HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07
February 13, 2015 Item No. ______
INTERSTATE SOUTH LOGISTICS PARK SCOPING EAW
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PROPOSED ACTION
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the resolution
approving the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Scoping Document for the
Interstate South Logistics Park
Approval of this motion will allow the developer to proceed to draft the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Interstate South Logistics Park on 175.8 acres located west of
Dodd Boulevard (CSAH 9) and south of 215th Street (CSAH 70). An AUAR is an alternate
method of preparation and process to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
OVERVIEW
Scannell Properties has completed the required Scoping EAW for the proposed AUAR for the
above noted property. The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial District. The Scoping EAW
was drafted and distributed for public comment on January 5, 2015 with the public comment
period ending February 4, 2015. The AUAR will incorporate the public comments into the
more expansive AUAR document.
PRIMARY ISSUES TO CONSIDER
Were there any significant issued identified with the Scoping EAW? Most of the comments
received were regarding environmental and transportation issues that are to be addressed with
the AUAR. There were no comments received from private individuals.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
◊ Resolution approving the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Scoping Document
◊ Final Scoping EAW
◊ Developer’s Consultant (Sambatek) Response to Scoping EAW Comments, dated
February 5, 2015.
__________________________________
Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner
Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _________________________________
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances_________________________________
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Economic Development Supporting a Diversified Local Economy_______
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(EAW) SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW
(AUAR) PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NEEDED
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE SOUTH
LOGISTICS PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 175.8 ACRES OF LAND TO THE WEST OF
DODD BOULEVARD (CSAH 9) AND SOUTH OF 215TH STREET WEST (CSAH 70)
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville is a municipal corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville has adopted a comprehensive plan outlining where
and how land can develop throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, property to the west of Dodd Boulevard (CSAH 9) and south of 215th Street
West (CSAH 70), is guided for warehouse/light industrial development by the comprehensive
plan; and
WHEREAS, development of the site will trigger the need for either an EIS or an AUAR to
assess potential environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), has
deemed that an AUAR process is appropriate and should be completed to study possible
development scenarios; and
WHEREAS, to initiate the AUAR study, the City of Lakeville has prepared an EAW to
scope out all areas of study for the AUAR; and
WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared and was distributed to the public for comment on
January 5, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the required public comment period ended on February 4, 2015; and
WHEREAS, all comments received throughout the official comment period have been
added to the EAW Scoping Document, and answers to identified questions will be outlined in
the AUAR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves and adopts the
Scoping EAW document for the Interstate South Logistics Park dated February 5, 2015; and
Resolution No.___
EAW Scoping Document Approval and AUAR Order for the Interstate South Logistics Park
Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council orders that an AUAR be prepared in
accordance with the law and consistent with the Scoping EAW document.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville on the 17th day
of February, 2015
__________________________________
Matt Little, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Char Friedges, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Interstate South Logistics Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Lakeville, MN
2/5/15
12800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Interstate South Logistics Park
Lakeville, MN
FINAL EAW Scoping Document for a Proposed AUAR
2-5-15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Title .......................................................................................................................................................1
2. Proposer.............................................................................................................................................................1
3. RGU ...................................................................................................................................................................1
4. Reason for EAW Preparation .........................................................................................................................1
5. Location and Maps ...........................................................................................................................................1
6. Description ........................................................................................................................................................2
7. Cover Types ......................................................................................................................................................5
8. Permits and approvals required. .....................................................................................................................6
9. Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................8
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms ...................................................................................................10
11. Water Resources .............................................................................................................................................12
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ..............................................................................................16
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) ..............................18
14. Historic properties ..........................................................................................................................................19
15. Visual ...............................................................................................................................................................19
16. Air ....................................................................................................................................................................20
17. Noise .................................................................................................................................................................21
18. Transportation ................................................................................................................................................22
19. Cumulative potential effects ..........................................................................................................................23
20. Other potential environmental effects ..........................................................................................................24
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: County Well Record Logs
Appendix C: Official Comments and Response
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
1
Interstate South Logistics Park
Lakeville, MN
EAW Scoping Document for a Proposed AUAR
This EAW is a scoping document for a proposed Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which will
examine potential development scenarios for a 175.8 acre site in Lakeville, MN.
1. Project Title INTERSTATE SOUTH LOGISTICS PARK
2. Proposer
Contact Person
Company
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Prepared By
Scannell Development Company
Tim Elam
Scannell Properties
821 Meander Court, Suite 200
Medina, MN 55340
763-331-8851
Sambatek, Inc.
3. RGU
Contact Person
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Fax
E-mail
City of Lakeville
Frank Dempsey
20195 Holyoke Ave.
Lakeville, MN 55044
952-985-4420
952-985-4409
fdempsey@lakevillemn.gov
4. Reason for EAW
Preparation
AUAR Scoping
EQB Rule Category: Mandatory EIS 4410.4400, subpart 11: Light
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Facilities.
5. Location and Maps
County
City
PLS Location
Watershed
GPS Coordinates
PIDs
The index of figures can be found on the following page.
Dakota
Lakeville
SE ¼, S31, 114N, 20W
SW ¼, S32, 114N, 20W
Mississippi River – Lake Pepin Watershed
44.63470°, -93.26315°
22-03100-75-010; 22-03200-50-010
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
2
Legal Description All that part of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section Thirty-one
(31), Township One Hundred Fourteen (114) North, Range Twenty (20)
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Dakota County, Minnesota lying
westerly of the highway known as Dodd Boulevard; and also all that part
of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Thirty-two (32),
Township One Hundred Fourteen (114) North, Range Twenty (20)
West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the highway known
as Dodd Boulevard.
The following is a complete list of figures in this EAW which can be found in Appendix “A”.
Figure # Figure Title
1 Project Regional Location
2 Proposed AUAR Study Boundary
3 USGS Map
4 Existing Conditions Aerial
5 Development Scenario 1
6 Development Scenario 2
7 Existing MLCCS Cover Types
8 Proposed Cover Types: Scenario 1
9 Proposed Cover Types: Scenario 2
10 Existing Land Use Guidance
11 Soils
12 Planned Land Use Guidance
13 Floodplain
14 Sanitary Sewer Plan
15 Water Main Plan
16 Historical Aerials
6. Description
The description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development
scenario included:
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
The proposed Interstate South Logistics Park project will entail the development of 175.8 acres of land in
the City of Lakeville, MN. The land in question is generally bordered by County Road 70 (215th St W) to
the north and County Road 9 (Dodd Blvd) to the east, and is primarily made up of open farm fields and
wetlands. Complete development of the site would result in the construction of two or more buildings,
depending upon the end users needs, providing between approximately 2.2M and 3.0M square feet of light
industrial warehousing and distribution space. By State Statue, the proposed level of development requires
a mandatory environmental review, so an Alternative Urban Areawide Review will be prepared based upon
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
3
the findings resulting from this EAW scoping document. The public is asked to provide feedback on
environmental issues of concern for this site for consideration during the study.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures.
Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
The area to be studied by the AUAR is located in the City of Lakeville, MN, within Dakota County (see
Figure 1). The proposed development site will encompass approximately 175.8 acres situated to the west
of Dodd Boulevard (CR 9) and south of 215th Street West (CR 70). To the south and west of the proposed
study area are primarily woods and farm fields (see Figure 2). The land is relatively flat with some
gentle rising of the topography on the property’s western boundary (see Figure 3). A vast majority of the
study area is currently active farm land, with a small portion comprised of wetlands surrounding an
intermittent stream (see Figure 4).
Development scenarios to be studied will examine the establishment of a light industrial warehousing &
distribution complex with limited office space (approximately 10% office / 90% warehousing). Currently
at least two scenarios are being considered for study by the AUAR to establish varying mitigation plans
depending upon the level of anticipated impacts:
Development of Scenario 1 would entail construction of up to nine (9) buildings of varying sizes.
Altogether, Development Scenario 1 would house up to an estimated 2,227,100 square feet of light
industrial warehousing and distribution space upon completion.
Development of Scenario 2 would entail construction of roughly two (2) buildings housing
approximately 3,004,044 square feet of light industrial warehousing and distribution space upon
completion.
Consideration will be given to adding a third scenario between these two alternatives if it is deemed
necessary to establish a tiered mitigation plan covering the range of development options between the two
extremes. The exterior of all buildings under any scenario is proposed to consist of high quality materials
and modern architectural design intended to mitigate the potential visual impact of warehousing and
distribution facilities on surrounding lands. On site lighting would be shielded and down directional to
prevent glare and light spill-over on to adjacent lands. Although the final site layout will be dependent on
a number of factors such as end users and market demands, proposed site plans depicting potential layouts
for Development Scenarios 1 & 2 can be seen on Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Under either development scenario, build-out of the land is anticipated to begin in 2015. Development of
the site will involve general grading as necessary to facilitate proper drainage, trench cuts for the
installation of needed utilities, and grading as needed for overall stormwater management including on-
site ponding. A significant focus of grading and stormwater management will be protection of the
intermittent stream on the southern portion of the development site, and accommodation of the existing
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
4
underground gas pipeline with the development plans. The mitigation plan established by the AUAR will
identify actions necessary to ensure that the wetlands, stream and local watershed are protected both
during and following construction.
With regards to roadways, it is anticipated that Scenario 1 would potentially include two (2) local
roadway extensions: the first would be a westerly extension of 217th Street West through the property to
its western edge for continuation as part of adjacent development to the west; the second would be a
southerly extension of Jacquard Avenue which would dead-end at the extent of the development, but
right-of-way would be dedicated to the property’s southern boundary should the City ever wish to extend
the roadway in the future. The proposed building sizes and configuration in Scenario 2 would prohibit a
westerly extension of 217th Street, but could accommodate an extension of 220th on the southern portion
of the site. Both roadway extensions are currently required by the City’s current Comprehensive Plan and
Comprehensive Transportation plan, so final scenarios studied by the AUAR will need to show how the
roadways will be accommodated.
The proposed size and extent of the facility under either development scenario triggers a mandatory
environmental review. The RGU has elected to prepare an AUAR to fulfill this requirement, thus the
need for this scoping EAW.
c. Project Magnitude Data
Total project acreage ......................................................................................................... 175.8 acres
Total Building Area
Scenario 1 ....................................................................................... ≈ 2,227,100 million sq ft
Scenario 2 ........................................................................................ ≈ 3,004,044 million sq ft
Approximate Building(s) and Building Areas by Scenario
LAND USES No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Bldgs Sq ft Bldg # Sq ft
Warehouse/Light Industrial 0 sq ft 9 2,227,100 2 3,004,044
Building Heights ...................................... 30 to 45 feet for all Warehouse/Light Industrial buildings
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 project is to establish a needed light industrial warehousing and distribution node in this
portion of the metro area which in turn will strengthen the tax base within the City of Lakeville.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
5
e. Are future stages of this development (including development on any other property) planned or
likely to happen?
No expansions beyond the limits of the proposed AUAR study boundary are being considered at this time.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?
No.
Question 6 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
The topics of proposed building and site design will be a main focus in the AUAR given the intermittent
stream to the south of the proposed development site, and the existence of single-family residential to the
north. The AUAR will include a complete description of the proposed development scenarios including
the projected timing and length of all phases of construction and operation. The AUAR will describe the
process, plans and reporting that will be performed in accordance with local, state and federal
environmental laws; the regulations for the mitigation of any soil and/or groundwater impacts at the site;
and the proper management of all regulated wastes that may be encountered or generated through the
redevelopment process. The AUAR will also include updated information as necessary to describe the
magnitude of land within the AUAR study area in addition to the magnitude of land to be altered as a
result of the Project. Mitigation measures will be identified for any aspect of magnitude not in line with
local ordinances.
7. Cover Types
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
- Wetlands – identified by type (Circular 39)
- Watercourses – rivers, streams, creeks ditches
- Lakes – identify protected waters status and shoreland management classification
- Woodlands – breakdown by classes where possible
- Grassland – identify native and old field
- Cropland
- Current development
Please refer to Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 for a visual depiction of the following before and after
cover types within the study area:
Cover Types & Subtypes ≈ Before
Acres
≈ After
Scenario 1
Acres
≈ After
Scenario 2
Acres
Types 1 – 8 Wetlands 5.0 5.0 5.0
Watercourses 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lakes 0.0 0.0 0.0
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
6
Cover Types & Subtypes (continued) ≈ Before
Acres
≈ After
Scenario 1
Acres
≈ After
Scenario 2
Acres
Woodlands 1.1 0.0 0.0
- Altered/non-native deciduous forest 1.1 0.0 0.0
Grassland 1.6 1.6 1.6
- Temporarily flooded altered/ non-native dominated grassland 1.6 1.6 1.6
Cropland 161.8 3.1 3.1
- Upland soils - cropland 161.8 3.1 3.1
Developed Land 6.1 165.9 165.9
- Non-native dominated long grasses with 26-50% impervious cover 1.6 0.0 0.0
- Non-native dominated long grasses with 51-75% impervious cover 2.3 0.0 0.0
- Short grasses and mixed trees with 11-25% impervious cover 2.1 0.0 0.0
- Short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover 0.1 0.0 0.0
- Ponding 0.0 11.9 11.9
- Grassed/Plantings 0.0 52.1 57.2
- Pavement 0.0 50.8 50.2
- Updated Development 0.0 51.1 46.6
Totals: 175.8 175.8 175.8
1.4
Question 7 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
Numbers from the EAW table will carry over into the AUAR. Unless the proposed development plan is
amended, there will be no expanded overview of cover types in the AUAR. Impacts associated with changes
to existing cover types will be identified within the various sections of the AUAR and needed mitigation
measures will be identified.
8. Permits and approvals required.
List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include
modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of
public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of
these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
7
Currently Assumed Approvals Needed
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
FEDERAL
US Army Corps of Engineers 404 Wetland Permit
US Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Review
STATE
MN Pollution Control Agency
MN Pollution Control Agency
(continued)
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Construction Permit (NPDES)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
401 Certification (concurrent with Corps Section
404 review)
DNR MN Natural Heritage Database Review
General Permit for Temporary Water Appropriations
Public Utility License (if necessary)
State Historic Preservation Office Archeological/historic sites review
MN Dept. of Health Watermain Extension
Abandonment of Water Wells
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
LOCAL
Dakota County Roadway Access Permit
Plat Approval
City of Lakeville Scoping EAW Approval
AUAR Approval
Sketch Plan/Preliminary/Final Plat
Site Plan Review
Planned Unit Development Review (if needed)
Conditional Use Permit (Multiple Buildings)
Wetland Conservation Act Wetland Approval
Grading Permit
Building Permit(s)
Sign Permit
HVAC Permits
Plumbing Permits
Electrical Permits
Permit for fire sprinkler work
Permit for fire alarm work
Vermillion River Watershed Joint
Powers Organization
Reviews and recommendations as prerequisites to
local approvals
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
8
Question 8 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
An updated list of known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the proposed project and the
responsible government unit will be included in the AUAR.
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.
Approximately 90% of the proposed study area is currently being used for agricultural crop production
consistent with the identified existing land use of “agricultural/undeveloped” according to the
Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 10). The remaining 10% of the land is comprised of 5.2 acres of
wetland running through the south-west corner of the area, 2.7 acres of a former farmstead on the
eastern edge, and 1.9 acres of altered/non-native woodland split between the western edge of the study
area and along the northern edge of the former farmstead land. Farmland runs adjacent to the south
and west sides of the study area. Small businesses are adjacent to the north side of the study area, as
well as Lakeville South High School, residential housing and a 17-acre wetland. While the project area
does include a segment of the South Creek Vermillion River watercourse, the designated trout stream
is located north of CSAH 70 and is not within the project boundary. A warehouse for a plumbing and
heating company (Uponor) and farmland are adjacent to the east side of the study area.
An initial review of soils in the area (see Figure 11) shows approximately 86.7% of the site qualifies
as prime farmland, and an additional 11.1% of the site qualifies as prime farmland if drained. About
2.2% of the site qualifies as holding statewide importance.
The breakdown of soil types based on the Dakota County Soil Survey is as follows:
Map Symbol SCS Soils Classification ≈ Acres % of site Farmland Rating
2B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 11.6 6.6 All areas are prime farmland
2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 3.9 2.2 Farmland of statewide
importance
129 Cylinder loam 46.4 26.4 All areas are prime farmland
252 Marshan silty clay loam 19.5 11.1 Prime farmland if drained
411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 94.4 53.7 All areas are prime farmland
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. Because the site is
guided for development, no clear alternatives to conversion of prime farmland are readily identifiable.
Furthermore, no farmland preservation measures have been considered as part of the development being
studied.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
9
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 2030 City of Lakeville Planned Land Use Map (see Figure 12) designates the future use of this
site for Warehouse/Light Industrial. The proposed development under either scenario will be consistent
with this designation. The City of Lakeville also adopted a Wetland Management Plan in 2003 which
designates the wetland on the southwest edge of the site as a Preserve classification. And finally, in
2000, the City of Lakeville passed the South Creek Management Plan to protect the Creek and the
recognized trout habitat therein. As previously noted, the project area does include a segment of the
South Creek Vermillion River watercourse. It is recognized that a buffer around this segment meeting
adopted stream buffer standards for a tributary connector will be required (50 foot average buffer, 35
foot minimum plus 2 feet for every 1 percent of slope measured from the edge of the meander belt of
the tributary). Additional stormwater management measurements will need to be examined and
identified within the development mitigation plan as part of the future AUAR.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The project site is located within District 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Light Industrial
(I-1). This zoning classification includes warehousing as a permitted use and allows for multiple
principal buildings on one lot of record through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed
site is not within a shoreland district, but does have areas near the intermittent stream that will be subject
to floodplain regulations due to FEMA Zone A classified areas (see Figure 13). Under both of the
proposed development scenarios for study, this area of the property is envisioned to be set aside for
wetland protection and stormwater management. Any stormwater ponds would need to meet floodplain
drainage requirements and other standards.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above,
concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The proposed use for the site meets the City’s current and future land use plans. With existing and planned
light industrial and office spaces surrounding the site, there is no identified or perceived incompatibility
with nearby land uses or zoning.
The wetland classified as a Preserve Wetland on the southern portion of the site will not be impacted by the
development. No part of the wetland will be filled or developed, and stormwater management plans will
ensure that drainage impacts are minimal and are in accordance with the City of Lakeville’s Wetland
Management Plan. The wetland preservation will also ensure that the floodplain, located on the wetlands,
will also not be impacted by the development. All stormwater ponds will meet floodplain drainage
standards.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
10
Stormwater management and design will also take into consideration the site’s location within the South
Creek sub-watershed of the Vermilion River Watershed. All stormwater management will be designed to
minimize impacts on South Creek and the trout habitat therein.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility
as discussed in Item 9b above.
The AUAR will ultimately identify all mitigation measures necessary to address environmental impacts
anticipated with the proposed development.
Question 9 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
Information from the scoping EAW will again be provided in the proposed AUAR, but the major issues
raised regarding land use will likely be examined and dealt with elsewhere within the AUAR (i.e. as part
of answers to questions focusing on habitat, wells, soils, stormwater, etc.). No further evaluation of land
use will be provided in the AUAR.
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms
a. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic
features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions.
Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these
features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
A geotechnical report was completed in 2013 by Braun Intertec for the crop field adjacent to the east side
of the study area. Due to the close proximity and the similarity between the two areas, it is currently
assumed that the conditions in the study area will closely resemble those shown in the geotechnical report.
According to the report, the site is generally underlain by 0.5 to 1 foot of lean clay or clayey sand topsoil.
This topsoil sits above a thin layer of alluvial clays, which overlays glacial soils that extend the rest of the
way to the bottom of the borings. There are no problematic formations, such as karst formations, identified
on the project site according to currently available data.
Assuming the above is determined to be accurate as part of the AUAR, a number of steps will need to be
taken prior to construction occurring. For example, vegetation, organic topsoil, and alluvial lean clays will
all need to be removed from building areas. If it is necessary to replace the unsuitable soils beneath building
areas and pavements, compacted fill comprised of suitable non-organic material will be used.
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
the stormwater "water resources" question.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
11
For an AUAR, the number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not
be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should
be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the
standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR
purposes should be included.
The project area is relatively flat, with a slight downward slope moving west to east across the site. There
are two hills located on the western edge of the site, both having an elevation about 25 feet higher than the
rest of the site with slopes of 0 to 6 percent. The presence of these hills will direct stormwater runoff toward
the wetland located in the south-west corner of the study area. Erosion control measures should be taken
to protect the wetland from sediment deposits. Erosion control measures should also be taken to prevent
sediment from being deposited in the drainage ditches running along the north and east sides of the study
area.
As shown in Figure 11, the soils on the site consist of the following:
Depth to Water Table – Summary by Soil Type
Map Symbol SCS Soils Classification Depth Rating (cm)
2B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes > 200
2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes > 200
129 Cylinder loam 46
252 Marshan silty clay loam 15
411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes > 200
Table data from USDA Web Soil Survey
USDA maps show the majority of the site consisting of Waukegan silt loam. According to USDA data,
this soil typically consists of roughly three feet of silty loam overlaying gravelly coarse sand. The other
soils at the site (Cylinder loam, Ostrander loam, and Marshan silty clay loam) have these same general
characteristics.
The average depth to the water table is over six feet from the ground surface for most of this site. There
are portions of the site, where the water table is less than a foot from the ground surface. This shallow
water table primarily occurs in the wetland located at the south of the project. The table above shows the
USDA depth to water table data.
County Well Index data was used to determine the elevation of the aquifer (see Appendix B). Based on
well log data for wells located off site, the elevation of the aquifer at the site is around 800 feet above mean
sea level. This is roughly 200 feet below the ground surface.
Question 10 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
A full geotechnical analysis of the site will be completed in conjunction with the AUAR preparation to
identify all geological and soil related issues that would need to be addressed as part of any future
development. Any necessary corrective actions would be undertaken concurrently with development
phasing and construction.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
12
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.
There are no known lakes within the study area, but the project area does include a segment of the
South Creek Vermillion River watercourse. The watercourse is surrounded by a wetland which exists
in the southern portion of the study area. Outside of the study area to the east approximately 1.28 miles
downstream, the wetland and watercourse ultimately drain to an unnamed Outstanding Resource Value
Water that is classified as a trout stream according to the MPCA. According to the DNR, “…this is
one of two major tributaries of the Vermillion River system in which brown trout naturally reproduce,
with consistent recruitment, making it a very important fisheries resource. These waters are supported
by contributions from both surface and groundwater inputs.” In addition to this on-site watercourse,
there is also a second intermittent stream north of (and outside of) the study area that may need to be
taken into consideration pending further study as part of the AUAR.
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.
A future geotechnical report to be completed in conjunction with the AUAR will determine the depth
to groundwater. Figure 6.4.3 of the City of Lakeville Water Resources Management Plan shows that
the study area is not within a Wellhead Protection Area and does not contain any city wells. According
to Dakota County, there is one sealed well on the east parcel (220310075010) and a suspected unused,
unsealed well associated with the old homestead west of the parcel 220310075010. The owner of an
unused, unsealed well is required by Minnesota Statutes to have the well properly sealed by a licensed
well contractor, bring the well back into use, or obtain an annual unused well permit. If the location of
the well is not known, the Environmental Resources Department may be able to assist in searching for
the well(s). When the site is developed, unsealed wells may not be built over or buried, may not be
modified (except by a licensed well contractor), and all setbacks and isolation distances from wells, as
specified in Minnesota Rules 4725, must be maintained.
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
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
13
effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.
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.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and
identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects
to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
The project site is included within the current MUSA Boundary. Wastewater discharge from the site will
be to an existing sanitary sewer line in the 215th Street West right-of-way which eventually is routed to
the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant is capable of treating all estimated flows produced by
this development, however there is a potential future sewer capacity restriction adjacent to the
development area that will require further study.
As indicated by the city’s Comprehensive Plan, the project will be responsible for extending sanitary
sewer across the site to serve the neighboring property to the west (see Figure 14). The subject property
is not anticipated to include any unusual wastewater discharges or quantities given the proposed tenant
usage types.
Wastewater discharge from the development would be domestic (industrial) wastewater. The estimated
volumes for the development shown below are estimated based on the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual dated January 2014. One
SAC is equivalent to 274 gallons of wastewater generated per day. Based on SAC guidelines, daily
maximum wastewater generated by the proposed development was determined for each scenario
according to the following tables. The peak flow was calculated based on a peaking factor of 3.9.
Scenario #1
Use Square Feet SAC Rate SAC Units Gallons/Day
Office (30%) Warehouse
(70%)*
668,130
1,558,970
1/2400
1/7000
278
223
76,172
61,102
TOTALS: 2,227,100 501 137,274
Peak Flow 535,369
Scenario #2
Use Square Feet SAC Rate SAC Units Gallons/Day
Office (30%) Warehouse
(70%)*
901,213
2,102,831
1/2400
1/7000
376
300
103,024
82,200
TOTALS: 3,004,044 676 185,224
Peak Flow 722,374
* Breakdowns are based on 30% office and 70% warehouse according to the SAC procedure manual. Actual
building distribution is expected to be approximately 10% office and 90% warehouse.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
14
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post
construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream
water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from
stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and
permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff.
Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil
limitations during and after project construction.
The existing site consists primarily of agricultural lands with the exception of the wetland area on the
south end of the study area. The majority of the existing site runoff would be consistent with farmland
runoff (i.e. residual fertilized, herbicide, pesticide, sediment from tilling and planting, etc.).
The proposed development scenarios to be studied will include significant impervious surfaces that will
addressed by rate, water quality, and water quantity controls. Stormwater runoff will be treated in
accordance with the MPCA, the City of Lakeville, and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers
Organization. The study area lies within the South Creek sub-watershed of the Vermilion River
Watershed, and is subject to stringent water quality requirements. It is anticipated that the stormwater
treatment will include construction of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water quality ponds
and infiltration basins if soils allow. The proposed stormwater ponds will be designed to have adequate
capacity to provide storage and sediment control for stormwater runoff during construction of the
development. Permanent best management practices (BMPs) would also include seeding, mulching,
and sodding.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater
(including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and
if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an
existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or
required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water
appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify
any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
The subject property will be served City of Lakeville municipal water supply system for
domestic water use and fire protection. Connections will be made to the existing 12” trunk
water main in Dodd Boulevard and/or to a future trunk water main that may traverse the site
from west to east (see Figure 15). The project is located within a low/high water pressure
zone, which may require the installation of pressure-reducing valves.
Anticipated water demand will be consistent with the proposed tenant usage types. No
supply wells or production wells are planned within the project boundaries. Estimated water
use will be up to approximately 185,000 gallons per day depending upon the final square
footage developed.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
15
iv. Surface Waters
1) 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 last known wetland delineation on the project site was completed in 2006, so a new delineation is
scheduled to be completed in conjunction with the AUAR (preliminary information is currently under
review by the US Army Corps of Engineers). Findings and mitigation requirements will be denoted
and recognized within the final AUAR. The old delineation found one PEMBd type wetland in the
south portion of the study area. The wetland drains east, eventually flowing into a trout stream. Buffer
areas around the delineated wetlands will be required per the city’s Wetland Management Plan.
2) 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.
An intermittent stream runs through the existing wetland area of the site. The intention of the proposed
project is to avoid physical or hydrologic alterations of the wetlands, stream or any other surface
waters. To ensure accuracy, the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization will be
consulted during preparation of the project AUAR to confirm the location and type of all surface waters.
Additionally, per the DNR, measures must be taken to protect the water quality and quantity from the
detrimental effects of changes in land use such as reduced flow, increased sedimentation, and rising
temperatures. The DNR recommends incorporation of urban design features that minimize impervious
surfaces and increase water infiltration which in turn will reduce sediment runoff and contribute to
groundwater recharge. Specifically the DNR would like consideration be given to the following:
Designs that provide larger pervious surface areas (allowing infiltration) rather than larger
stormwater ponding and retention areas (allowing evaporation and water impoundment).
Landscape designs that reduce the use of large scale irrigation. Example: green space with native
prairie plantings in place of mowed turf grasses.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
16
Where stormwater ponds are constructed, access waters for irrigation.
Parking areas: incorporate infiltration swales instead of storm sewer connections.
We recommend the widest possible buffers on wetland areas within the project boundary to protect
surface water quality by capturing nutrient and sediment inputs.
Question 11 – Proposed treatment of topic in AUAR
Numbers from the EAW table will be carried over to the AUAR. Downstream capacity will be verified with
the Metropolitan Council along with treatment capacity at the applicable Metropolitan Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The AUAR mitigation plan will fully lay out what must occur to serve the proposed
development while protecting the downstream waterbodies.
The AUAR will examine how much stormwater is currently being generated and how much will be
generated under the proposed development scenarios. The mitigation plan will include a complete listing
of controls needed to manage and treat runoff should development occur. The discussion will include
standards to be followed for on-site ponds. The AUAR will also address potential impacts to the receiving
wetlands and downstream trout stream and any necessary mitigation measures.
The water supply will be addressed in the AUAR including projected needs for the project, where the water
is coming from, impacts (if any) to aquifers, and the status of the City of Lakeville’s water supply capacity
for the project. A future geotechnical report to be completed in conjunction with the AUAR will determine
the depth to groundwater, and dewatering volumes (if deemed necessary) will be estimated for
determination of the required permits and discharge methods.
And finally, all wetlands on the site shall be delineated. Based on the new delineation, the AUAR must
identify all proposed impacts to wetlands and identify how all such impacts will be avoided or mitigated in
line with all local, State, and Federal requirements. To address the issue of impervious surfaces, the AUAR
will need to specifically outline how stormwater management will be handled and show how the proposal
can either maintain or improve existing conditions in the area.
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.
Based on past land uses, environmental hazards are not expected to be found within the proposed study
area. Aerial photos of the study area dating back to the 1930s (see Figure 16) show that land uses both on
this site and on surrounding lands have been largely consistent for the past 80 years: cultivation of
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
17
agricultural land and/or raising of animals, scattered home sites and rural outbuildings are the predominant
features. A majority of the subject site is still currently used for agricultural purposes with portions of the
property covered by wetlands which have formed or become more defined in the relatively recent past.
There are no present records of enforcement or other active producers or users of hazardous materials within
the proposed study area, and no records of hazardous materials were identified by Dakota County. A future
Phase I site assessment as part of the AUAR will determine whether any previous land uses warrant further
consideration.
There are records of waste sites approximately ½ mile east northeast of the study area, and several past and
current hazardous waste generators within ½ mile of the property. Information regarding these sites will
be incorporated into the future AUAR.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during
construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental
effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate
adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
The generation of regulated solid and liquid wastes by future tenants is anticipated to be at levels typical of
light industrial/warehousing facilities elsewhere. The City of Lakeville and the developer will require up-
to date recycling in accordance with the Minnesota State Building code. Waste minimization will be
encouraged through the development project design and will be encouraged of the tenants.
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.
If any tenants of the new development require storage of petroleum products or other liquid chemicals, that
storage will designed and permitted in accordance with the applicable codes such as the International
Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code and other requirements that the City of Lakeville may
require of similar installations.
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.
If any tenants of the new development generate or store hazardous wastes, all such activity will be designed
and permitted in accordance with the applicable codes such as the International Building Code, Mechanical
Code, Plumbing Code and other requirements that the City of Lakeville may require of similar installations.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
18
Question 12 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
As part of the AUAR study, a Phase I site assessment will be completed and will specifically look for
evidence of issues created by past users of the study area that may need to be mitigated as part of the
proposed development. All issues of concern will be detailed in the AUAR, and the mitigation plan will
fully lay out the strategies to address the issues in compliance with all local, State and Federal regulations.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features)
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The area being studied is largely dominated by cultivated land with a few areas of wetlands. Wildlife
resources that exist throughout the site likely include those species that have adapted to open lands and
cropland habitats such as rabbit, fox, coyote, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, songbirds, field mice, and a
variety of insects. Cropland habitat is dependent on the established crop or farming use at any given time
and is not considered year-round habitat. The wetland areas adjacent to the intermittent stream provide
habitat to a variety of wildlife including fish, waterfowl / other migratory birds, songbirds, amphibians, etc.
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-
____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _____________) from which the data were obtained and
attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work
has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
Using license agreement LA-699, a review of the DNR Database was undertaken for the proposed study
area. There were no occurrences of species of concern within one mile of the proposed study area.
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.
Approximately 1.28 miles downstream from the proposed study area, the intermittent stream empties into
an identified (unnamed) trout stream. The AUAR will examine, what if any mitigation measures must be
implemented to protect this habitat.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife,
plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
The creation of new stormwater ponds will help to mitigate the adverse effects on some wildlife.
Stormwater management plans will be drawn up to ensure rates and volumes of water discharging into the
intermittent stream are acceptable or better than pre-development conditions which in turn will support
the health of surrounding ecosystems. If possible, roadways should be separated from wetlands and
ponds to limit the potential for road mortality of non-game species that use wetlands as habitat. When
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
19
separation is unavoidable, the DNR recommends the use of chain-link fencing (the base of which should
be buried 12” to 16” below the soil surface) to deter wildlife passage onto roadways. Additionally, the
DNR recommends use of wildlife-friendly erosion control products; traditional erosion control mesh is
known to cause injury and may be fatal to wildlife, particularly reptiles and amphibians. Furthermore,
erosion control plastics are often mowed over during maintenance, and can blow into created ponds and
natural wetlands which can potentially impact aquatic species. Finally, the DNR recommends the use of
native prairie plant species in landscaping and green areas. Native plants are visually appealing to
residents, and increase habitat for native wildlife.
Question 13 – Proposed treatment of topic in AUAR
As part of the AUAR study, additional research will be conducted as to what if any mitigation measures
must be implemented to protect a known trout habitat approximately 1.28 miles downstream from the
project area.
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.
There are no impacts to nearby archaeological, historical and/or architectural resources anticipated as part
of this project, and Dakota county notes there are no record of historic releases within the study area.
Question 14 – Proposed treatment of topic in AUAR
As part of the AUAR preparation, efforts to verify the existence of such resources near the project study
area (as well as any potential effects on these resources) will include consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office. Should any such sites exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas will
be provided to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan would then outline methodologies
necessary to address such sites.
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.
Any change from cropland to developed land will have an impact on the visual look of a property, but the
proposed development is in line with the guided future land use for the land so such impacts have previously
been anticipated. There have been no important scenic views or vistas identified in the area that would be
impacted by the proposed development. That said, to offset the general visual impact that comes with any
development, the proposed buildings will be constructed using high-quality materials, and all lighting for
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
20
the development will be shielded and down directional so as to minimize glare onto surrounding properties.
Question 15 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
Unless feedback from the scoping document indicates the presence of heretofore unknown scenic views or
vistas which must be addressed, no further evaluation within the AUAR is proposed.
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.
This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit
environmental review requires individual review. As such, an assessment of stationary source air emissions
will not be conducted as part of the AUAR.
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.
Motor vehicle emissions will be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the development site and
from construction equipment necessary for the proposed construction activities. The most critical pollutant
associated with vehicular traffic in Minnesota is carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide (CO) is one of
five vehicle emission pollutants for which the US Environmental Protection Agency has standards. CO is
a colorless, odorless and tasteless toxic gas produced by the incomplete burning of carbon in fuel.
Concentrations of carbon monoxide are typically greatest at intersections with poor levels of service
because of excessive idling or acceleration of vehicles. Although Dakota County was designated as a
Nonattainment Location for Carbon Dioxide in 1990’s, the area has since been redesignated to
“Maintenance” in 1999, thus the existing concentration of carbon monoxide at the project location is
considered to be manageable. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has a nearby ambient air quality
monitoring station in Apple Valley (MPC Station 470) to track carbon monoxide levels.
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.
Odors generated during construction will be mitigated by maintenance of the construction equipment to the
manufacturers’ specifications and by using appropriate fuel additives when necessary. Grading and
construction will temporarily generate dust. BMPs and other standard construction methods will be used
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
21
to reduce construction impacts such as intermittent applications of water to exposed soils as needed to
reduce dust during dry weather. Construction equipment is expected to be dispersed on the site rather than
concentrated in one limited area for extended periods of time to limit potential impacts.
Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan, development of this site will
require construction of a north/south major collector roadway (Jacquard Avenue) and an east/west minor
collector roadway (connecting to either 217th or 220th to the east of Dodd Road). Construction of either
roadway is not anticipated to generate unusual amounts of dust or odors for such roadways. Traffic specific
impacts (including noise and odor) will be addressed under question 18 of the AUAR.
Following development, all future uses of the buildings will adhere to city ordinance requirements related
to dust and odors. While specific future tenants are unknown at this point, it is certain that all such uses
will be contained indoors, and those uses will need to show compliance with city requirements prior to
beginning operations. Mitigation measures such as specialized ventilation systems and scrubbers could be
implemented if deemed required by the City.
Question 16 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
The traffic congestion mitigation measures will be addressed in the AUAR. After these traffic congestion
mitigation measures have been implemented and the intersections near the project site function at an
acceptable level of service, carbon monoxide levels should be within acceptable limits. Mitigation
measures, if necessary, to reduce CO concentrations in the vicinity of the development will be identified.
Methodologies necessary to prevent dust and odors both during and following construction will also be
identified in the AUAR.
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.
Grading and construction will temporarily generate noise. BMPs and other standard construction methods
will be used to reduce construction impacts such as limiting hours of operation to comply with the noise
regulations in City ordinance. No noise resulting from excavation will be allowed to exceed the standards
set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Noise Control Regulations. Construction activities will
be prohibited between ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o’clock (7:00) A.M., in accordance with the
City’s Noise Ordinance (Sec. 4-1-4) and noise enforcement regulations (Sec. 11-16-25). Construction
equipment is expected to be dispersed on the site rather than concentrated in one limited area for extended
periods of time to limit potential impacts.
Following the completion of construction, the future tenants of the buildings will be required to adhere to
the City’s adopted standards for noise. Because such standards already establish the acceptable level of
noise within the City, no further noise analysis will be completed as part of the AUAR.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
22
Once the structures are occupied, the resulting vehicular traffic is anticipated to generate a limited increase
in noise in the area. The increase in noise resulting from traffic on the new roads will not be studied in-
depth as the comprehensive plan and comprehensive transportation plan both require the roads to be built,
so the subsequent presence of roadway related noise in the area is not being driven by the proposed
development. Vehicular noise as it relates to traffic being generated by the development will be addressed
further in Question 18.
There are no sensitive receptors (such as hospitals) near the site which raise special concerns for further
study.
Question 17 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
The AUAR will provide a mitigation plan that will lay out the procedures needed to ensure the development
conforms to all requirements.
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.
A study of the transportation issues that may arise out of the development scenarios being studied will be
completed as part of the AUAR. The purpose of the study will be to evaluate the impact of traffic
generated by the proposed warehouse development scenarios on the operations and safety of the adjacent
roadway network. The study will include information on existing and future roadway conditions within
the study area. Recommendations regarding geometric and/or traffic control improvements needed to
accommodate the additional background and site traffic will be made as necessary.
The proposed study area will include review of the following intersections:
CSAH 70/Keokuk Avenue
CSAH 70/Interstate 35 Southbound Ramps
CSAH 70/Interstate 35 Northbound Ramps
CSAH 70/Kenrick Avenue
CSAH 70/Kensington Boulevard
CSAH 70/215th Street West
CSAH 70/Jacquard Avenue
CSAH 70/CSAH 9 (Dodd Boulevard)
CSAH 9/CSAH 50 (202nd)
CSAH 9/225th Street
CSAH 9/210th Street
CSAH 70/Holyoke Avenue
CSAH 70/Hamburg Avenue
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
23
CSAH 70/CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue)
CSAH 9/217th Street
CSAH 9/220th Street
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 traffic study completed for the AUAR will specifically identify potential congestion on roads created
by the proposed development, and will identify mitigation measures that must be put in place to address
such impacts.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Mitigation measures will be identified for all traffic impacts generated by the proposed development as a
component of the AUAR. Known measures and issues that will likely be incorporated or addressed include:
Acknowledgement that Dakota County will be reconstructing the adjacent segment of CSAH 9 in 2015.
The reconstruction project will include southbound left turn lanes and northbound right turn lanes to
accommodate the existing 217th Street West and 220th Street West/Humboldt Road intersections. The
reconstruction project will also include adequate space to allow for northbound left turn lanes into the
proposed site at these locations, and the ultimate site developer will be responsible for the northbound
left turn lane conversion, and for construction of southbound right turn lanes at access locations.
The size of development and anticipated employment may warrant the need for a multi-purpose trail
on CSAH 9.
Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated along CSAH 70 to accommodate a future four-lane
divided highway configuration with multi-use trails.
Question 18 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
A summary of the transportation study will be provided in the AUAR under question #18. The complete
traffic study and all associated documentation will be provided within the AUAR appendix. All identified
traffic issues generated by the proposed development scenarios will be addressed within the AUAR
mitigation plan.
19. Cumulative potential effects
(Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW
Items)
The AUAR, by design, will examine and address cumulative impacts of development for the scenarios
being studied.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
24
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.
Na
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.
In the Southeastern corner of the intersection of CR 70 (215th St W) and CR 9 (Dodd Blvd), a FedEx Freight
facility is anticipated to be constructed in the near future. While that site was studied under a separate
AUAR, its potential impacts on this project will need to be considered when preparing the AUAR.
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.
na
Question 19 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
Cumulative effects will be addressed throughout the AUAR document. Impacts created by the anticipated
FedEx Freight project will be acknowledged throughout the AUAR. No further work on Question 19 is
anticipated.
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.
At this time, no environmental impacts beyond what will be studied in question 1 through 19 of the AUAR
have been identified.
Question 20 – Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR
Should any issues arise which are not addressed in questions 1 through 19 of the AUAR, such matters will
be addressed in Question 20 of the AUAR. The corresponding mitigation plan will include methodologies
for addressing any such issues.
I n t e r s t a t e S o u t h L o g i s t i c s P a r k / S c o p i n g E A W
25
RGU Certification
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: ______________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Appendix “A” contains the following figures:
Figure # Figure Title
1 Project Regional Location
2 Proposed AUAR Study Boundary
3 USGS Map
4 Existing Conditions Aerial
5 Development Scenario 1
6 Development Scenario 2
7 Existing MLCCS Cover Types
8 Proposed Cover Types: Scenario 1
9 Proposed Cover Types: Scenario 2
10 Existing Land Use Guidance
11 Soils
12 Planned Land Use Guidance
13 Floodplain
14 Sanitary Sewer Plan
15 Water Main Plan
16 Historical Aerials
§¨¦35
§¨¦35E§¨¦35W
")3
")50
")52
")13
")13")21
")169
Lakeville
Eureka Twp.
Empire Twp.
Cedar Lake Twp.
New Market Twp.
Castle Rock Twp.
Rosemount
Prior Lake
Savage
Spring Lake Twp.
Helena Twp.
Burnsville
Credit River Twp.
Apple Valley
Sand Creek Twp.
Farmington
ShakopeeLouisville Twp.
Greenvale Twp.
Elko
Sciota Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Waterford Twp.
New Prague
New Market
New Market
SCOTT DAKOTA
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-5-14Legend
US or State HighwayInterstate Proposed Project Site ±Project Regional LocationInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 1Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
County Lines
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-19-14
±Proposed AUAR Study BoundaryInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 2Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
2
Legend Project SiteMunicipal Boundary Line
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-5-14
±USGS MapInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 3Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
3
Proposed AUAR Study Area
Legend
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-19-14
±Existing Conditions AerialInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 4Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
4
Legend Proposed AUAR Study AreaMunicipal Boundary Line
Inter
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
Strea
m
Active
Farming
Industrial /
Warehousing
Active
Farming
Active
Farming
Active
Farming
Wetlands
(Under
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
)
Single
Family
ResidenceWoods
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-21-14Development Scenario 1Interstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 5Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
5
Legend Project SiteMunicipal Boundary Line
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-24-14Development Scenario 2Interstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 6Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
6
Legend Project SiteMunicipal Boundary Line
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-19-14
±Existing MLCCS Cover TypesInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 7Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
7
Legend
Upland soils - cropland
Altered/non-nativedeciduous forest
Non-native dominated long grasseswith 51-75% impervious cover
Short grasses and mixed treeswith 11-25% impervious coverNon-native dominated long grasseswith 26-50% impervious cover
Temporarily flooded altered/non-nativedominated grassland
WetlandUpland soils - cropland
Temporarily flooded altered/non-native dominated grassland
Short grasses andmixed trees with26-50% imperviouscover
CroplandGrasslandDeciduous Forest
WetlandDeveloped Land
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-19-14
±Proposed Cover Types: Scenario 1Interstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 8Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
8
Legend CroplandGrasslandLandscapingWetland
BuildingsTreatment PondsDeveloped Land
This figure will be updated by This figure will be updated by
the AUAR to show the east/west the AUAR to show the east/west
roadway aligned with 220th. roadway aligned with 220th.
This figure will be updated by
the AUAR to show the east/west
roadway aligned with 220th.
Sources: City of Lakeville, Eureka Township
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-6-14
FIGURE 10Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
0
Existing Land Use GuidanceInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
Legend
Proposed Study Area
City of Lakeville Eureka Township
411A
129
2B
252
252
2C
129
411A
129
Sources: MetroGIS, USDA
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-19-14
±SoilsInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 11Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
1
Legend Project SiteMunicipal Boundary Line
Sources: City of Lakeville, Eureka Township
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-6-14
FIGURE 12Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
2
Legend
Proposed Study Area
City of Lakeville Eureka Township
Planned Land Use GuidanceInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
Sources: MetroGIS, FEMA
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-7-14
±FloodplainInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 13Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
3
Legend Project Site
Sources: City of Lakeville
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
FIGURE 14Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
4
11-10-14
Proposed AUAR Study Area
±Sanitary Sewer PlanInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
Sources: City of Lakeville
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
FIGURE 15Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
5
11-10-14
Proposed AUAR Study Area ±Water Main PlanInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
Sources: MHAPO, LMIC
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
11-10-14
±Historic AerialsInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
FIGURE 16Interstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
F
I
G
U
R
E
1
6
Approximate AUAR Study Area Boundary
Legend
1937 1940 1957
1964 1997 2013
APPENDIX B
Appendix “B” contains the Well and Boring Records noted within the EAW.
Sources: MetroGIS, MnDOT
This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
12-22-14
±Nearby Well LocationsInterstate South Logistics ParkLakeville, MN
Appendix BInterstate South Logistics Park Scoping EAW
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
Legend Project Site
Municipal Boundary Line
424669
436492
180430
575406
191503
193306
119744 119667
Well Locations
APPENDIX C
Appendix “C” contains the official comments received during the 30-day comment period, and a
memorandum on how all comments were addressed within the scoping EAW.
Memorandum
DATE: Thursday, February 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Response to Scoping EAW Comments
ISSUE
The scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed Interstate South Logistics Park AUAR was
distributed for public comment on January 5th, 2015, and multiple comments were received by the Wednesday,
February 4th deadline. This memorandum highlights the various ways the comments were addressed by the final
scoping EAW. Please refer to the individual comment letters to view the noted concerns.
DNR COMMENTS
Item 8: “Public Utility License (if needed)” was added to the Currently Assumed Approvals Needed table in
question #8.
Item 11.a.i: Figure 4 was updated to show the intermittent stream north—and outside of—the study area.
Additionally, the DNR’s language on brown trout and the on-site watercourse were added to the Scoping EAW.
Item 11.b.iv.2: The additional guidance and design features for consideration were added to the Scoping EAW.
Item 13.d: Language from all four bullet points was integrated into the scoping EAW.
DAKOTA COUNTY COMMNENTS
CSAH 9 Comments: The conceptual Scenario 2 graphic will be updated to eliminate additional access points
onto CSAH 9 that do not meet County guidelines.
CSAH 70 Comments: The scoping EAW now acknowledges the potential need for ROW dedication along CSAH
70, and such will be acknowledged in the AUAR.
Environmental resources: Provided well information and mitigation measures were incorporated into question
11.a.ii.
Hazardous Materials: The county acknowledgement of no known hazardous materials on site was added to the
scoping EAW.
ROW Vacation Request
2/3/15
Page 2
Waste Sites and Generators: the existence of other waste sites and generators within ½ mile of the study area
is now acknowledged within the scoping EAW. Information on such sites will be incorporated into the future
AUAR.
Land Conservation: the waterway and the need for protective elements are already addressed in the current
scoping EAW; no changes were made in response to this comment.
MnDOT COMMENTS
Traffic Analysis: The need to include current operations, day of opening, and 20 year forcasts for build and no-
build scenarios was already acknowledged in the scoping EAW; no changes were made in response to this
comment.
SHPO COMMENTS
Historic Properties: The finding of no historic properties was already acknowledged by the draft scoping EAW;
no changes were made in response to this comment.
USACE COMMENTS
Wetlands: The scoping EAW was updated to simply state “The last known wetland delineation on the project
site was completed in 2006, so a new delineation is scheduled to be completed in conjunction with the AUAR
(preliminary information is currently under review by the US Army Corps of Engineers).”
VRWJPO COMMENTS
No comments provided at this time to address.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Ecological and Water Resources Division
Central Region Headquarters
1200 Warner Road, Saint Paul MN 55106
Telephone: (651) 259-5845
Fax: (651) 772-7977
February 4, 2015 Transmitted via Electronic Mail
Mr. Frank Dempsey
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
Dear Mr. Dempsey,
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Interstate South
Logistics Park Scoping EAW for AUAR and offers the following comments for your
consideration.
Item 8. Permits and Approvals
The Minnesota DNR Division of Lands & Minerals is responsible for granting permission to
companies that propose to cross public waters with utility infrastructure projects (such as
pipeline, electrical, and communications lines). If any activities associated with this project
require installation of utility lines crossing unnamed stream M-049-012 just north of the
project area, a public utility license will be required. Please see
http://dnr.state.mn.us/permits/utility_crossing/index.html.
Item 11.a.i. Water Resources-Surface water description
Unnamed stream M-049-012 just north of the project boundary is a tributary to the
Vermillion River. One mile downstream of the project this water body becomes a designated
trout stream. Wetlands on the south of the project area drain to Unnamed stream M-049-
012-001 one mile distant, also a designated trout stream and tributary to the Vermillion
River. This is one of two major tributaries of the Vermillion River system in which brown
trout naturally reproduce, with consistent recruitment, making it a very important fisheries
resource. These waters are supported by contributions from both surface and groundwater
inputs.
11.b.iv.2. Effects on other surface waters
As stated in the document, the waters described above occur in the South Creek Vermillion
River sub-watershed. Measures must be taken to protect the water quality and quantity
from the detrimental effects of changes in land use such as reduced flow, increased
sedimentation, and rising temperatures. We recommend incorporating urban design
features that minimize impervious surfaces and increase water infiltration. This will reduce
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929
sediment runoff and contribute to groundwater recharge. Following are specific
recommendations:
• Designs that provide larger pervious surface areas (allowing infiltration) rather than
larger stormwater ponding and retention areas (allowing evaporation and water
impoundment).
• Landscape designs that reduce the use of large scale irrigation. Example: green space
with native prairie plantings in place of mowed turf grasses.
• Where stormwater ponds are constructed, access waters for irrigation.
• Parking areas: incorporate infiltration swales instead of storm sewer connections.
• We recommend the widest possible buffers on wetland areas within the project
boundary to protect surface water quality by capturing nutrient and sediment inputs.
Item 13.d. Fish and wildlife
• We recommend not placing roadways near wetlands and ponds, as outlined in
Scenario 2, because of the potential for road mortality of non-game species that use
wetlands as habitat.
• If Scenario 2 is the preferred plan for the project, we recommend the use of chain-
link fences to deter wildlife passage onto the roadway. The base of such fencing
should be buried 12” to 16” below soil surface to prevent wildlife from passing
beneath the fence.
• We recommend the use of wildlife-friendly erosion control products. Traditional
erosion control mesh is known to cause injury and may be fatal to wildlife,
particularly reptiles and amphibians. In addition, these plastics are often mowed over
during maintenance, and can blow into created ponds and natural wetlands –
potentially impacting aquatic species.
• We recommend the use of native prairie plant species in landscaping and green
areas. Native plants are visually appealing to residents, and increase habitat for
native wildlife. Native plant resources can be found on the MnDNR Landscaping with
Native Plants website: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gardens/nativeplants/index.html
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Please contact me if you have
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Brooke Haworth
Brooke Haworth
Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central Region
MnDNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: Brooke.Haworth@state.mn.us
ERDB Reference 20150189
1
Benjamin Gozola, AICP
From:Thiel, Travis <Travis.Thiel@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US>
Sent:Wednesday, January 14, 2015 1:41 PM
To:Dempsey, Frank
Cc:Cafferty, McKenzie; Zabel, Mark
Subject:Interstate South Logistics Park EAW
Frank,
Based on our review of the EAW , the VRWJPO doesn’t have any concerns or comments at this time. If the project
moves forth, we’d appreciate being involved in the review of the proposed development plans as we have been with
other projects in your city.
Regards,
Travis Thiel
Watershed Specialist
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
Dakota County Environmental Resources Department
14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124
Phone: 952‐891‐7546 Fax: 952‐891‐7588
travis.thiel@co.dakota.mn.us
http://www.vermillionriverwatershed.org
http://www.dakotacounty.us
Memorandum
DATE: Thursday, February 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Response to Scoping EAW Comments
ISSUE
The scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed Interstate South Logistics Park AUAR was
distributed for public comment on January 5th, 2015, and multiple comments were received by the Wednesday,
February 4th deadline. This memorandum highlights the various ways the comments were addressed by the final
scoping EAW. Please refer to the individual comment letters to view the noted concerns.
DNR COMMENTS
Item 8: “Public Utility License (if needed)” was added to the Currently Assumed Approvals Needed table in
question #8.
Item 11.a.i: Figure 4 was updated to show the intermittent stream north—and outside of—the study area.
Additionally, the DNR’s language on brown trout and the on-site watercourse were added to the Scoping EAW.
Item 11.b.iv.2: The additional guidance and design features for consideration were added to the Scoping EAW.
Item 13.d: Language from all four bullet points was integrated into the scoping EAW.
DAKOTA COUNTY COMMNENTS
CSAH 9 Comments: The conceptual Scenario 2 graphic will be updated to eliminate additional access points
onto CSAH 9 that do not meet County guidelines.
CSAH 70 Comments: The scoping EAW now acknowledges the potential need for ROW dedication along CSAH
70, and such will be acknowledged in the AUAR.
Environmental resources: Provided well information and mitigation measures were incorporated into question
11.a.ii.
Hazardous Materials: The county acknowledgement of no known hazardous materials on site was added to the
scoping EAW.
ROW Vacation Request
2/3/15
Page 2
Waste Sites and Generators: the existence of other waste sites and generators within ½ mile of the study area
is now acknowledged within the scoping EAW. Information on such sites will be incorporated into the future
AUAR.
Land Conservation: the waterway and the need for protective elements are already addressed in the current
scoping EAW; no changes were made in response to this comment.
MnDOT COMMENTS
Traffic Analysis: The need to include current operations, day of opening, and 20 year forcasts for build and no-
build scenarios was already acknowledged in the scoping EAW; no changes were made in response to this
comment.
SHPO COMMENTS
Historic Properties: The finding of no historic properties was already acknowledged by the draft scoping EAW;
no changes were made in response to this comment.
USACE COMMENTS
Wetlands: The scoping EAW was updated to simply state “The last known wetland delineation on the project
site was completed in 2006, so a new delineation is scheduled to be completed in conjunction with the AUAR
(preliminary information is currently under review by the US Army Corps of Engineers).”
VRWJPO COMMENTS
No comments provided at this time to address.