ITEM 4.1 85th Street/EAWP
otsly.,: o
MINNESOTA V
DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
Request for
City Council Action
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
REQUESTOR: MEETING DATE:
Engineering
City Engineer Wagner 8 May 2017
PRESENTER(s)
REVIEWED BY: ITEM #:
City Engineer Wagner
City Planner Licht
City Administrator Flaherty 4.1-85 th Street EAW
City Planner Licht
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends the City Council hold and then close a public hearing to consider the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the 85th Street and MacIver Avenue project.
ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT?
IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED?
No
No
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION:
The City is proposing to construct 85th Street, from Nashua Avenue to one-half mile west of Mason Avenue,
and MacIver Avenue from 85th Street for one-half mile south to 80th Street. This two mile long collector
street is a new Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadway. The purpose of this project is to provide an east -west
collector street corridor through the City, consistent with the City's 2012 Transportation Plan. Abutting
property owners will be enabled to develop along the route, local residents will benefit from reduced
traffic on surrounding local roadways, and commuters will benefit from a safer and more direct route
across the City and to the new ISD 728 E-8 School.
City staff has prepared an EAW for the project as required by Minnesota Rules 4410.43, Subp. 22 for a
collector street project more than one -mile in length. The EAW is used as a guide in reviewing required
approvals for a project and coordinating the responsibilities of other of governmental units to avoid or
minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality. An EAW is not
to be used to justify a project, nor do potential negative environmental effects necessarily require that a
project be disapproved; the EAW process is not a build/no-build decision point.
EAWs are distributed to government agencies and published by the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) for a required 30 -day comment period. The comment period for the EAW begins on May 15,
2017 and ends on June 14, 2017. The EAW is also available on the City's website. Following the close of the
comment period, City staff will prepare responses to any comments that are received. The City Council will
subsequently consider the comments, responses, and make a decision as to whether the project has
potential for significant environmental effects warranting further study.
Minnesota Rules does not require the City to hold a public hearing regarding the EAW; the City may do so if
it believes such meeting is useful in gathering input. The City has voluntarily scheduled a public hearing to
consider the EAW to coincide with the 30 -day comment period. Comments made at the public hearing are
to address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW and potential impacts that
may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
• Public Hearing notification map
• EAW dated May 2, 2017.
POSSIBLE MOTION
PLEASE WORD MOTION AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR IN THE MINUTES:
No action is required at this time.
RIInC.FT INFORMATION
FUNDING:
BUDGETED:
Fund #403 —
Municipal State Aid Construction
Yes
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board's website at:
http://www.eab.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: 85"' Street Extension & MacIver Avenue Extension
2. Proposer:
Contact person: Ronald J. Wagner
Title: City Engineer
Address: 3601 Thurston Avenue
City, State, ZIP: Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763-427-5860
Fax: 763-427-0520
Email: ronw@haa-inc.com
4. Reason for EAW Preparation:
Required:
❑ EIS Scoping
M Mandatory EAW
3. RGU
Contact person: D. Daniel Licht, AICP
Title: City Planner/Zoning Administrator
Address: 13400 90"' Street
City, State, ZIP: Otsego, MN 55330
Phone: 763-441-4414
Fax: 763-441-8823
Email: ddl@planningeo.com
(check one)
Discretionary:
❑ Citizen petition
❑ RGU discretion
❑ Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): 4410.43
Subpart 22 —Highway Project
5. Project Location:
County: Wright
City/Township: Otsego
PLS Location ('/a,'/a, Section, Township, Range): S24, T121, R24; S19, T121, R23; S20, T121, R23
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River— St. Cloud (17)
GPS Coordinates: 45.2741, -93.6429
Tax Parcel Number: 118-265-001010, 118-265-001020, 118-295-000010, 118-295-000020, 118-500-
191101, 118-500-191102, 118-500-191207, 118-500-192300, 118-500-192400, 118-500-193100,
118-500-4101, 118-500-194200, 118-500-194201, 118-500-201302, 118-500-201305, 118 -500 -
page 1
201306, 118-500-202401, 118-500-202402, 118-500-203200, 118-500-203201, 118-500-204202,
118-800-241400
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and
• Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre -construction site plan and post -
construction site plan.
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
The City of Otsego (City) is proposing to construct 85t' Street, from Nashua Avenue to one-half
mile west of Mason Avenue, and MacIver Avenue from 85'11 Street for one-half mile south to 80t11
Street. This two mile long collector street is a new Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadway and is
included in the City's 2012 Transportation Plan.
Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Background
The City has adopted an overall Transportation Plan. The City's Transportation Plan is consistent
with the Wright County Northeast Transportation Study. A project to extend 85t11 Street from
Nashua Avenue to Mason Avenue was originally proposed in 2011 but was never constructed.
The new project adds approximately 1 mile of road to the original proposed 85t1' Street project to
extend 85t' Street to MacIver Avenue and construct MacIver Avenue from 85'h Street to 80`11
Street. Eventually, 85t11 Street will provide an east -west collector system by connecting County
State Aid Highway 42 (CSAH 42) and County State Aid Highway 19 (CSAH 19). MacIver
Avenue will eventually provide a north -south collector system between County Road 137 (CR
137) and CSAH 39.
Proposed Project
This two miles of new roadway is designed as a residential major collector street, which includes
two 12 -foot driving lanes and two 8 -foot shoulders. The entire roadway is an urban section with
curb and gutter and a 10 -foot bike path south and east of the roadway. The roadway will meet or
exceed State Aid standards for a 55 mile per hour design speed. Due to the spacing of existing
homes, initially the roadway will be posted with a 55 mph speed per Minnesota Statue 169.14.
The speed limit will be reduced as the property adjacent to the roadway is built up with visible
dwelling houses.
This is an extension of the existing 85'h Street east of Nashua Avenue and the existing Maciver
Avenue north of 80t11 Street. The proposed roadway location is based on the spacing of major
page 2
collector and arterial routes established by the City's 2012 Transportation Plan. The proposed
alignment has been established so that no existing homes need to be taken, severing of existing
property is minimized, wetland avoidance is maximized and impacts are minimized.
Construction methods will include the use of heavy equipment for earthwork, storm sewer
installation, aggregate base, and paving operations. Improvements will be accomplished using
typical construction practices and materials, under the supervision of the City Engineer.
Dewatering of groundwater for construction may be necessary in deeper excavations. The
geotechnical report indicates the groundwater level to be 3-11 feet below the ground surface in 7
of the 22 borings.
Grading of the roadway will likely result in a large excess of dirt which the contractor will be
responsible for hauling and disposing of offsite. Roadway base and paving materials will be
imported to the site from local pits. Concrete materials and bituminous pavement will ultimately
be brought to the site from existing suppliers.
Stormwater generated from the project will be conveyed by storm sewer to proposed
sedimentation basins prior to release into natural water bodies. Erosion control measures will be
provided as required by the City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SVWPPP) and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. Erosion control measures may
include silt fence, rock entrances, catch basin protection, erosion control blanket, seeding, and
mulch.
Construction access to the project will be provided by Nashua Avenue from the east and MacIver
Avenue and 80fl' Street from the west. Construction traffic will be prohibited access to the site via
Mason Avenue.
c. Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage
29.60 acres
Linear project length
11,436 feet
Number and type of residential units
N/A
Commercial building area in square feet
N/A
Industrial building area in square feet
N/A
Institutional building area insquare feet)
N/A
Other uses — specify insquare feet
N/A
Structure height(s)
N/A
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the
need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of this project is to provide an east -west collector street corridor through the City,
consistent with the City's 2012 Transportation Plan. The beneficiaries of the project are the
current and future commuters, residents, and landowners in the City; abutting property owners
will be enabled to develop along the route. Local residents will benefit from reduced traffic on
page 3
surrounding local roadways, and commuters will benefit from a safer and more direct route across
the City and to the new school(s).
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? [F]Yes 0 No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
Per the City's 2012 Transportation Plan, 85`x' Street is planned to extend westerly for an additional
two miles in the future. This will most likely be completed in 2 segments. One from MacIver
Avenue to CSAH 19 another from CSAH 19 to Kadler Avenue. Both projects will be developer
driven and anticipated by City staff to be at least 10 years in the future. Environmental reviews
will be conducted for future projects as required.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 11 Yes 0 No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including
bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. 411 of these final decisions are
prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of government Type of application Status
13p
City of Otsego
MnDOT — State Aid
MnDOT — State Aid
MnDNR
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) - General Stormwater
Construction Permit
Wetland Conservation Act Permit
State Aid Plan Review
State Aid Funding
Public Waters Permit
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
page 4
Before
After
Before
After
Wetlands
2.9
0
Lawn/landscaping Lawn/landscaping
1
9.5
Deep
water/streams
0.1
0.1
Impervious
surface
0.4
13.6
Wooded/forest
1.5
0
Stormwater Pond
0
6.4
Brush/Grassland
0
0
Other describe
0
0
Cropland
23.7
0
TOTAL
29.6
29.6
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including
bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. 411 of these final decisions are
prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of government Type of application Status
13p
City of Otsego
MnDOT — State Aid
MnDOT — State Aid
MnDNR
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) - General Stormwater
Construction Permit
Wetland Conservation Act Permit
State Aid Plan Review
State Aid Funding
Public Waters Permit
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
To Be Obtained
page 4
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water 404 Permit To Be Obtained
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested
in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands.
Existing land use within the project area is rural in character consisting of cultivated fields,
pasture, active farmsteads, and rural residential dwellings. The City's Prairie Park is
approximately one-quarter mile north of the 85"' Street segment of the project. The ISD 728
elementary school currently under construction abuts the east side of the MaeIver Avenue
segment of the project and one-quarter mile of the 851x' Street segment.
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 2012 Comprehensive Plan guides the area for low density residential uses at less than
three dwelling units per acre served by sanitary sewer and water utilities as part of the
planned W2 expansion area of the City's west sewer district.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The area is zoned agricultural consistent with the interim land use policies established by
the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, except for the ISD 728 elementary school that is zoned for
institutional uses. Rezoning to allow a more intensive land use as guided by the Future
Land Use Plan will only be approved upon receipt of a development application to be
served by municipal sanitary sewer and water utilities and compliant with the performance
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Engineering Manual.
Portions of the project area are within the Shoreland Overlay District of Otsego Creek near
Mason Avenue and a designated natural environment lake near Nashua Avenue;
construction of the project within the Shoreland Overlay district is subject to the
requirements of Section 20-92-1 LE and F of the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Discuss the project's compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
page 5
The project will not present compatibility issues for existing land uses in the area, which are
expected to continue until such time as sanitary sewer and water utilities are extended and a
development application is initiated by the property owner(s). Development of new land uses as
guided by the Comprehensive Plan requires the project to be completed to provide necessary
collector street access to accommodate traffic that would be generated. Potential environmental
effects of the project for fixture land uses would be limited to traffic noise.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility
as discussed in Item 9b above.
The Zoning Ordinance includes residential buffer yard requirements for increased setbacks and
minimum landscape plantings for yards abutting collector streets to mitigate potential noise
effects from traffic.
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
The surfrcial geology of the project area consists of till (Hobbs, 2013). The bedrock of this area is
Upper Cambrian, Tunnel City Group overlain by 50 to 200 feet of unconsolidated Quaternary
sediments, and no major fault lines are present (Steenberg and Chandler, 2013). No susceptible
geologic features are present.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction
to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures.
Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to
Item l l.b.ii.
The project traverses across the following Wright County soils:
106C2 — Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded, well -drained, available water to
a depth of 60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
106D2 — Lester loam, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded, well drained, available water to
a depth of 60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
106E — Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes, well drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches
is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
114 — Glencoe clay loam, 0 to I percent slopes, very poorly drained, available water to a depth of
60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is low
page 6
239 — Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, somewhat poorly drained, available water to a depth
of 60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
260 — Duelm loam sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, moderately well drained, available water to a depth
of 60 inches is low, water movement in most restrictive layer is high
261 — Isan -Isan, frequently ponded, complex, sandy alluvium parent material, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, poorly to very poorly drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is low, water
movement in most restrictive layer is high
956 — Canisteo-Glencoe complex, fine loamy till parent material, 0 to 2 percent slopes, poorly to
very poorly drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is high, water movement in most
restrictive layer is moderately high
1094B — Angus -Cordova complex, till parent material, 0 to 5 percent slopes, poorly to well
drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive
layer is moderately high
1156 — Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, poorly drained, available water to a depth of 60
inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
1163 — Suckercreek loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, very poorly drained, available water to a depth of
60 inches is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is high
1362B — Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, well drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches
is high, water movement in most restrictive layer is moderately high
1438B — Braham loamy fine sand, moderately wet, 2 to 5 percent slopes, moderately well
drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, water movement in most
restrictive layer is moderately high
D62A — Hubbard-Mosford complex, sandy alluvium parent material, Mississippi River Valley, 0
to 3 percent slopes, excessively drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is low, water
movement in most restrictive layer is high
D67B — Hubbard loamy sand, Mississippi River Valley, 2 to 6 percent slopes, excessively
drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is low, water movement in most restrictive
layer is high
D67C — Hubbard loamy sand, Mississippi River Valley, 6 to 12 percent slopes, excessively
drained, available water to a depth of 60 inches is low, water movement in most restrictive
layer is high
All soils listed above have a greater than 60 inches depth to a root restrictive layer. Groundwater
contamination is not anticipated to be an issue. Nearby wells (429177, 506592, 531383, and
561532) generally show a confining clay layer 40 to 150 feet deep.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the
potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased
risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water
resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology,
soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
page 7
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
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.
The project proposes to cross Otsego Creek, which is a Mississippi River tributary, and may
impact a small portion of DNR wetland 86033200W. According to the National Wetland
Inventory update, the project will cross through or adjacent to six wetlands, which include the
following types: PEM1Af, PEMIA, PEM1Ad, PEM1A, PEM IC (DNR wetland), and
PFO1/EM I C. The closest impaired water is the Mississippi River, which is over a mile away.
ii. Groundwater — aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,
including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or
nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
The geotecluiical report indicates the groundwater level to be 3-11 feet below the ground
surface in 7 of the 22 borings.
According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the major aquifer
underlying this area is Mount Simon -Hinckley Aquifer in the Precambrian bedrock.
Approximately three miles southeast of the project, there is an aquifer monitoring well
(#724631) that monitors the Wonewoc-Eau Claire aquifer in the Paleozoic bedrock, which
has a water table approximately 35 to 40 feet below the surface. Additionally, the Minnesota
Well Index shows several wells adjacent to the project (429177, 506592, 531383, and
561532) that are drilled to depths between 73 and 205 feet below the surface, and they all
have approximately 40 to 150 feet of confining clay layer.
The south portion of the proposed street on the west side (MacIver Avenue segment) crosses
a drinking water supply management area with a low vulnerability rating.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate
the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
page 8
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
N/A
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.
N/A
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.
N/A
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.
Existing water quality is typical of a rural agricultural setting. Post -construction
stormwater from the proposed streets will be collected by curb, gutter, and storm sewer
and conveyed by storm sewer to proposed sedimentation/treatment basins prior to release
into natural water bodies. These natural water bodies include Otsego Creek, DNR
wetland 86-4W, and the City's wetland W-17. These two wetlands eventually drain to
Otsego Creels, which outlets to the Mississippi River. The storm water basins will
generally be located in low points along the roadway and will be placed outside the right-
of-way on purchased easements.
All stormwater basins and treatment will be designed in accordance with the City's MS4
permit and the NPDES General Construction permit and will provide rate control and
water quality treatment. The post -construction stormwater discharge rate will be equal to
or less than the pre -construction discharge rate. The geotechnical report indicates the
soils are typically ASTM Classification CL -ML or CL which are hydraulic type D soils
and infiltration is not allowed. One exception is a City owned property approximately
half way between Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue and 1,000 feet north of the
proposed roadway. The soil boring in this area depict hydraulic Type A/B soils with
ground water 10 feet below the ground surface. This area will be utilized to construct an
infiltration basin to infiltrate a portion of the stormwater runoff from 85"' Street between
Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue.
page 9
A separate SWPPP will be prepared for the project prior to constriction. The SWPPP
will include many various erosion and sediment control BMPs including construction
staging, temporary sedimentation basins/ditches, vegetation buffers, rapid stabilization
methods, silt fence, rock entrances, floating silt curtain, and inlet protection. Slopes
steeper. Others BMPs during construction.
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 geoteclmical report indicates the soils are typically ASTM Classification CL -ML or
CL which are Hydraulic Type D soils and infiltration is not allowed. with the exception
of a proposed large storm to be constructed on City owned property approximately half
way between Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue and 1,000 feet north of the proposed
roadway. Stormwater runoff from 850' Street between Mason Avenue and Nashua
Avenue will be conveyed to by storm sewer to the basin. The soil boring in this area
depicts hydraulic Type A/B soils with ground water 10 feet below the ground surface.
Dewatering of groundwater is not anticipated, but if it is necessary for roadway
construction, no long-term groundwater impact is expected.
If dewatering of groundwater is necessary during construction, dewatering will be
directed to sedimentation basins before it is discharged off-site. Adjacent homes have
individual wells and are not expected to be affected by the project.
iv. Surface Waters
a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features
such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal.
Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of
wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may
have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives
that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands.
Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable
wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those
probable locations.
Several possible wetlands are proposed to be filled. An approved wetland delineation
is needed to confirm the presence and extent of wetlands in the project area.
However, wetlands on the east side of the project are designated as natural
environment lakes; placement of streets within the Shoreland Overlay District is
subject to Section 20-92-1 LF of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
page 10
Wetland impacts will be mitigated by purchasing wetland credits, which will be
reviewed and approved by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP includes
the City of Otsego, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and the
Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). Siting of wetland
replacement credits are required to follow this priority order: same watershed, same
county, same wetland bank service area. Available wetland bank credits show a lack
of credits in the same watershed as the project (Mississippi River — St. Cloud), but
there are possible options for credits in same county (Wright County) in the North
Fork Crow watershed.
b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss
direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water
features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are
proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the
water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft
on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
The project will cross Otsego Creek, which is a Mississippi River tributary. The
proposed street will include two culverts, one 72 -inch and one 36 -inch pipe. During
the culvert installation, a floating silt fence will be used, and the creek will be
temporarily diverted. A cable concrete mat will be installed as well. The creek
crossing will be completed as quickly as possible and restored immediately.
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.
N/A
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.
Mixed municipal waste will be produced during construction, which will be collected by licensed
haulers and deposited at a permitted facility.
page 11
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.
Fueling trucks will be used as needed. No fuel will be stored on-site. If the contractor plans to
store any hazardous materials on site, they shall be under cover, protected from vandalism, and on
spill proof containers with secondary containment.
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.
Construction machinery will be on-site for all phases of this project. Equipment will be
maintained by the contractor, along with fueling operations and cleaning up any spills that may
occur. The City does have a spill response plan in place if necessary.
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.
Much of the habitat consists of agricultural fields with some wetlands present. Wildlife species
known to frequent the project area include waterfowl, white tailed deer, and songbirds.
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.
Information regarding rare species and other significant natural features has been received from
the DNR Division of Ecological & Water Resources (#ERBD 20170355). A copy of the DNR
response is attached. A rare turtle, known as the Blandings Turtle, has been documented within
one mile of the project area. Since the turtles are capable of moving from site to site, they may
encounter vehicular hazards from traffic utilizing the new roadway. No additional habitat or
species survey work has been conducted at this time.
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.
page 12
As with all types of improvements on vacant lands, some wildlife habitat will be lost. The removal of
agricultural lands from production reduces both habitat and food sources. Effects will be caused by
both the loss of habitat and the presence of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. Trees and wetlands
will be preserved to the maximum extent possible; however, with the exception of the DNR
designated Natural Environment Lake at the east end of the project, most trees and wetlands within
the right-of-way will be removed.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Street widths are only meeting the minimums set by City and State Aid standards for this type of
roadway. Silt fences will be installed prior to construction to protect turtles fi•om entering the job
site during construction. As much natural landscape as possible will be preserved to protect
nesting habitat. Wetland impacts, especially bisecting wetlands, will be avoided and minimized as
much as possible during design by revising horizontal alignment and matching existing
topography as close as possible in wetland areas. It is proposed that any culverts between
wetlands or stream crossings will be a minimum of 36 inch or greater (a 72 in pipe and 36 in pipe
will be used at Otsego Creek crossing). Additionally, if erosion control blanket/mesh is necessary
near wetland and water features, wildlife friendly "Natural Netting" erosion control blanket will
be used.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
A letter dated March 16, 2017 from the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office has indicated that
"there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of historic Places, and no Known or
suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project."
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.
N/A
page 13
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including
any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of
any methods used assess the project's effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.
Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
The project will not generate stationary source air emissions.
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.
Vehicle emissions associated with the project will not have a significant effect on air quality.
Residential and other development enabled by the construction of 85`1' Street may result in
measurable but not significant impacts.
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.
Dust from construction will follow watering requirements per the City Engineering Manual.
Enforcement of these regulation will be provided by an on-site construction observer.
Odor from diesel trucks will be minimal.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project
construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1)
existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise
standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the
effects of noise.
Construction noise will be controlled by hours of operation unposed as part of the City Engineering
Manual. Enforcement of these regulation will be provided by an on-site construction observer. Noise
generated by operation of the street will be typical traffic sounds common to the area that will not
cause a negative effect to surrounding uses.
page 14
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.
There are no existing or proposed parking spaces along this project. No transit or other
alternative transportation modes existing in this area and are not anticipated.
Construction of 85'h Street and MacIver Avenue will not generate new traffic except during
construction. Construction traffic will be directed to enter the construction site at only the east
and west ends whenever possible.
Minimal traffic information is available in this area; however, MnDOT has indicated that 85°i
Street has 1,300 average annual daily traffic (AADT) east of the project location. Nashua Avenue
has 800 AADT north of 85'h Street and 280 AADT south of 85"' Street. Traffic congestion is not
an issue with adjacent roadways.
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 EA W. Use the format and procedures
described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual, Chapter
5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagementlresources.html) or a similar local
guidance,
No new traffic will be generated with the construction of 85d' Street and MacIver Avenue,
however it will cause a redistribution of existing traffic.
Existing traffic within this area is currently using Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue to travel
north and south. The nearest east and west roadways are 80`h Street/83`d Street, which is '/4 mile to
the south is a partially gravel surface and has tight (<20 mph) corners in two locations. The other
east and west option is CSAH 39, which is 1-t/4 miles to the north.
Future traffic in the project area will likely increase with future residential and commercial
developments. The local school district has recently built an E-8 grade school in the northeast
quadrant of 80'h Street and MacIver Avenue. The district has also discussed locating a middle
school in the area of the grade school as well.
c. Identify measures that will betaken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
During construction, construction traffic will use local roads. Materials will be will be directed to enter
the construction site at only the east and west ends whenever possible to minimize an additional traffic
along Mason Avenue and other substandard neighboring streets
page 15
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
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.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
The construction of 85'x' Street and MacIver Avenue are included in the City of Otsego 2012
Transportation Plan as a major residential collector street with a possible future parkway design.
MnDOT will designate this roadway as a rural collector. The purpose of this new roadway
aligmnent is to provide a more efficient east -west collector street corridor through the center of
the City.
Providing an east -west collector street corridor through the center of the City will promote
commercial and residential development along with improving efficiency and safety for the
traveling public. Current traffic is required to travel north to CSAH 39 or south to CSAH 38,
unless the driver chooses to take local streets, some of which are gravel surfaced and receive a
lower level of maintenance.
Full development of the planned urbanized areas of the City as guided by the City's 2012
Comprehensive Plan will result in the permanent displacement of some wildlife habitat.
Surrounding rural property and wetland areas will continue to exist as sanctuary. Full
development should not result in traffic congestion due to proactive planning measure on behalf
of the City and Wright County. Air quality issues should not arise from this roadway
construction. Water quality issues will be addressed by the use of sedimentation and detention
ponds to ensure proper discharge at existing rates.
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.
page 16
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for.pithlic notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or
phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature Date
77
Title City Planner/Zoning Admmistrator
page 17
I
1
z
5W
nTFF
/117
W ..I.
3nN3�V vnHSVV
O
a
W
w-
Lj 13nN3AV INOSV'W
W
CO
W
W
W
3n 30 X
I J
wn
E
Lioz 'ot wd
O
z-
E LO
M
in
� I
W
Q 3N 3AV NOSVWLU
CD
056
/%A
\
��.
:I �i�1�
�� 3N.AA
`-- 3
V32N3H�VW
3AV.H3AI9VW�.�
4
cn
® 1
j
S
� o
n
� Q
0
1
°
i•
00
�
•
I 3N 3AV xnvgov
I
iQ
O
9
Q
ONV77VN
I
oP=
R PKWY
110
�I
-
056 . A. \,
O
3N 3AV 83160
z
—\3N3AV:8370VN
1
�jV,o
1f1
I
/IT
_ D
J
ul
o
_
�� •ai
41
i �I Y
ff t
(� �
3N 3AVN397vf�
a.
-1
j
asO��1Vlississ ? t� _
O
c� Q coO
✓ w o - 3N 3AV AV4Vllb
LO CD
N
x 41
3N,3AV HSNINVd q ON 83AIN 3N N \ \ yl 11 til
( H
. gKIN(�t M fpui� w n
ARK AVE NE G x
c � ^ R
Q q� H 3N 3AV 773HVd
x - u)
-4-
3N W7Vd v
3AV,39Vd /
i 3N 3AV 39Vd 3AV 39Vd 3N;m
a /
OHLAND AVE NLO
O
3N 3AV UNVN3 d
0 -� O _ \ M
I O 3N 3AVN00 z15
I tin
3N:3AV.M300
0
w
LL
N
co
ki CIO
LID
950
Me
o= '� 3N MV NV(INB,o
Ns v 00> I
1 31q'3AV OOOMM 0 d
'^
WVH03 N
V
0 O
I - ro ,, !I i o � o• �oo� O
t
E^' 4A
ooe ly.
W — 1�1N9 y ry
L O
3 oxy VnH
`VNII
LU Al CY V
i s/ a
Oca
4-1 cr
O �6
a
1
�tN 51,N pBER AV.E,NE m d <
n
LO
O pW n M
w
� to
lA
d'
S r ?
ldh O
r
I
rA
z co
W O
ON
r y
I,
�[ Ln
�r