation of traffic patterns to and through intersections and along routes in a study area and then determines performance based on runs of that simulation. Levels of service, control delays and queuing lengths have been determined for each intersection in the scenarios listed above. Full results of the operational analysis for each scenario appear in Appendix F -- Traffic Impact Study for the Avonlea development. The principal findings included: • All intersections operate at overall Levels of Service D (LOS-D) or better in every scenario. • One development intersection operates at an unacceptable level of service. o The southbound through movement on Highview Avenue at Proposed 185th Street was at LOS-E in the 2025 Build Condition with 185th Street Extension and CSAH 9 reroute in place. (NOTE: this is only in the unsignalized, side-street stop condition. The intersection improves to acceptable levels of service when the intersection is signalized.) • The Cedar Avenue intersections at Dodd Boulevard and at 179th Street o The northbound left turn movement on Cedar Avenue at Dodd Boulevard in every scenario – LOS-E to -F o The westbound left turn movement on Dodd Boulevard at Cedar Avenue in every scenario – LOS-E Intersection Existing 2025 No-Build 2025 Build 2025 Build w/185th Connection 2025 Build w/185th Connection & CSAH 9 Reroute Cedar Avenue - at Dodd Blvd Full Full Full Full Full - at 179th Street Full Full Full Full Full - at 181st Street Full Full Full Full Three-Quarter - at 183rd Street (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at 185th Street N/A N/A T-Intersection T-Intersection T-Intersection Highview Avenue - at Dodd Blvd Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout - at 181st Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 182nd Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 185th Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full Hamburg Ave (proposed) - at 179th Street (proposed)N/A N/A N/A N/A Full - at 185th Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full 185th Street (proposed) - at Dodd Blvd T-Intersection T-Intersection T-Intersection Full Full - at Highview Ave (proposed)N/A N/A T-Intersection Full Full - at 1/4 -mile (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at Hamburg (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 3/4 mile (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at Cedar Ave N/A N/A T-Intersection T-Intersection T-Intersection Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 36 o The certain left turn movements on Cedar Avenue at 179th Street exhibit LOS-E conditions during various scenarios. Regarding the project’s impacts on the regional transportation system, the planned development and its roadway system will for the most part fit within the access management guidelines established by the City of Lakeville and by Dakota County. While being designed with cul-de- sacs and curvilinear alignments within its internal street system, the Avonlea development has been proposed with full or partial access at quarter-mile or half-mile intervals along the existing and proposed arterial roadway system. The Avonlea street system will add an important link in the County and regional roadway network. The construction of 185th Street as an arterial between Highview Avenue and Cedar Avenue will provide one more step in the extension of CSAH 60 between I-35 and Cedar Avenue. Once the connection between Dodd Boulevard and Highview is completed by others, 185th Street will become an important connection between minor and principal arterial networks in the southern metro area. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. There are several ways the Avonlea development will minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects: • Consolidating street access to quarter-mile and half-mile intervals will preserve mobility on the mainline system while consolidating accessibility into and out of the development at collector or minor collector roadways. • The preservation of a quasi-grid system in the development will result in fewer long, circuitous cul-de-sacs, thus improving internal local street mobility. • The MTVA Red Line along Cedar Avenue and the existing Park & Ride at 181st Street and Cedar Avenue will provide inviting transit options for Avonlea commuters. • The installation and/or retiming of signals, as well as the utilization of other traffic control devices (including roundabouts), when warranted, will improve the mobility and operation of intersections and arterials throughout the study area. Full recommendations and conclusions can be found in Appendix F – Traffic Impact Study. 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW 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. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in five phases, with the first phase expected to begin in spring 2015. Full build-out is anticipated by 2025; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. The changes in regional land use in the Lakeville area from open space, rural and agricultural land uses to more urbanized uses is expected to have a cumulative impact on the area. Cumulative effects Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 37 of this and future projects on natural resources and infrastructure are expected to be roughly proportional to the impacts discussed in this EAW, or somewhat greater if future projects are developed at a higher density. The City of Lakeville has planned for future growth and development in this particular area as part of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2008), Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan, and Water Supply Plan. These efforts will ensure that the cumulative impacts of future growth and development to the environment, and to the City’s service capacity, are anticipated and mitigated. 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. The project proposer does not currently own or have options on adjacent lands, although Mattamy has reviewed parcels south of this project area for potential development opportunities. The parcels include one 60-acre parcel west of Cedar Avenue, and a 160-acre parcel east of Cedar. The properties are approximately 4,000 and 2,000 feet south and southeast of the current project area being evaluated. The City of Lakeville keeps a running list of residential development projects current as of April 1, 2014. According to this list, there are 1,114 single-family lots final platted in current active developments, 614 building permits issued in current active developments, 500 vacant single-family platted lots, and 359 single family lots preliminarily platted pending final plat. In addition, there are 459 Townhome/Condo/Apartment (TCAs) units that have been final plat approved, 274 building permits issued for TCAs, 185 vacant TCA platted lots, and 62 TCA lots preliminarily platted and pending final plat. Because many of the above projects and available lots develop based on market drivers and conditions, the timing of future development can, and likely will, fluctuate. However, land adjacent to the project site is eventually expected to develop, per the City of Lakeville Land Use Plan, thereby converting existing open space and agricultural lands to residential and commercial uses. The City of Lakeville’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2008) anticipates and guides the intensity of development within the city and directs necessary infrastructure improvements to support the planned development. Parcels to the north, west, and northeast of the proposed project area are currently undeveloped and guided for Low/Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. In keeping with the city’s comprehensive plan, these parcels are expected to develop in the future to similar uses. Undeveloped parcels immediately surrounding the proposed development site contain similar land uses and land features as the project site. Existing land cover on these properties is primarily agricultural, with wooded tree lines, drainages, and wetlands interspersed. A large portion of the city southeast of the project area is designated as a Special Plan Area and is in Urban Reserve. As indicated by the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Reserve is not designated for MUSA expansion before 2020 to “ensure the planning effort by Dakota County for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Cedar Avenue is completed along with identification of funding sources for implementation before Lakeville commits to specific transit oriented development types and densities within the corridor.” The city will consider the timing and staging of specific development within the Urban Reserve when the Comprehensive Plan is updated in 2018. Consequently, it is uncertain at this time exactly what specific land use designations will be in this area of the city. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 38 However, the area will likely be developed into a combination of residential, commercial retail, office, service, and public uses. Areas within one-quarter mile will likely be considered for higher density residential uses, with areas outside of the one-quarter mile distance being guided for low density residential uses. The goal for this Special Plan Area will be to integrate residential, retail, service, office and public uses in coordination and support of planned transit facilities (Comprehensive Plan 2008). c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. The proposed project will result in minor conversion of jurisdictional wetland to upland, tree removal and conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Consequently, cumulative impacts to natural resources are anticipated to be minimal, and have been purposefully concentrated in this portion of the city in order to set aside other areas as permanent rural and parkland. Development of surrounding parcels will also result in cumulative impacts to city infrastructure such as roads, sewer, and water. These cumulative impacts have been thoughtfully contemplated and addressed in the city’s Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan, and Water Supply Plan. Impacts from development of the Special Plan Area will be evaluated during the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition, as surrounding properties develop, they will be evaluated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) rules, and will need to adhere to guidelines presented in the city’s approved zoning and comprehensive plans. Mitigation for anticipated minor cumulative impacts in the area will include providing approximately 171 acres of open space (36 percent of the site), providing buffers from surrounding developments, greenway corridors, a 66.5-acre Regional Park, protecting woodlands and wetlands to the extent practicable, pretreating stormwater and controlling stormwater rates, and providing adequate municipal facilities such as potable water and wastewater treatment. These provisions will help minimize potential cumulative effects of past developments and future developments within the region. Given the nature of cumulative potential effects, the evaluation of available and relevant information, and mitigation efforts proposed, the potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects appears minor. 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No other additional environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Potential environmental effects have been addressed in Items 1 through 19. Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville September 19, 2014 39 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 ________________________________ Date _______________________________ Title: Daryl Morey, Planning Director, City of Lakeville Exhibits 1 - 9 Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank EXHIBIT 1 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ S i t e L o c at i o n _ 1 4 0 4 1 5 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 9 : 3 0 : 1 4 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Site Location Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , ES R I U S G S D R G a n d N a t i o n a l G e o g r a p h i c ( E S R I B a s e m a p s, A c c e s s e d 2 0 1 4 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 5 , 0 0 0 Fe e t Dakota Scott Hennepin Site Location Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Site Location I p a v a A v e D o d d B l v d 1 9 0 t h S t W Flagstaff Ave 1 7 5 t h S t W H i g h v i e w A v e H o l y o k e A v e 1 8 5 t h S t W 1 7 9 t h S t C e d a r A v e EXHIBIT 2 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ U S G S T o p og r a p h y _ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 9 : 3 8 : 0 4 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . USGS Topography Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , U S G S T o p o g r a p h y ( 2 0 0 9) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 2 , 0 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Ro a d s C e d a r A v e H i g h v i e w A v e EXHIBIT 3 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ P o s t C o n s tr u c t i o n S i t e P l a n _ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 9 : 4 7 : 1 7 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Po s t - C o n s t r u c t i o n S i t e P l a n Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y a n d P l a n n i n g D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , U. S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y a n d M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l ( 1 9 99 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , N A I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 8 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y 10 f t C o n t o u r s Si n g l e - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Si n g l e - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Si n g l e - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Si n g l e - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Mu l t i - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Agricultural Field Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Pa r k Pa r k Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Mu l t i - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Co m m e r c i a l Co m m e r c i a l Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Sc h o o l Si n g l e - F a m i l y Re s i d e n t i a l Agricultural Field Single-Family Residential Sc h o o l Co m m e r c i a l Sc h o o l Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d Pa r k Pa r k Park Pa r k Ag r i c u l t u r a l Fi e l d I p a v a A v e D o d d B l v d 1 9 0 t h S t W Flagstaff Ave H i g h v i e w A v e H o l y o k e A v e 1 8 5 t h S t W 1 7 9 t h S t 1 8 3 r d S t C e d a r A v e 1 9 0 t h S t W EXHIBIT 4 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ A d j a c e n t La n d U s e _ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 9 : 5 3 : 3 0 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Adjacent Land Use Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , N A I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 1 , 8 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Ro a d s C e d a r A v e H i g h v i e w A v e D o d d B l v d EXHIBIT 5 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ Z o n i n g _ 1 40 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 0 6 : 0 2 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Zoning Map Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y ( 2 0 1 4 ) , Mn D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , C i t y o f L a k e v i l l e Z o n i n g M a p ( A c c e s s e d 2 0 1 4 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 8 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y 1 9 0 t h S t W D o d d B l v d Flagstaff Ave H i g h v i e w A v e 1 7 9 t h S t C e d a r A v e PE M 1 A d PE M 1 A PUBGx PF O 1 / E M 1 A d PEM1A PUBGx PU B G x PEM1Ad PF O 1 / E M 1 A PE M 1 C d PUBGx PU B G x PE M 1 A d PF O 1 / E M 1 A d PEM1Ad PU B G x PE M 1 A PEM1Ad PU B G x PE M 1 A PF O 1 / E M 1 C d PU B G x PF O 1 A PF O 1 / E M 1 A d PF O 1 / E M 1 A d PEM1Ad PEM1C PE M 1 A d PE M 1 A f PF O 1 / E M 1 A d PS S 1 C PE M 1 A PEM1Ad PEM1Ad PE M 1 A f PE M 1 A f PE M 1 A f PEM1Ax PU B G x PU B G x PU B G x PUBGx PS S 1 / E M 1 A PU B G x PU B G x PU B G x PE M 1 C PE M 1 A f PEM1Ad PE M 1 C PE M 1 C PF O 1 / E M 1 A PS S 1 C PU B G x PE M 1 A f PU B G x PU B G x PF O 1 A PU B G x PE M 1 A f PE M 1 A PU B G x PUBGx PFO1/EM1Cd PF O 1 / S S 1 A PU B G x PU B G x PU B G x PE M 1 C EXHIBIT 6 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ W a t e r R e s ou r c e s _ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 3 1 : 5 5 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Water Resources Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y a n d P l a n n i n g D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , U S G S N a ti o n a l W e t l a n d I n v e n t o r y ( 2 0 1 4 ) , US G S N a t i o n a l H y d r o g r a p h y D a t a s e t ( v a r i o u s d a t e s ) , MN D N R D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r ( 2 0 0 8 ) , U . S . D . A . N a t i o n a l Ag r i c u l t u r a l I n v e n t r o y P r o j e c t ( v a r i o u s d a t e s ) , NA I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) , F E M A F l o o d p l a i n D a t a ( 2 0 0 3 ) , M N D N R M i n o r W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r i e s ( 2 0 0 9 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 1 , 5 0 0 Fe e t Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Ma p p e d F E M A Fl o o d p l a i n 10 0 - Y e a r 50 0 - Y e a r MN D N R M i n o r Wa t e r s h e d Bo u n d a r y MN D N R P u b l i c Wa t e r C o u r s e NH D W a t e r C o u r s e MN D N R P u b l i c Wa t e r b o d y NH D W a t e r b o d y NW I W e t l a n d s C e d a r A v e H i g h v i e w A v e 2B 17 6 17 6 20 8 39B 2B 98 28 5 B 37 8 2B 32 0 B 21 3 B 176 20 3 B 2B 2B 32 0 B 213B 28 5 B 21 3 B 28 5 B 37 8 98 32 0 B 320B 98 213B 2B 285A 61 1 C 2B 41 B 41 1 B 2B 20 3 B 2B 301B 32 0 C 2 176 32 0 B 2C 37 8 213B 176 20 3 B 285B 2B 20 3 B 39 B 20 3 B 17 6 32 0 C 2 21 3 B 2B 21 3 B 20 3 B 34 2 B 17 6 37 8 20 3 B 21 3 B 213B 2B 41 B 2B 2C 32 0 B 2B 20 3 B 2C 20 3 B 2C 32 0 B 2C 176 21 3 B 30 1 B 21 3 B 320B 2C 40 9 B 37 8 20 3 B 27 B 21 3 B 96 3 C 2 2B 32 0 C 2 2B 2B 28 5 B 96 3 C 2 EXHIBIT 7 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ S o i l s _ 1 4 09 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 2 4 : 1 3 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . NRCS Soils Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y ( 2 0 1 4 ) , U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e ( 2 0 1 2 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , N A I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 8 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y NR C S S o i l s 2B O s t r a n d e r L o a m , 1 - 6 % s l o p e s 2C O s t r a n d e r L o a m , 6 - 1 2 % s l o p e s 39 B W a d e n a L o a m , 2 - 6 % s l o p e s 41 B E s t h e r v i l l e S a n d y L o a m , 6 - 1 2 % s l o p e s 98 C o l o S I l t L o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d * 17 6 G a r w i n S i l t y C l a y L o a m * 20 3 B J o y S i l t L o a m , 1 - 5 % s l o p e s 20 8 K a t o S i l t y C l a y L o a m * 21 3 B K l i n g e r S i l t L o a m , 1 - 5 % s l o p e s 28 5 A P o r t B y r o n S i l t L o a m , 0 - 2 % s l o p e s 28 5 B P o r t B y r o n S i l t L o a m , 2 - 6 % s l o p e s 30 1 B L i n d s t r o m S i l t L o a m , 2 - 6 % s l o p e s 32 0 B T a l l u l a S i l t L o a m , 2 - 6 % s l o p e s 32 0 C 2 T a l l u l a S i l t L o a m , 6 - 1 2 % s l o p e s 37 8 M a x f i e l d S i l t y C l a y L o a m * 40 9 B E t t e r F i n e S a n d y L o a m , 2 - 6 % s l o p e s 41 1 B W a u k e g a n S i l t L o a m , 1 - 6 % s l o p e s 61 1 C H a w i c k C o a r s e S a n d y L o a m , 6 - 1 2 % s l o p e s * P r e d o m i n a n t l y H y d r i c 1 7 9 t h S t WL A WL C WL B WL D WL C WL C EXHIBIT 8 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ a p p r o v e d _w t l d _ b o u n d a r i e s _ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 1 8 : 1 4 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Approved Delineated Wetland Boundaries Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y a n d P l a n n i n g D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , N A I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) . ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 1 , 0 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Ap p r o v e d W e t l a n d B o u n d a r i e s Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y C e d a r A v e H i g h v i e w A v e EXHIBIT 9 Ma p D o c u m e n t : P : \ 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 . 0 0 \ G I S \ A v o n l e a E A W _ C o v e r T y p e_ 1 4 0 9 0 8 . m x d 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 1 4 : 4 3 A M © 2 0 1 4 W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Cover Types Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : W e s t w o o d P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u r ve y D a t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) , M n D O T ( 2 0 1 1 ) , N A I P / M i n n e s o t a ( 2 0 1 3 ) ± Av o n l e a R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t E A W Lakeville, Minnesota 0 8 0 0 Fe e t Le g e n d Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Co v e r T y p e De v e l o p e d / R o a d ( 1 7 . 5 a c r e s ) Cu l t i v a t e d C r o p ( 4 0 2 . 5 a c r e s ) Gr a s s l a n d ( 1 3 . 1 a c r e s ) Wo o d l a n d ( 1 5 . 7 a c r e s ) We t l a n d ( 2 0 . 6 a c r e s ) St o r m W a t e r P o n d ( 0 . 2 a c r e s ) Appendix A Braun Phase I & II Maps Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank H i g h v i e w A v e GH9 GH9 GH64 GH23 11001 Hampshire Avenue So.Minneapolis, MN 55438PH. (952) 995-2000FAX (952) 995-2020 Scale:Drawn By :Date Dr awn:Chec ked By: F i g . Project No: Las t Modified: Drawing No. S h e e t : 1 o f 1 W:\DRAFTS\B L\2013\03362A\Site 1 - Parc els 3-8\GIS\BL1303362A _SiteLoc.mxd APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY DATA SOURCE: USGS QUADRAN GL E,FARMINGTON, MNPUBLISHED IN 197 4, REVISED IN 199 3 0 2,0 001,0 00 Feet 1 KJH 1 in = 2,000 ftFER6/7/13 6/10/13 BL1303362A _SiteLoc BL1303362A SITE LOCATION MAPAGRICULTURAL PARCELSCEDAR AVE NUE BET WEE N 17 9TH STREET WEST AND 19 0TH STREET WES TLAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA Approxim ate Site Location TOWNSHIP: 114 NRANGE: 20 WSECTION: 15 & 16 Appendix B Wetland Decision Notices Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Appendix C County Well Index Well Log Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Appendix D DNR Natural Heritage Database Search Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER May 29, 2014 Correspondence # ERDB 20140333 Ms. Kristine Maurer Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Cedar Avenue Development, T114N R20W Section 16 & 15; Dakota County Dear Ms. Maurer, As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search area (for details, see the enclosed database reports; please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: • The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state-listed endangered bird, has been documented in the vicinity of the project site. Loggerhead shrikes use grasslands that contain short grass and scattered perching sites such as hedgerows, shrubs, or small trees. They can be found in native prairie, pastures, shelterbelts, old fields or orchards, cemeteries, grassy roadsides, and farmyards. If the project boundary contains suitable habitat, then it is possible that loggerhead shrikes may breed in the area. Please contact me if tree or shrub removal will occur during the breeding season, April through July, as the DNR may request that a survey for active nests be conducted prior to construction. Please refer to the DNR Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of this rare species. • Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project. Although we have no records from directly within the project site, turtles may use the site if it contains suitable habitat. Blanding’s turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands, as well as wetlands. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Because of the tendency to travel long distances over land, Blanding’s turtles regularly travel across roads and are therefore susceptible to collisions with vehicles. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels. Other factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland habitat. For your information, I have attached a Blanding’s turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to the first list of recommendations for your project. In addition, if erosion control mesh will be used, the DNR recommends that the mesh be limited to wildlife-friendly materials (see enclosed fact sheet). If greater protection for turtles is desired, the second list of additional recommendations can also be implemented. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: lisa.joyal@state.mn.us The attached flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. If Blanding’s turtles are encountered on site, please remember that state law and rules prohibit the destruction of threatened or endangered species, except under certain prescribed conditions. If turtles are in imminent danger they should be moved by hand out of harm’s way, otherwise they should be left undisturbed. • 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 avoidance or mitigation measures that will be implemented. • Please include a copy of this letter in any DNR license or permit application. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. The enclosed results include an Index Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location data, the report is copyrighted and only provides rare features locations to the nearest section. The Index Report may be reprinted, unaltered, in any environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the Index Report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. For environmental review purposes, the Natural Heritage letter and database reports are valid for one year; they are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Review Coordinator enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report Blanding’s Turtle Flyer and Fact Sheet Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control cc: Brooke Haworth Erica Hoaglund Page 1 of 2 Mi n n e s o t a N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e I n f o r m a t i o n S y st e m In d e x R e p o r t o f r e c o r d s w i t h i n 1 m i l e r a d i u s o f : ER D B # 2 0 1 4 0 3 3 3 - C e d a r A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t T1 1 4 N R 2 0 W S e c t i o n s 1 5 & 1 6 Da k o t a C o u n t y Pr i n t e d M a y 2 0 1 4 Da t a v a l i d f o r o n e y e a r Ra r e F e a t u r e s D a t a b a s e : EO ID #Last Obs DateGlobal Rank St a t e Ra n k MN St a t u s Fe d e r a l St a t u s El e m e n t N a m e a n d O c c u r r e n c e N u m b e r SG C N St a t u s Dr a f t St a t u s Ve r t e b r a t e A n i m a l S1 B G 4 2 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 0 9 No S t a t u s La n i u s l u d o v i c i a n u s ( L o g g e r h e a d S h r i k e ) # 2 1 9 E N D Ju s t o u t s i d e M i n n e s o t a i n a d j a c e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n ( s ) . ; D a k o t a C o u n t y 34499 SG C N Na t i v e P l a n t C o m m u n i t y ( T h i s m a y n o t r e p r e s e n t a c o m p l e t e l i s t . A l s o s e e M C B S N a t i v e P l a n t C o m m u n i t i e s a t h t t p : / / d e l i . d n r . s ta t e . m n . u s . ) S2 G N R 1 9 9 3 - 0 9 - 0 1 Dr y H i l l P r a i r i e ( S o u t h e r n ) T y p e # 1 1 N/ A T1 1 4 N R 2 0 W S 1 1 ; D a k o t a C o u n t y 1310 (N P C C o d e : U P s 1 3 d ) Re c o r d s P r i n t e d = 2 M i n n e s o t a ' s e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s l a w ( Mi n n e s o t a S t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n 8 4 . 0 8 9 5 ) a n d a s s o c i a t e d r u l e s ( Minnesota Rules , part 62 1 2 . 1 8 0 0 t o 6 2 1 2 . 2 3 0 0 a n d 6 1 3 4 ) p r o h i b i t t h e t a k i n g o f t h r e a t e n e d o r e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s w i t h o u t a p e r m i t . F o r p l a n t s , ta k i n g i n c l u d e s d i g g i n g o r d e s t r o y i n g . F o r a n i m a l s , t a k i n g i n c l u d e s p u r s u i n g , c a p t u r i n g , o r k i l l i n g . An E x p l a n a t i o n o f F i e l d s : El e m e n t N a m e a n d O c c u r r e n c e N u m b e r : Th e E l e m e n t i s t h e n a m e o f t h e r a r e f e a t u r e . F o r p l a n t a n d a n i m a l s p e c i e s r e c o r d s , t h i s f i e l d h o l d s t h e s c i e n t i f i c n a m e f o l l o w ed by the common name in pa r e n t h e s e s ; f o r a l l o t h e r e l e m e n t s i t i s s o l e l y t h e e l e m e n t n a m e . N a t i v e p l a n t c o m m u n i t y n a m e s c o r r e s p o n d t o M i n n e s o t a ' s N a t i ve P l a n t C o m m u n i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( V e r s i o n 2 . 0 ) . T h e O c c u r r e n c e N um b e r , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e E l e m e n t N a m e , u n i q u e l y i d e n t i f i e s e a c h r e c o r d . Fe d e r a l S t a t u s : T h e s t a t u s o f t h e s p e c i e s u n d e r t h e U . S . E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s A c t : L E = e n d a n g e r e d ; L T = t h r e a t e n e d ; L E , L T = l i s t e d e n d a n g e r e d i n p a r t o f i t s r a n g e , l i s t e d t h r e a t e n e d i n a n o t h e r p a r t of i t s r a n g e ; L T , P D L = l i s t e d t h r e a t e n e d , p r o p o s e d f o r d e l i s t i n g ; C = c a n d i d a t e f o r l i s t i n g . I f n u l l o r ' N o S t a t u s , ' t h e s p e c i e s h a s n o f e d e r a l s t a t u s . MN S t a t u s : T h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e p l a n t o r a n i m a l s p e c i e s u n d e r t h e M i n n e s o t a E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s L a w : E N D = e n d a n g e r e d ; T H R = t h r e a t e n e d ; S P C = s p e c i a l c o n c e r n ; N O N = t r a c k e d , b u t n o le g a l s t a t u s . N a t i v e p l a n t c o m m u n i t i e s , g e o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s , a n d c o l o n i a l w a t e r b i r d n e s t i n g s i t e s d o n o t h a v e a n y l e g a l s t a t u s un d e r t h e E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s L a w a n d a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a N / A . Dr a f t S t a t u s : P r o p o s e d c h a n g e t o t h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e p l a n t o r a n i m a l s p e c i e s u n d e r t h e M i n n e s o t a E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s L a w : E N D = e n d a n g e r e d; T H R = t h r e a t e n e d ; S P C = s p e c i a l c o n c e r n ; Wa t c h l i s t = t r a c k e d , b u t n o l e g a l s t a t u s . SG C N S t a t u s : S G C N = T h e s p e c i e s i s a S p e c i e s i n G r e a t e s t C o n s e r v a t i o n N e e d a s i d e n t i f i e d i n M i n n e s o t a ' s S t a t e W i l d l i f e A c t i o n P l a n ( h t t p : / / ww w . d n r . s t a t e . m n . u s / c w c s / i n d e x . h t m l ) . T h i s de s i g n a t i o n a p p l i e s t o a n i m a l s o n l y . St a t e R a n k : R a n k t h a t b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e r e l a t i v e r a r i t y o r e n d a n g e r m e n t o f t h e t a x o n o r p l a n t c o m m u n i t y i n M i n n e s o t a . T h e r a n k s d o n ot r e p r e s e n t a l e g a l s t a t u s . T h e y a r e u s e d b y t h e Mi n n e s o t a D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s t o s e t p r i o r i t i e s f o r r e s e a r c h , i n v e n t o r y a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n p l a n n i n g . T h e s t a t e r a n k s a r e u p d a t e d a s i n v e n t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e . S 1 = Cr i t i c a l l y i m p e r i l e d i n M i n n e s o t a b e c a u s e o f e x t r e m e r a r i t y o r b e c a u s e o f s o m e f a c t o r ( s ) m a k i n g i t e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e t o e x t ir p a t i o n f r o m t h e s t a t e . S 2 = I m p e r i l e d i n M i n n e s o t a b e c a u s e o f r a r i t y o r be c a u s e o f s o m e f a c t o r ( s ) m a k i n g i t v e r y v u l n e r a b l e t o e x t i r p a t i o n f r o m t h e s t a t e . S 3 = V u l n e r a b l e i n M i n n e s o t a e i t h e r b e c a u s e ra r e o r u n c o m m o n , o r f o u n d i n a r e s t r i c t e d r a n g e , o r b e c a u s e o f o t h e r fa c t o r s m a k i n g i t v u l n e r a b l e t o e x t i r p a t i o n . S 4 = A p p a r e n t l y s e c u r e i n M i n n e s o t a , u s u a l l y w i d e s p r e a d . S 5 = D e m o n s t r a b l y s e c u r e in M i n n e s o t a , e s s e n t i a l l y i n e r a d i c a b l e u n d e r p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s . S H = Of h i s t o r i c a l o c c u r r e n c e i n t h e s t a t e , p e r h a p s h a v i n g n o t b e e n v e r i f i e d i n t h e p a s t 2 0 y e a r s , b u t s u s p e c t e d t o b e s t i l l e x t a n t . A n e l e m e n t w o u l d b e c o m e S H w i t h o u t t h e 2 0 - y e a r d e l a y i f t h e o n l y k n o w n oc c u r r e n c e s i n t h e s t a t e w e r e d e s t r o y e d o r i f i t h a d b e e n e x t e n s i v e l y a n d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y l o o k e d f o r . S N R = R a n k n o t y e t a s s e s s e d. S U = U n a b l e t o r a n k . S X = P r e s u m e d e x t i n c t i n M i n n e s o t a . S N A = Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 4 , D i v i s i o n o f E c o l o g i c a l a n d W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a D N R Page 2 of 2 Mi n n e s o t a N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e I n f o r m a t i o n S y st e m In d e x R e p o r t o f r e c o r d s w i t h i n 1 m i l e r a d i u s o f : ER D B # 2 0 1 4 0 3 3 3 - C e d a r A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t T1 1 4 N R 2 0 W S e c t i o n s 1 5 & 1 6 Da k o t a C o u n t y Pr i n t e d M a y 2 0 1 4 Da t a v a l i d f o r o n e y e a r Ra n k n o t a p p l i c a b l e . S # S # = R a n g e R a n k : a n u m e r i c r a n g e r a n k ( e . g . , S 2 S 3 ) i s u s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e r a n g e o f u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t t he e x a c t s t a t u s o f t h e e l e m e n t . S # B , S # N = U s e d o n l y f o r m i g r a t o r y an i m a l s , w h e r e b y B r e f e r s t o t h e b r e e d i n g p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e e l e m e n t i n M i n n e s o t a a n d N r e f e r s t o t h e n o n - b r e e d i n g p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e e l e m e n t i n M i n n e s o t a . Gl o b a l R a n k : T h e g l o b a l ( i . e . , r a n g e - w i d e ) a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e r a r i t y o r i m p e r i l m e n t o f t h e s p e c i e s o r c o m m u n i t y . R a n g e s f r o m G 1 ( c r it i c a l l y i m p e r i l e d d u e t o e x t r e m e r a r i t y o n a w o r l d - w i d e b as i s ) t o G 5 ( d e m o n s t r a b l y s e c u r e , t h o u g h p e r h a p s r a r e i n p a r t s o f i t s r a n g e ) . G l o b a l r a n k s a r e d e t e r m i n e d b y N a t u r e S e r v e , a n i n te r n a t i o n a l n e t w o r k o f n a t u r a l h e r i t a g e p r o g r a m s a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n d a t a ce n t e r s . La s t O b s e r v e d D a t e : D a t e t h a t t h e E l e m e n t O c c u r r e n c e w a s l a s t o b s e r v e d t o b e e x t a n t a t t h e s i t e i n f o r m a t Y Y Y - M M - D D . EO I D # : U n i q u e i d e n t i f i e r f o r e a c h E l e m e n t O c c u r r e n c e r e c o r d . El e m e n t O c c u r r e n c e : A n a r e a o f l a n d a n d / o r w a t e r i n w h i c h a n E l e m e n t ( i . e . , a r a r e s p e c i e s o r c o m m u n i t y ) i s , o r w a s , p r e s e n t , a n d w h i c h h a s p r a c t ic a l c o n s e r v a t i o n v a l u e f o r t h e E l e m e n t a s ev i d e n c e d b y p o t e n t i a l c o n t i n u e d ( o r h i s t o r i c a l ) p r e s e n c e a n d / o r r e g u l a r r e c u r r e n c e a t a g i v e n l o c a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r e a ch s p e c i e s d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r m u l t i p l e o b s e r v a t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d 1 E l e m e n t O c c u r r e n c e o r 2 , b a s e d o n m i n i m u m s e p a r a t i o n d i s t a n c e a n d b a r r i e r s t o m o v e m e n t . Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 4 , D i v i s i o n o f E c o l o g i c a l a n d W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a D N R Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of Minnesota Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank1: S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank1: G4 HABITAT USE Blanding’s turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding’s turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding’s turtles. Also, the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding’s turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding’s turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding’s turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early-October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding’s turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE • loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) • loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture • human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements • increase in predator populations (skunks, raccoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young *It is illegal to possess this threatened species. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding’s Turtle. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding’s turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding’s turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding’s turtles during construction or other work within Blanding’s turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding’s turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles (contact the DNR’s Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding’s turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by Blanding’s turtles. List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding’s turtle should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s turtles in the area. Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road-crossing areas used by Blanding’s turtles to increase public awareness and reduce road kills. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed. Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding’s turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest. If you would like to provide more protection for a Blanding’s turtle nest on your property, see “Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests” on page 3 of this fact sheet. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANDS Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm water retention basins (these wetlands provide important habitat during spring and summer). Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed during prime basking time (mid morning to mid- afternoon in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding’s turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural condition. ROADS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to cross). Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100 meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding’s turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding’s Turtle. 3 ROADS cont. Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, and elliptical or flat-bottomed. Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on roads). Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). This is especially important for roads with more than 2 lanes. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Roads crossing streams should be bridged. UTILITIES Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum (this reduces road-kill potential). Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding’s turtles). Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs (some non-natives form dense patches through which it is difficult for turtles to travel). Open space should include some areas at higher elevations for nesting. These areas should be retained in native vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st ). Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation management is required, it should be done mechanically, as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August 1st so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 1Association for Biodiversity Information. “Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks.” NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). http://www.natureserve.org/ranking.htm (15 April 2001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding’s Turtle. 4 REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding’s turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blanding’s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources, Updated March 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109 CAUTION BLANDING’S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding’s turtle has been found in this area. Blanding’s turtles are state-listed as Threatened and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding’s turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-308-2653); Grand Rapids (218-327-4518); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-206-2820); or St. Paul (651-259-5772). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding’s turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue-gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. BLANDING’S TURTLES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP THIS THREATENED SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO BLANDING’S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet for full recommendations) This flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s turtles in the area. Turtles that are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm’s way. Turtles that are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites. If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest and do not allow pets near the nest. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st). Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Updated August 2012 Endangered Species Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109 Appendix E State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Appendix F Traffic Impact Study Avonlea Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Appendix F – Traffic Impact Study Avonlea Lakeville, Minnesota September, 2014 Prepared For: Prepared By: APPENDIX F – TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY “Avonlea” Lakeville, MN September 22, 2014 Prepared For: Mattamy Homes 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201 Edina, MN 55439 Prepared By: Westwood Project R0000557 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AVONLEA DEVELOPMENT Lakeville, Minnesota STEPHEN J. MANHART PE – 22428 DATE: 09/25/14 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: _______________________________________ Stephen J Manhart, P.E. License No. PE-22428 Date: September 22, 2014 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page i Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1 II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 4 III. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 7 IV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC ........................................................................................... 11 V. TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................... 23 V. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 31 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 – Concept Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 – Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 – Proposed Roadways ................................................................................................12 Figure 5A – Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................13 Figure 5B – Trip Distribution (with 185th Street & CSAH 9 Reroute) ..........................................14 Figure 6A -- Trip Assignment (Current Roadways) ....................................................................16 Figure 6B -- Trip Assignment (with 185th Street) ........................................................................17 Figure 6C -- Trip Assignment (with 185th Street & CSAH 9 Reroute) .........................................18 Figure 7 – 2025 No-Build Condition ..........................................................................................19 Figure 8A – 2025 Build Condition (Current Roadways) .............................................................20 Figure 8B – 2017 Build Condition (with 185th Street) .................................................................21 Figure 8C -- 2017 Build Condition (with 185th Street & CSAH 9 Reroute) ..................................22 Figure 9 – 185th St & Dodd Blvd Mitigation Strategy ..................................................................29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Study Area Crash Results .........................................................................................10 Table 2 – Trip Generation Estimates .........................................................................................11 Table 3 – Intersection Access Assumptions ..............................................................................23 Table 4 – Level of Service vs. Control Delay - Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ........24 Table 5 – Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower ..................................25 Table 6 – 2025 No-Build Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower ........................26 Table 7A – 2025 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower ...........................27 Table 7B – 2025 Build with CSAH 60 connection Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower ........................................................................................................................................27 Table 7C – 2025 Build with CSAH 60 Connection & CSAH 9 Reroute Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower ..............................................................................................28 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________________________ A. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES Westwood Professional Services, Inc., has been contracted by Mattamy Homes to analyze the traffic impacts of their proposed residential development in Lakeville, MN called “Avonlea” located between Cedar Ave (County State Aided Highway 23) and Highview Ave to the east and west, and 181st St and 188th St to the north and south (see Figure 1). This report will review the level of trip generation for the proposed project and determine the traffic impacts on the local study network that the development may cause. The objectives of this study are to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding study area and to identify any mitigation strategies. B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a. Site Location AND Study Area – The project location is the 469.6 acre site between Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) and Highview Ave to the east and west, and 181st St and 188th St to the north and south in Lakeville, MN. The study area includes the following intersections: - Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) - Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & Highview Ave - Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & 185th St W (CSAH 60) - Highview Ave & 190th St W - Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 190th St W - Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 181st St W - Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 179th St W Analysis includes the new intersections: - Highview Ave & Site Accesses (2 – full access) - Proposed 185th St W (CSAH 60) & Highview Ave - Proposed 185th St W (CSAH 60) & Proposed Hamburg Ave - Proposed 185th St W (CSAH 60) & Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) - Proposed 185th St W (CSAH 60) & Site Accesses ( 2- restricted to ¾ access) - Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & Site Accesses (2 – restricted to ¾ access) - Proposed 179th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 2 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 b. Development Description – The parcel is currently zoned as “Single Family Residential District”, “Medium Density Residential District”, “Multiple Family Residential District”, and “Rural/Agriculture District”1 There are 832 Single-family residential units, 93 townhomes, and 156 high density residential units proposed for the site. The south east corner of the site is proposed as a 66.5 acre regional city park. There will also be 67.4 acres of open space throughout the site; this includes wet buffers, road buffers, woods, ponds, greens, etc. c. Principal Findings – The Avonlea development is proposed to be built out by 2025. Westwood looked at projected traffic conditions in the study area without the development (2025 No-Build Condition). Westwood also projected the traffic conditions in the study area after the proposed build-out of the development (2025 Build Condition), as well as looking at two potential CSAH projects in the study area. The principal findings included: Dakota County does not specify a project timeline for the proposed extension of 185th St (CSAH 60) or the reroute of CSAH 9, although these connections will likely be completed by 2025. Most intersections operated at Level of Service A (LOS-A) in the existing conditions. The two signalized intersections (Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd and Cedar Ave and 179th St) operated at LOS’s of C and B in the PM Peak Hour. The intersection of CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) & CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) experiences significant delays in every analysis period. The southbound left turn movement of CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) at 179th St experienced excessive queues during the existing conditions during the PM Peak Hour along with all build conditions. For the 2025 Build Condition with the current roadway configuration the levels of service for the intersections are the same as the 2025 No-Build condition. d. Conclusions/Recommendations – Conclusions and recommendations of the site include: If neither of the proposed CSAH projects occur by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at the same LOS as the 2025 No-Build Condition. All new intersections will operate at LOS-A. For the 2025 Build condition without the CSAH 60 connection, at the intersection of Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & 185th St (CSAH 60) it is recommended to restripe the eastbound left turn movement to accommodate two turn lanes. If only the CSAH 60 (185th St connection) project occurs by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at the same LOS as the 2025 No-Build Condition expect 185th St & Dodd Blvd. All new 1http://ci.lakeville.mn.us/departments/departmentspdf/zoningmap.pdf 2 http://www.metrotransit.org/metro-system Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 intersections will operate at no worse than a LOS-B with the appropriate traffic control devices. If both the CSAH 60 (185th St connection) project and the CSAH 9 reroute occurs by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at similar LOS as the 2025 No-Build Condition. All new intersections will operate at no worse than a LOS-B with the appropriate traffic control devices. Change of traffic control at other existing unsignalized intersections is not required as a result of this development. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ____________________________________________________________________________ A. SITE LOCATION The project location is the 469.6 acre site between Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) and Highview Ave to the east and west, and 181st St and 188th St to the north and south in Lakeville, MN. The site location is shown on Figure 1. B. LAND USE AND INTENSITY The parcel is currently zoned as “Single Family Residential District”, “Medium Density Residential District”, “Multiple Family Residential District”, and “Rural/Agriculture District” There are 832 Single-family residential units, 93 townhomes, and 156 high density residential units proposed for the site. The south east corner of the site is proposed as a 66.5 acre regional city park. There will also be 67.4 acres of open space throughout the site; this includes wet buffers, road buffers, woods, ponds, greens, etc. C. SITE PLAN INCLUDING ACCESS GEOMETRICS Figure 2 shows the proposed site layout for the “Avonlea” development. Access into the proposed development will be provided off of Cedar Ave (CSAH 23), Highview Ave, and the proposed 185th St W. The access at 181st St & Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) will start as a full access during the beginning phases of development and then potentially be converted into a ¾ access after full development of the site and re-route of CSAH 9. Proposed 185th St W and Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) will provide full access through the site. Proposed 185th St W will also be full access at Highview Ave. The two accesses from the proposed development onto Highview Ave will provide full access. On proposed 185th St W there will be three intersections to access the site. The east access will be a ¾ access, the middle access (proposed 185th St & proposed Hamburg Ave) will provide full access, and the west access will also be a ¾ access. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 7 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ III. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ____________________________________________________________________________ A. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The project site is currently undeveloped farmland. The site is generally flat. There are two houses currently on the land. The site also has wetlands that have been accounted for in the site design. a. Roadway Characteristics – Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) is currently a 90- foot wide arterial throughout the study area. It is a 4 lane roadway divided by a raised median with shoulders on both north and south bound directions. The median width narrows at left turn lanes approaching the intersections along the corridor. Similarly, shoulder width narrows at right turn lanes along the corridor. Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) is an arterial roadway with varying widths over the 2 mile corridor that is within the study area. From 185th St W to Hayes Ave there has been a recent expansion from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with a raised median. From Hayes Ave to 175th St W it is still a two lane road with no median. Highview Ave is a 30-foot wide collector roadway. It has two lanes with no medians throughout the study area. 190th St W is a 30-foot wide local road that is paved at the intersections with Highview Ave and Cedar Ave but in between it is unpaved. Figure 3 illustrates existing lane configurations at the study intersections. b. Traffic Control Devices – The following traffic control exists: Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) – signalized Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & Highview Ave – roundabout Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & 185th (CSAH 60) – all-way stop Highview Ave & 190th St W – side street (190th) stop Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 190th St W – side street (190th) stop Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 181st St W – side street (181st) stop Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 179th St W – signalized Prevailing speed limits: Cedar Ave (CSAH 23)– 55 mph (posted) Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9)– 55 mph (posted) Highview Ave – 55 mph (posted) 179th St W – 40 mph (posted) 181st St W – 30 mph (statutory) 185th St W (CSAH 60) – 50 mph (posted) 190th St W – not posted 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 9 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 c. Transit Service – Currently there is the Lakeville Cedar Park & Ride located on the east side of Cedar Ave and 181st St W. It accommodates the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority bus route 477 to and from downtown Minneapolis. There is a plan to extend the METRO Bus Rapid Transit Red Line down Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) to 215th St and make the Lakeville Cedar Park & Ride one of the stops along this extension.2 There is currently no timeline for the completion of the Red Line. The Park & Ride at this time has 191 spaces but can be expanded to 391 spaces in the future.3 d. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities – Sidewalks exist along the following streets: Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) – both sides from Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) to 181st St W and a 10 foot trail exists along the west side only south of 181st St W Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) – north/west side from Hayes Ave to 183rd St W and both sides from 183rd St W to 185th St W Highview Ave – None 190th St W – None B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES a. Daily Traffic Volumes – Annualized average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for the following roadways were found on the MnDOT 2012 Publication Traffic Volumes Metro Street Series Map4: Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) between Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) & 190th St W – 16,200 veh/day Dodd Blvd (CSAH 9) between Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) & 185th St W (CSAH 60) – 12,500 veh/day Highview Ave between Dodd Blv (CSAH 9) & 190th St W – 3,400 veh/day 190th St W between Cedar Ave (CSAH 23) and Highview Ave – 240 veh/day b. AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes – Westwood Professional Services conducted AM and PM peak period turning movement counts at the study intersections in August 2014. Figure 3 shows the peak hour turning movement volumes at each intersection. C. TRAFFIC SAFETY a. Crash Analysis – Crash data was looked at for each of the existing intersections in the study area between the years 2012-2014. There were a total of 18 crashes for the study intersections that involved property damage or injuries, results are shown in Table 1. CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) & Highview Ave had the majority of 2 http://www.metrotransit.org/metro-system 3 http://www.mvta.com/Lakeville3.html 4 2012 Publication Traffic Volumes Metro Street Series Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis Traffic Volume Program, 2011 AADT Product. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 10 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 crashes with 12 during the three year span. Dakota County has recently constructed a roundabout at this intersection to help improve traffic flow and safety.5 Crash data was found using the MnCMAT Program.6 Table 1: Study Area Crash Results 5http://www.lakevillemn.gov/whatsnewpdf/CIPdraft.pdf 6 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping.html Property Damage Injury Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 1 0 Cedar Ave & 179th St 1 2 Cedar Ave & 181st St 0 0 Cedar Ave & 190th St 1 0 Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 12 0 Dodd Blvd & 185th St 1 0 Highview Ave & 190th St 0 0 CrashesIntersection Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ IV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC ____________________________________________________________________________ A. SITE TRAFFIC FORECASTING The project site is currently undeveloped. There is no reduction in existing trip generation to be applied. All site trips will be new. a. Roadway Network – Due to expansion in the area, there are multiple potential roadway projects that could be built by the build out year of 2025. In the study area for the Avonlea Site there are two roadway changes that would affect traffic flow through and around the site. These include the extension of 185th St W from Dodd Blvd to Highview Ave (then continuing through the site to Cedar Ave), as well as re-routing CSAH 9 at Hayes Ave to connect to 179th St W. With this re- route, proposed Hamburg Ave that runs down the center of the site would then connect to the new CSAH 9.7 These potential connections are illustrated in Figure 4. b. Trip Generation – Westwood utilized the rates for Land Use Codes 210, 230, 221, and 412: Single Family Homes, Residential Condominium/Townhouses, Low Rise Apartments, and County Park from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, to estimate the trip generation potential of this development. Table 2 illustrates these potential trips. Note: Trip Generation for “County Park” was assumed to more accurately reflect the trip generation potential of the “Regional City Park” identified in Avonlea Concept Site Plan. Table 2: Trip Generation Estimates1 1 Per the data and methodologies in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by ITE. c. Trip Distribution – It is projected the development trips will distribute in generally the same pattern that background traffic travels to and from the area today with an emphasis on roadways that lead to commercial areas vs. other residential areas. Figure 5A shows the distribution used for the 2025 Build (current roadways) and the 2025 build (185th St connection). An alternate trip distribution was also done for the study area for 2025 Build (185th St connection & CSAH 9 reroute). The trip distribution is shown in Figure 5B. 7 http://www.ci.lakeville.mn.us/departments/departmentspdf/TransportationPlan.pdf Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Residential Single Family Homes 210 832 units 3960 3960 156 468 524 308 Residential Townhomes 230 93 units 270 270 7 34 32 16 Residential Low Rise Apartments 221 156 units 514 514 15 57 59 32 Recreational County Park 412 66.5 acres 76 76 1 1 4 2 4820 4820 179 560 619 358 9640 739 977 Weekday AM peak PM PeakTypeLand Use ITE Code Size 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 d. Trip Assignment – Trip generations developed earlier were distributed proportionately across the study area in three scenarios. – with Current roadways and full-access at CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) & 181st St The connection of 185th St and a full-access at CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) & 181st St All potential roadway changes and a ¾ access at CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) & 181st St. These assignments have been shown on Figures 6A, 6B, and 6C respectively. B. NON-SITE TRAFFIC FORECASTING a. Projections of Non-Site Traffic – The MnDOT State Aid website lists 2011 traffic projection factors for each county in the state.8 For Dakota County, that traffic projection factor is 1.6% growth per year. Westwood used this projection factor to model future year traffic projections. Non-Site Traffic in the area was projected up to year 2025, the design year that represents the first year after full build-out of the development. This non-site projected traffic for 2025 represents the “No-Build” condition – or that which would be present in the design year without the development. The No-Build condition has been shown on Figures 7. C. TOTAL TRAFFIC The total traffic combines the trip assignment with the non-site traffic for the study area. This is known as the “Build” condition. A.M. and P.M. traffic volumes have been projected for this study area. The three Build conditions have been shown on Figures 8A, 8B, and 8C. 8 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/CSAH/CSAHForms/TrafficFactors2011.pdf 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 23 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ V. TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________________________ A. SITE ACCESS Site access and study intersection assumptions were made for all of the Build conditions. LOS analysis was based off of the design assumptions featured in Table 3. All roads on site will be designed with adequate space for large service and emergency vehicles. In addition, all the accesses are 30 foot wide single lane approaches. Table 3: Intersection Access Assumptions B. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Traffic operations for the AM and PM peak hour conditions within the study area were analyzed using the industry-standard Synchro/SimTraffic Version 9 software package, which uses the data and methodology contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. The software model was calibrated to replicate existing conditions as accurately as possible before being used to assess future conditions. The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as traffic signals, stop- controlled intersections and roundabouts, are evaluated based on the relationship of the Intersection Existing 2025 No-Build 2025 Build 2025 Build w/185th Connection 2025 Build w/185th Connection & CSAH 9 Reroute Cedar Avenue - at Dodd Blvd Full (Signalized)Fulll (Signalized)Full (Signalized)Fulll (Signalized)Full (Signalized) - at 179th Street Full (Signalized)Full (Signalized)Full (Signalized)Full (Signalized)Full (Signalized) - at 181st Street Full Full Full Full Three-Quarter - at 183rd Street (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at 185th Street (proposed)N/A N/A T-Intersection T-Intersection (Signalized)T-Intersection (Signalized) Highview Avenue - at Dodd Blvd Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout Roundabout - at 181st Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 182nd Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 185th Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full Hamburg Ave (proposed) - at 179th Street (proposed)N/A N/A N/A N/A Full - at 185th Street (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full 185th Street (proposed) - at Dodd Blvd T-Intersection T-Intersection T-Intersection Full (Signalized)Full (Signalized) - at Highview Ave (proposed)N/A N/A T-Intersection Full Full - at 1/4 -mile (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at Hamburg (proposed)N/A N/A Full Full Full - at 3/4 mile (proposed)N/A N/A Three-Quarter Three-Quarter Three-Quarter - at Cedar Ave N/A N/A T-Intersection T-Intersection (Signalized)T-Intersection (Signalized) Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 24 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volumes on that facility. Various factors affect capacity, including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number and width of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of a Level of Service (LOS). Facilities are given letter designations from A, representing the best operating conditions, to F, representing the worst. Generally, Level of Service D represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. At intersections, the letter grades are assigned differently for signalized or unsignalized intersections (which include Two-Way Stop Control [TWSC], All-way Stop Control [AWSC] and roundabouts). For signalized intersections, the Level of Service for the intersection is calculated by taking the total Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter grade as shown in Table 4. For an unsignalized intersection, the Level of Service for the intersection is calculated by taking the Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter grade, as shown in Table 4. While similar, the signalized control delay totals are higher than that of unsignalized intersections. In any condition, when the LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio exceeds 1.0, the LOS is always F. Table 4: Level of Service vs. Control Delay - Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections (TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts) TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts Signalized Intersections LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)* Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)* Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) A ≤10 A ≤10 B >10 and ≤15 B >10 and ≤20 C >15 and ≤25 C >20 and ≤35 D >25 and ≤35 D >35 and ≤55 E >35 and ≤50 E >55 and ≤80 F >50 F >80 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. * NOTE: When LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio >1.00, LOS is F. Under the 2010 HCM, common movements are included into lane groups. Control Delay is then determined for each lane group and levels of service are based on this control delay. For each lane group, control delay is quantified by number of seconds. Control delay is measured by comparison with the uncontrolled condition. It is the difference between the travel time that would have occurred in the absence of the intersection control, and the travel time that results because of the presence of the intersection control. Levels of service are then based on the control delay per vehicle. The acceptable level of service threshold for a particular movement at an intersection depends on both the priority assigned to that movement and its traffic volume. In general, the higher the priority and the higher the traffic volume, the more stringent the acceptable threshold will be. For example, the acceptable threshold for a high- priority/high-volume rural movement might be C, while LOS F on a low-priority/low- volume urban movement might be appropriate. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 25 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 For two-way stop-controlled intersections, a key measure of operational effectiveness is the side street LOS. Long delays and poor LOS can sometimes result on the side street, even if the overall intersection is functioning well, making it a valuable design criterion. Again, depending on priority and traffic volume, acceptable side-street LOS can range from D to F. Side streets can operate at LOS F without the intersection warranting a change in traffic control. 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 reporting levels of service, the information from the signalized intersection analysis comes directly from the Synchro 9 and SimTraffic 9 reports. Intersection Levels of Service are reported based on the Control Delay calculated for the overall intersection and for each critical movement as determined by SimTraffic 9. For queuing, SimTraffic reports found in the Appendix list the mean queue, the 95th Percentile and the maximum queue lengths that are generated after five runs. In this report, the 95th Percentile Queue Length is used to discern adequate lengths of turn lanes. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length of queue that has only a five-percent probability of being exceeded during an analysis period. Westwood analyzed traffic existing traffic conditions based on turning movement counts and existing lane geometrics and traffic control in the study area. The AM Peak Hour was determined to be 7:15 AM – 8:15 AM while the PM Peak Hour was 4:45 PM – 5:45 PM. The operational analyses for Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions are summarized in the Appendix. Table 5 lists all intersections that have turning movements with a LOS-E or lower. Table 5: Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower 1. Overall Intersection LOS using 2010 HCM methodology as determined by Intersection Control Delay and as reported by Synchro 9/SimTraffic 9 analysis. 2. 95th Percentile queues as reported by average of five runs of SimTraffic 9 Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 30.5 sec LOS-B WB Left 55.3 sec LOS-E 154 ft NB Left 59.6 sec LOS-E 163 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 11.0 sec LOS-B NB Left 62.8 sec LOS-E 16 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 34.1 sec LOS-C WB Left 65.7 sec LOS-E 161 ft NB Left 68.6 sec LOS-E 198 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 18.8 sec LOS-B WB Left 56.7 sec LOS-E 120 ft NB Left 92.1 sec LOS-F 12 ft Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 26 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 a. Without Development – Westwood projected the 2025 No-Build conditions for traffic in the study year. Table 6 summarizes the insufficient operational findings projected for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours at the study area intersections without the development. Full operational findings are found in the Appendix. Table 6: 2025 No-Build Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower 1. Overall Intersection LOS using 2010 HCM methodology as determined by Intersection Control Delay and as reported by Synchro 9/SimTraffic 9 analysis. 2. 95th Percentile queues as reported by average of five runs of SimTraffic 9 b. With Development – Westwood projected the 2025 Build conditions for traffic in the study year. Table 7A summarizes the insufficient operational findings projected for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours at the study area intersections with the development and no CSAH projects completed. Table 7B shows the insufficient operational findings projected for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours at the study area intersections with the development and the connection of CSAH 60 (185th St) completed. Table 7C shows the insufficient operational findings projected for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours at the study area intersections with the development, the connection of CSAH 60 (185th St), and the CSAH 9 Reroute completed. All intersections LOS and critical approaches for each of the Build Conditions are shown in the Appendix. Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 35.1 sec LOS-C WB Left 58.8 sec LOS-E 233 ft NB Left 65.6 sec LOS-E 142 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 12.5 sec LOS-B EB Through 78.6 sec LOS-E 7 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 40.2 sec LOS-D WB Through 85.3 sec LOS-F 388 ft NB Left 75.7 sec LOS-E 234 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.9 sec LOS-C WB Left 56.6 sec LOS-E 164 ft A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Critical Approach Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 27 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 Table 7A: 2025 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower 1. Overall Intersection LOS using 2010 HCM methodology as determined by Intersection Control Delay and as reported by Synchro 9/SimTraffic 9 analysis. 2. 95th Percentile queues as reported by average of five runs of SimTraffic 9 Table 7B: 2025 Build with CSAH 60 (185th St) Connection Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower 1. Overall Intersection LOS using 2010 HCM methodology as determined by Intersection Control Delay and as reported by Synchro 9/SimTraffic 9 analysis. 2. 95th Percentile queues as reported by average of five runs of SimTraffic 9 Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 32.2 sec LOS-C NB Left 62.5 sec LOS-E 247 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 42.0 sec LOS-D WB Left 66.2 sec LOS-E 220 ft NB Left 74.3 sec LOS-E 233 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.7 sec LOS-C EB Left 37.5 sec LOS-E 29 ft P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 31.1 sec LOS-C EB Left 59.8 sec LOS-E 280 ft NB Left 60.4 sec LOS-E 167 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 11.9 sec LOS-B EB Left 58.1 sec LOS-E 39 ft NB Left 73.4 sec LOS-E 21 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 43.4 sec LOS-D SB Left 75.1 sec LOS-E 304 ft NB Left 91.1 sec LOS-F 255 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.4 sec LOS-C WB Left 57.6 sec LOS-E 127 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 6.7 sec LOS-A EB Left 63.7 sec LOS-F 122 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 12.9 sec LOS-B NB Left 56.3 sec LOS- E 124 ft Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 28 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 Table 7C: 2025 Build with CSAH 60 (185th St) Connection & CSAH 9 Reroute Peak Hour Turning Movements with LOS-E or Lower 1. Overall Intersection LOS using 2010 HCM methodology as determined by Intersection Control Delay and as reported by Synchro 9/SimTraffic 9 analysis. 2. 95th Percentile queues as reported by average of five runs of SimTraffic 9 C. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS With uncertain project timelines, Westwood recognizes that mitigation strategies are important to maintaining acceptable LOS throughout the study area. In the 2025 Build condition without either of the CSAH projects being completed the intersection of 185th St & Dodd Blvd will experience excessive delays for the eastbound left turn movement resulting in a LOS-F. In order to remedy the delay Westwood recommends restriping the eastbound lanes to accommodate dual left turn lanes. Figure 9 features the current striping as well as a potential solution to the problem. The dual left turn lanes will only be necessary until the connection of 185th St is built, thus turning the intersection into a full intersection and allowing left turn traffic to utilize the through movements. Westwood recommends that proposed 185th St be a 4-lane roadway with a divided median. This will allow 185th St to accommodate the increase in traffic once the connection is built. Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 22.9 sec LOS-C SB Left 56.2 sec LOS-E 89 ft NB Left 73.3 sec LOS-E 43 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 31.9 sec LOS-C WB Left 57.6 sec LOS-E 119 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 28.8 sec LOS-C EB Left 75.2 sec LOS-E 70 ft NB Left 84.5 sec LOS-F 115 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 13.8 sec LOS-B SB Through 39.7 sec LOS- E 345 ft Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 29 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 Figure 9 – 185th St & Dodd Blvd Mitigation Strategy Current: Potential: D. TRAFFIC SAFETY a. Sight Distance – Due to the flat nature of the study area, sight distance is sufficient throughout the site. E. TRAFFIC CONTROL NEEDS There are several ways the Avonlea development will minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects: Consolidating street access to quarter-mile and half-mile intervals will preserve mobility on the mainline system while consolidating accessibility into and out of the development at collector or minor collector roadways. The preservation of a quasi-grid system in the development will result in fewer long, circuitous cul-de-sacs, thus improving internal local street mobility. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 30 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 The MTVA Red Line along Cedar Avenue and the existing Park & Ride at 181st Street and Cedar Avenue will provide inviting transit options for Avonlea commuters. Without the completion of the CSAH projects Westwood recommends the following traffic control devices: Institute side street stop control for all site accesses along Highview Ave, Cedar Ave (CSAH 23), and proposed 185th St. Institute side street (185th St) stop control at 185th St at Cedar Ave (CSAH 23). Institute side street (185th St) stop control at 185th St at Highview Ave. With the completion of the CSAH 60 (185th St) connection & CSAH 9 reroute, Westwood recognizes that additional traffic control measures would need to be taken. CSAH 60 (185th St) would see an increase in traffic as it provides an important connection between minor and principal arterial networks, especially between I-35 and CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave). These recommendations include: Signalize CSAH 60 (185th St) & CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) Signalize CSAH 60 (185th St) & CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Institute side street stop control for all site accesses along Highview Ave, Cedar Ave (CSAH 23), and proposed 185th St. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 31 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ V. CONCLUSIONS ____________________________________________________________________________ Trip generation of the proposed Avonlea development does impact traffic in the study area. There are 739 total trips projected by the site for the A.M. Peak and 977 trips projected in the P.M. Peak Hour. Traffic is projected to be 76% outbound and 24% inbound during the A.M. Peak Hour, while the P.M. Peak Hour flips to 63% inbound and 37% outbound. The principal findings of the analysis included: Most intersections operated at Level of Service A (LOS-A) in the existing conditions. The two signalized intersections (Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd and Cedar Ave and 179th St) operated at LOS’s of C and B in the PM Peak Hour. The intersection of CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) & CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) experiences significant delays in every analysis period. The southbound left turn movement of CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) at 179th St experienced excessive queues during the existing conditions during the PM Peak Hour along with all build conditions. For the 2025 Build Condition with the current roadway configuration the LOS’s for the intersections are the same as the 2025 No-Build condition. Dakota County does not specify a project timeline for the proposed extension of 185th St (CSAH 60) or the reroute of CSAH 9, although these connections will likely be completed by 2025. If neither of the proposed CSAH projects occur by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at the same LOS as the 2025 No-Build Condition. All new intersections will operate at LOS-A. If only the CSAH 60 (185th St connection) project occurs by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at the same LOS as the 2025 No- Build Condition expect 185th St & Dodd Blvd. All new intersections will operate at no worse than a LOS-B with the appropriate traffic control devices. If both the CSAH 60 (185th St connection) project and the CSAH 9 reroute occurs by build out in 2025, all existing intersections in the study area will operate at similar LOS as the 2025 No-Build Condition. All new intersections will operate at no worse than a LOS-B with the appropriate traffic control devices. Change of traffic control at other existing unsignalized intersections is not required as a result of this development. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 32 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________________________________________________________ Without the completion of the CSAH projects Westwood recommends the following traffic control devices: Institute side street stop control for all site accesses along Highview Ave, Cedar Ave (CSAH 23), and proposed 185th St. Institute side street (185th St) stop control at 185th St at Cedar Ave (CSAH 23). Institute side street (185th St) stop control at 185th St at Highview Ave. Restripe westbound lanes at the intersection of CSAH 60 (185th St) & CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) in order to accommodate dual left turn lanes. With the completion of the CSAH 60 (185th St) connection & CSAH 9 reroute, Westwood recognizes that additional traffic control measures would need to be taken. CSAH 60 (185th St) would see an increase in traffic as it provides an important connection between minor and principal arterial networks. These measures needed are: Signalize CSAH 60 (185th St) & CSAH 9 (Dodd Blvd) Signalize CSAH 60 (185th St) & CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Institute side street stop control for all site accesses along Highview Ave, Cedar Ave (CSAH 23), and proposed 185th St. Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 33 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX ____________________________________________________________________________ Existing Condition Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 30.5 sec LOS-B WB Left 55.3 sec LOS-E 154 ft NB Left 59.6 sec LOS-E 163 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 11.0 sec LOS-B WB Left 49.7 sec LOS-D 64 ft NB Left 62.8 sec LOS-E 16 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 1.7 sec LOS-A WB Left 17.5 sec LOS-C 12 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 1.3 sec LOS-A EB Left 31.8 sec LOS-D 15 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 5.5 sec LOS-A NB Through 7.1 sec LOS-A 39 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 7.4 sec LOS-A NB Through 10.3 sec LOS-B 51 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .8 sec LOS-A WB Left 4.3 sec LOS-A 15 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 34.1 sec LOS-C WB Left 65.7 sec LOS-E 161 ft NB Left 68.6 sec LOS-E 198 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 18.8 sec LOS-B WB Left 56.7 sec LOS-E 120 ft NB Left 92.1 sec LOS-F 12 ft SB Left 35.4 sec LOS-D 303 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 2.0 sec LOS-A WB Left 5.8 sec LOS-A 20 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 2.4 sec LOS-A EB Left 9.8 sec LOS-A 30 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 6.8 sec LOS-A NB Through 8.3 sec LOS-A 54 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 10.7 sec LOS-B SB Through 14.0 sec LOS-B 74 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .8 sec LOS-A WB Left 4.3 sec LOS-A 21 ft Intersection Critical Approach Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 34 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 2025 No Build Condition Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 35.1 sec LOS-C WB Left 58.8 sec LOS-E 233 ft NB Left 65.6 sec LOS-E 142 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 12.5 sec LOS-B WB Left 50.6 sec LOS-D 76 ft EB Through 78.6 sec LOS-E 7 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 1.8 sec LOS-A SB Left 5.6 sec LOS-A 12 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 1.5 sec LOS-A WB Through 11.3 sec LOS-B 13 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 6.2 sec LOS-A NB Through 9.1 sec LOS-A 56 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 8.8 sec LOS-A NB Through 11.5 sec LOS-B 63 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .7 sec LOS-A WB Left 1.7 sec LOS-A 15 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 40.2 sec LOS-D WB Through 85.3 sec LOS-F 388 ft NB Left 75.7 sec LOS-E 234 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.9 sec LOS-C WB Left 56.6 sec LOS-E 164 ft SB Left 34.6 sec LOS-C 308 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 2.6 sec LOS-A WB Left 10.6 sec LOS-B 15 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 2.9 sec LOS-A EB Left 24.5 sec LOS-C 31 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 7.5 sec LOS-A NB Through 10.9 sec LOS-B 73 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 12.5 sec LOS-B EB Left 18.3 sec LOS-C 177 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .8 sec LOS-A WB Left 7.7 sec LOS-A 15 ft P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 35 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 2025 Build Condition Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 32.2 sec LOS-C WB Left 54.5 sec LOS-D 130 ft NB Left 62.5 sec LOS-E 247 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 13.7 sec LOS-B WB Left 49.2 sec LOS-D 91 ft EB Left 51.3 sec LOS-D 35 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 4.1 sec LOS-A EB Left 22.6 sec LOS-C 108 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 1.4 sec LOS-A EB Right 2.7 sec LOS-A 35 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 2.7 sec LOS-A EB Left 20.8 sec LOS- C 62 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 2.0 sec LOS-A EB Through 26.5 sec LOS-D 28 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 6.4 sec LOS-A NB Through 10.3 sec LOS-B 145 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 8.3 sec LOS-A EB Left 9.6 sec LOS-A 105 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access .9 sec LOS-A SB Right 2.3 sec LOS-A 43 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.8 sec LOS-A SB Left 4.5 sec LOS-A 40 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access 1.2 sec LOS-A SB Right 3.0 sec LOS-A 41 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 2.0 sec LOS-A WB Left 7.3 sec LOS- A 35 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 1.5 sec LOS-A WB Left 10.0 sec LOS-A 50 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 2.2 sec LOS-A WB Left 8.8 sec LOS-A 64 ft Highview Ave & 190th St 1.2 sec LOS-A WB Left 6.1 sec LOS-A 23 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 42.0 sec LOS-D WB Left 66.2 sec LOS-E 220 ft NB Left 74.3 sec LOS-E 233 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.7 sec LOS-C WB Left 51.9 sec LOS-D 160 ft EB Left 37.5 sec LOS-E 29 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 4.2 sec LOS-A EB Left 29.6 sec LOS-D 103 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 1.8 sec LOS-A EB Right 6.9 sec LOS-A 26 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 2.7 sec LOS-A EB Left 25.5 sec LOS- D 21 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 3.1 sec LOS-A EB Through 17.7 sec LOS-C 31 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 8.1 sec LOS-A NB Left 14.8 sec LOS-B 205 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 14.7 sec LOS-B EB Left 18.8 sec LOS-C 152 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access .8 sec LOS-A SB Right 2.2 sec LOS-A 41 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.7 sec LOS-A NB Left 4.8 sec LOS-A 44 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access 1.0 sec LOS-A EB Left 2.7 sec LOS-A 21 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 2.7 sec LOS-A WB Left 7.5 sec LOS- A 28 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 1.8 sec LOS-A WB Left 9.2 sec LOS-A 41 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 2.6 sec LOS-A WB Left 9.9 sec LOS-A 63 ft Highview Ave & 190th St 1.5 sec LOS-A WB Left 5.5 sec LOS-A 20 ft P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Critical Approach Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 36 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 2025 Build Condition with 185th Street Connection Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 31.1 sec LOS-C EB Left 59.8 sec LOS-E 280 ft NB Left 60.4 sec LOS-E 167 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 11.9 sec LOS-B EB Left 58.1 sec LOS-E 39 ft NB Left 73.4 sec LOS-E 21 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 4.1 sec LOS-A EB Left 25.4 sec LOS-C 116 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 1.6 sec LOS-A EB Right 4.8 sec LOS-A 21 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 18.6 sec LOS-A EB Left 51.9 sec LOS- D 315 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 2.5 sec LOS-A WB Through 16.7 sec LOS-C 28 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 4.6 sec LOS-A SB Through 6.1 sec LOS-A 71 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 22.5 sec LOS-A WB Through 45.8 sec LOS-D 156 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access 1.1 sec LOS-A SB Right 3.4 sec LOS-A 46 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.7 sec LOS-A SB Left 7.6 sec LOS-A 49 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access 1.6 sec LOS-A EB Left 4.6 sec LOS-A 19 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 8.2 sec LOS-A WB Left 10.0 sec LOS- A 51 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 1.4 sec LOS-A WB Left 7.7 sec LOS-A 50 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 1.7 sec LOS-A WB Left 6.0 sec LOS-A 46 ft Highview Ave & 190th St 1.1 sec LOS-A WB Left 8.1 sec LOS-A 49 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 43.4 sec LOS-D SB Left 75.1 sec LOS-E 304 ft NB Left 91.1 sec LOS-F 255 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 21.4 sec LOS-C WB Left 57.6 sec LOS-E 127 ft SB Left 50.6 sec LOS-D 309 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 6.7 sec LOS-A EB Left 63.7 sec LOS-F 122 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 2.1 sec LOS-A EB Right 8.7 sec LOS-A 18 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 12.9 sec LOS-B NB Left 56.3 sec LOS- E 124 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 2.6 sec LOS-A EB Left 20.8 sec LOS-C 24 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 7.3 sec LOS-A SB Left 13.6 sec LOS-B 152 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 22.5 sec LOS-C WB Through 44.5 sec LOS-D 180 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access 1.1 sec LOS-A SB Right 3.7 sec LOS-A 42 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.9 sec LOS-A SB Left 10.6 sec LOS-B 45 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access 2.0 sec LOS-A EB Left 4.8 sec LOS-A 22 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 11.7 sec LOS-B EB Left 22.6 sec LOS- C 91 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 1.1 sec LOS-A WB Left 6.0 sec LOS-A 38 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 2.1 sec LOS-A WB Left 9.8 sec LOS-A 58 ft Highview Ave & 190th St 1.4 sec LOS-A WB Left 8.3 sec LOS-A 21 ft Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Appendix F – Avonlea Traffic Impact Study Page 37 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 22, 2014 2025 Build Condition with 185th Street Connection and CSAH 9 Reroute Intersection Control Delay Overall Intersection LOS Approach Lane Group Delay Lane Group LOS 95th Percentile Queue Length Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 22.9 sec LOS-C SB Left 56.2 sec LOS-E 89 ft NB Left 73.3 sec LOS-E 43 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 31.9 sec LOS-C WB Left 57.6 sec LOS-E 119 ft NB Left 54.8 sec LOS-D 172 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 3.5 sec LOS-A SB Left 10.6 sec LOS-B 25 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 1.1 sec LOS-A EB Right 3.7 sec LOS-A 29 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 12.2 sec LOS-B EB Left 50.9 sec LOS- D 260 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 1.0 sec LOS-A WB Through 13.0 sec LOS-B 16 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 5.6 sec LOS-A WB Through 7.4 sec LOS-A 53 ft Dodd Blvd & Proposed Hamburg Ave 2.5 sec LOS-A NB Left 11.1 sec LOS-B 34 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 24.1 sec LOS-C EB Left 40.4 sec LOS-D 213 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access .7 sec LOS-A SB Right 3.2 sec LOS-A 51 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.2 sec LOS-A SB Left 6.5 sec LOS-A 54 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access .7 sec LOS-A EB Left 7.5 sec LOS-A 9 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 6.6 sec LOS-A SB Through 15.2 sec LOS- C 82 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 2.6 sec LOS-A WB Left 5.9 sec LOS-A 48 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 1.2 sec LOS-A WB Left 6.1 sec LOS-A 51 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .8 sec LOS-A WB Left 7.5 sec LOS-A 21 ft Cedar Ave & Dodd Blvd 28.8 sec LOS-C EB Left 75.2 sec LOS-E 70 ft NB Left 84.5 sec LOS-F 115 ft Cedar Ave & 179th St 38.8 sec LOS-D WB Left 54.0 sec LOS-D 165 ft EB Left 52.4 sec LOS-D 204 ft Cedar Ave & 181st St 5.2 sec LOS-A NB Left 10.1 sec LOS-B 31 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 183rd St 1.5 sec LOS-A EB Right 9.2 sec LOS-A 21 ft Cedar Ave & Proposed 185th St 13.9 sec LOS-B EB Left 52.9 sec LOS- D 228 ft Cedar Ave & 190th St 1.6 sec LOS-A EB Left 22.3 sec LOS-C 26 ft Dodd Blvd & Highview Ave 16.9 sec LOS-C WB Left 32.1 sec LOS-D 70 ft Dodd Blvd & Proposed Hamburg Ave 2.8 sec LOS-A NB Left 17.1 sec LOS-C 43 ft Dodd Blvd & 185th St 24.9 sec LOS-C EB Left 36.6 sec LOS-D 215 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed East Access .8 sec LOS-A SB Right 2.8 sec LOS-A 42 ft Proposed 185th St & Proposed Hamburg Ave 1.4 sec LOS-A NB Left 11.9 sec LOS-B 45 ft Proposed 185th St & West Access 1.0 sec LOS-A NB Right 3.5 sec LOS-A 34 ft Proposed 185th St & Highview Ave 13.8 sec LOS-B SB Through 39.7 sec LOS- E 345 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 182nd St 2.4 sec LOS-A WB Left 5.9 sec LOS-A 28 ft Highview Ave & Proposed 181st St 1.6 sec LOS-A WB Left 6.7 sec LOS-A 45 ft Highview Ave & 190th St .5 sec LOS-A WB Left 3.7 sec LOS-A 20 ft Intersection Intersection Critical Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour