ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm . The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor . Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: North Shore Camping Co.
2. Proposer: 3. RGU Leisure Hotels and Resorts City of Beaver Bay Contact person: Jamie C. Tatge Contact person: Tim Anderson Title: President/COO Title: City Administrator Address: 14275 Golf Course Drive, Ste 140 Address: 711 MacDonald Ave, PO Box 446 City, State, ZIP: Baxter, MN 56425 City, State, ZIP: Beaver Bay, MN 55601 Phone: 218.454.7271 Phone: 218.226.3251 Fax: Fax:
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: Discretionary: EIS Scoping Citizen petition Mandatory EAW RGU discretion Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): MN Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 20a Resorts, campgrounds, and RV parks in shorelands. 5. Project Location: County: Lake City/Township: City of Beaver Bay & Beaver Bay Township PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Sec. 14, T55N, R8W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Lake Superior - South (2) GPS Coordinates: 47.250069, -91.314590 Tax Parcel Number: 21-7200-14130, 21-7200-14140, 21-7200-14430, 21-7200-14490, 21-7200-14510, & 26-5508-14370
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; (Appendix A – Figure 1) • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); (Appendix A – Figure 2) • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. (Exhibit A)
page 1 6. Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor , (approximately 50 words).
Leisure Hotels and Resorts is proposing construction of a new campground site located at 4595 Highway 61 in the City of Beaver Bay and Beaver Bay Township, Lake County, Minnesota. The project will include the construction of camping sites, staff housing, recreation area, and bike trail.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Leisure Hotels and Resorts is proposing construction of a new campground site located at 4595 Highway 61 in the City of Beaver Bay and Beaver Bay Township, Lake County, Minnesota. The project will include the construction of 49 camping sites, 3 staff park homes, bath house, maintenance shed, 2 rustic latrines, septic fields, recreation area, bike trail, granite paths, gravel parking areas, and drilling two water supply wells.
Camping sites will include gravel surfaced areas around elevated semi-permanent framed tent structures or camper/cabins. An existing residential home will be converted to a future check-in and convenience store. The bath house will include indoor gathering space, lockers, showers, bathrooms, and laundry. The recreation area will include outdoor green space for shuffleboard, horseshoes, lawn games, hot tub, etc.
c. Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage 106.19 Linear project length N/A Number and type of residential units 3 Staff Park Homes 49 Camp Sites Commercial building area (in square feet) 7,060 sf (bath house, chec k-in/c -store) Industrial building area (in square feet) 0 Institutional building area (in square feet) 0 Other uses – specify (in square feet) 0 Structure height(s) 23’
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 create new camping opportunities along the north shore where demand is high for recreational activity and tourist lodging. This project is not being carried out by a governmental unit.
page 2 e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review.
N/A
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
N/A
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
Before After Before After
Wetlands 6. 22 6. 20 Lawn/landscaping 1.86 2.0 7 Deep Impervious 0.00 0.00 1.66 4.89 water/streams surface Wooded/forest 93. 92 90. 66 Stormwater Pond 0.00 0.00 Brush/Grassland 2. 53 2. 37 Other (describe) 0.00 0.00 Cropland 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 106.19 106.19
Existing land cover can be seen in Appendix A – Figure 3. Proposed land cover can be seen in Appendix A – Figure 4.
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of government Type of application Status Minnesota Pollution Control NPDES Construction To be Submitted Agency (MPCA) Stormwater Permit Wetland Conservation Act - Submitted and approved Wetland Delineation Wetland Conservation Act - To be Submitted (if needed) Lake County Wetland Replacement Plan Conditional Use Permit Submitted Septic Sy stem Permit To be Submitted Land Use Permit To be Submitted City of Beaver Bay Conditional Use Permit To be Submitted Minnesota Well Registration To be Submitted
page 3 Unit of government Type of application Status Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Department of Water Appropriations To be Submitted (if needed) Natural Resources (MDNR)
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use: a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
Existing land use of the site consists primarily of forested areas with one single family residence, a fenced in MnDOT ARMER tower, a gravel roadway, a mountain bike trail, and areas of manicured lawn and grassland. Existing land cover on site can be seen in Appendix A – Figure 3. Adjacent land consists primarily of forested areas with some residential development to the southeast.
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 North Shore Camping site is zoned as commercial within the portion of the site that lies within the city limits of Beaver Bay and is zoned R-2 Residential within the portion within Lake County. The Lake County Comprehensive Plan (June 23, 2017) defined the purpose of R-2 land as “This district provides for single-family residences without commercial livestock activities and at a smaller lot size than the R-1 District.”
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The North Shore Camping site is zoned as commercial within the portion of the site that lies within the city limits of Beaver Bay and is zoned R-2 Residential within the portion within Lake County. The site is not located in a wild and scenic river segment, critical area, agricultural preserve, or airport safety zone. Part of the Project site is located within the North Shore Management Zone. The Project site is located within an area that is unmapped for FEMA floodplains.
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 4 There are no identified conflicts between the proposed project and nearby land uses or other local or regional plans. There are no zoning conflicts for proposed land use.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be filed with Lake County to mitigate the zoning conflicts located on site. A CUP will be required to allow for a campground within a residential zoning district.
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.
Minnesota Geological Survey data within the Project site lists the bedrock as Gabbro, ferrogabbro, and gabbronorite with depths ranging from approximately 0 to 100 feet. There are no known or mapped sinkholes, shallow limestone, shallow aquifers, or karst features identified within or near the project area.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
NRCS soil classifications with the Project Site and are illustrated on Appendix A – Figure 5, soils unit characteristics are provided in the following table.
Map Slopes Hydrologic Hydric Farmland Soil Unit Name HEL* Symbol (%) Group** Rating*** Classification Quetico, stony- Not prime A1-11D Barto, stony-Rock 15-35 HEL D Non-Hydric farmland outcrop complex Mesaba, stony- Not prime A1-20C Greysolon-Rock 2-15 PHEL B Non-Hydric farmland outcrop complex Barto, stony- Predominately Not prime A1-30D Greysolon-Rock 0-18 PHEL D Non-Hydric farmland outcrop complex Mesaba, stony- Predominately Not prime A2-30D 0-18 PHEL B Giese, rubbly -Barto, Non -Hydric farmland
page 5 Map Slopes Hydrologic Hydric Farmland Soil Unit Name HEL* Symbol (%) Group** Rating*** Classification stony complex
Augustanna, moderately deep- Hegberg, Not prime B2-20C 1-15 PHEL C Non-Hydric moderately deep- farmland Rock outcrop complex Hegberg, moderately deep- Partially Not prime B3-40B 0-8 NHEL C/D Eldes, moderately Hydric farmland deep complex Quetico, stony-Rock outcrop- Predominately Not prime E1-12F Fluvaquents, 0-50 HEL D Non-Hydric farmland frequently flooded complex Forbay-Udifluvents, frequently flooded- Predominately Not prime E1-20E 1-70 HEL B Rock outcrop Non-Hydric farmland complex *Highly Erodible Land **Infiltration Rate ***Hydric Rating HEL: Highly Erodible Land A: >0.30 in/hr Hydric: 100% Hydric Predominately Hydric: PHEL: Potentially Highly Erodible Land B: 0.15-0.30 in/hr ≥ 67% & <100% Hydric Partially Hydric: NHEL: Not Highly Erodible Land C: 0.05-0.15 ins/hr ≥ 33% & <67% Hydric Predominately Non-Hydric: D: <0.05 in/hr ≤ 1% and <33% Hydric Not Hydric: 0% Hydric
The entire project area is mapped as Not prime farmland. No farmland will be taken out of production as a result of the project as there is currently no land within the Project site that is cultivated for agricultural production.
The erosion capabilities of the soils are susceptible as described by the NRCS Soil Erodibility (Kw) Factor rating which ranges from 0.15 and 0.37. Construction activities will temporarily expose soils to an increased risk of erosion from wind and precipitation. Appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be selected based on current site conditions and maintained through the duration of each construction phase to reduce the potential of sedimentation occurring to surface water resources or migrating offsite. Temporary BMPs will be inspected and maintained (per the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit) until permanent vegetation and stabilization has occurred. Permanent BMPs will be incorporated into project design to minimize erosion during routine operational activities (post-construction).
Topography of the Project site, collected via LiDAR, is illustrated on Appendix A – Figure 6. Site elevations were shown ranging from 714 to 1,018 with higher elevations within the western half
page 6 of the site. Site topography slopes downward towards southeastern edge of the project area. Steep slopes (12% or greater) are present throughout the site.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
11. Water resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
There are no DNR Public Waters Watercourses, lakes, designated wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting areas, trout streams/lakes, MPCA or MDNR listed calcareous fens, outstanding resource value waters, and county or jurisdictional ditches within the Project site.
There were two prominent water features located within 1 mile of the project site. These included Lake Superior, located approximately 0.15 miles southeast of the Project site, and the Beaver River, located approximately 0.85 miles northwest of the Project site. The Beaver River is a DNR Public Waters watercourse and a designated trout stream. Lake Superior is a DNR Public Waters basin. Both features were listed as Section 303d listed impaired waters. The Beaver River was listed for Fish Bioassessments, Mercury in water column (Hg-W), pH, and Turbidity (T). Lake Superior was listed for Mercury in fish tissue (Hg-F), and PCB in fish tissue (PCB-F).
Six wetland areas, totaling approximately 6.3 acres were delineated on the Project site and approved by the Local Government Unit (Lake County) of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (Minnesota Rules 8420). A Notice of Decision was issued on July 26, 2021 (LGU Project No. W-21-011).
Water resources located within or adjacent to the Project site are illustrated on Appendix A – Figure 7.
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.
1) The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring Website maintains data on ground water levels. The closest observation well to the project location is DNR Observation Well #38014 (MDH #270186), which is located
page 7 approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project site. Water levels in the most recent data record (November 8, 2020) were measured at 614.02 ft. MSL.
2) The Project site is not located within a Wellhead Protection Area.
3) According to the Minnesota Department of Health – County Well Index Online, there are no identified wells located within the project area. The closest well, MDH #451676, is located approximately 2,590 feet northeast of the Project site. b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.
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.
Wastewater from the site will be discharged into constructed septic fields. Rates used for planning purposes were based on 4 people per unit with a max of 200 people per day which equates to approximately 4,000 gallons per day.
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.
page 8 The quality of stormwater runoff from the project will be typical of forested land. Stormwater runoff flow from upland areas to lower elevations on site as sheet flow where it will ultimately be conveyed into the State Highway 61 roadside ditch.
Temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will initially be installed (per the project’s SWPPP), maintained/repaired, and amended throughout the construction phases as required to remain compliant with the applicant’s NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. Temporary BMPs may include (but are not limited to) silt fence, bio-rolls/filter logs, rock construction entrances, mulch/hydro mulch, and permanent native seeding or turf seeding in appropriate areas. 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.
Three new wells are proposed to be installed as part of the project. In addition, water holding tanks will also be installed within the bath house to maintain water pressure.
Short-term temporary construction dewatering of surface or ground waters may be required at the time of construction (depending on current field conditions) to facilitate construction activities. If dewatering is anticipated to exceed 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year, the contractor will be required to obtain a Water Appropriations Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Division of Waters prior to initiating such activities. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the environmental effects from construction related to dewatering are unknown at this time, and therefore will be determined when developing the dewatering plan as required by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan amendment of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit.
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.
Six wetland areas, totaling approximately 6.3 acres were delineated on the Project site and approved by the Local Government Unit (Lake County) of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (Minnesota Rules 8420). A Notice of Decision was issued
page 9 on July 26, 2021 (LGU Project No. W-21-011). Wetland impacts were avoided to the extent possible during the preliminary design phase of the overall site plan (Exhibit A). Unavoidable impacts as a result of roadway improvements may occur after the design is finalized due to the location of the wetlands in close proximity to the existing road/driveway. The final design will attempt to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the extent possible. Should unavoidable impacts remain, the proper permitting processes will be followed in accordance with the WCA and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as applicable. Depending on the size of impact and other factors, this process could involve applying for a no-loss, exemption, or replacement plan potentially requiring compensatory mitigation.
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.
Natural surface waterways, lakes, streams, intermittent channels, and county/jurisdictional ditches will not be physically or indirectly altered during the construction or operation of the proposed project.
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.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) records do not indicate any current or former contamination sites within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The MPCA’s What’s In My Neighborhood database of known sites within proximity of the project area is illustrated on Appendix A – Figure 8. There were two documented petroleum leaks within one-half mile of the Project site.
The project proposer anticipates a minimal risk of encountering contaminated materials or groundwater during construction based on the lack of past land uses and due to geographic location of the listed leak sites in relation to the project area. Project construction and operation is not expected to cause or exacerbate a pre-project contaminated condition(s); therefore, no measures are planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards.
page 10 If potentially contaminated materials (or other environmental hazards) are discovered during construction activities, the project proposer/contractor will immediately cease activities in the area, then take appropriate and reasonable actions to contain and reduce the human health/environmental risk prior to contacting the State of Minnesota Duty Officer, Lake County, and project proposer’s representative. The development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan will be initiated if analytical results characterize the discovered materials as a regulated contaminated waste. 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.
Solid and liquid wastes generated from construction materials and equipment are expected in minimal amounts during periods of active construction. Wastes may include sediment laden construction dewatering. The contractor will be required to immediately haul offsite and/or temporarily store and dispose (or recycle) of all waste in accordance with MPCA regulations and the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit.
Minimal amounts of solid wastes will be generated during operation; however, recycling and trash receptacles will be provided at the site. Human waste during operations will be managed by constructed septic fields and rustic latrines.
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.
Hazardous materials (portable fuel tanks and lubricants) may be used for equipment operations and temporarily placed onsite in sealed containers (at all times) and under secured restricted access during non-working hours. These materials will only be used during active construction for refueling and maintenance of construction equipment. To ensure that fuel spills do not contaminate surface and ground waters, construction and maintenance activities would occur at reasonable distances from surface waters and steep sloped areas. The contractor will be required to abide by the Pollution Prevention Management Measures (Part IV.F.2) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. All hazardous materials will be removed from the Project site upon completion of construction.
Vehicles parked at the trailhead will also use and temporarily store gasoline, diesel, and hydraulic oils. The incidental release of any hazardous liquid via leaks or spills is expected to be rare and minimal quantities; however, these pollutants have the potential to be transported into surrounding surface and groundwater resources.
page 11 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.
Hazardous waste storage and disposal associated with construction activities will comply with the NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan during periods of construction. Normal facility operations will not generate hazardous wastes.
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.
Ecological land units for the project area have been mapped and defined in the Ecological Classification System (ECS), which has been adopted by the Minnesota DNR. The project location occurs in the North Shore Highlands subsection (212Lb) of the Northern Superior Uplands (212L) section in the Laurentian Mixed Forest (212) Province. The North Shore Highlands subsection largely coincides with the extent of the Canadian Shield in Minnesota. The MDNR describes the subsection as follows:
“The North Shore Highlands Subsection is a narrow strip 20 to 25 miles wide that follows the shoreline of Lake Superior from Duluth to the eastern tip of Minnesota. Lake Superior dominates the area and moderates its climate, acting as an air conditioner in summer and a heat sink in winter. The terrain varies from gently rolling hills to steep cliffs. Bedrock outcroppings are common and soils are commonly shallow. Soils are formed in red and brown glacial till and are very rocky. There are 20 lakes larger than 160 acres in size. Numerous short streams, 10 to 15 miles in length, run from the highland to the shore of Lake Superior, most ending in waterfalls near the shoreline. A mosaic of forest habitats stretch across this landscape, heavily influenced by aspen-birch with minor amounts of white and red pine, mixed hardwood-pine, and conifer bogs and swamp. Recreation, tourism, and forestry are the predominant land uses in this subsection. There is tremendous development pressure along the highly environmentally sensitive Lake Superior shoreline, and second tier development beyond the shoreline looks to be the next significant growth area. The North Shore Highlands is host to the popular North Shore State Trail, which is a major snowmobile destination. Parts of this trail are currently being considered for possible summer season ATV use, as are other areas along the shore. Much of the pre-settlement white pine/red pine forests have been logged and replaced with quaking aspen and paper birch. This subsection contains significant old-growth northern hardwood and upland northern white cedar forest. The subsection also contains the highest density of designated trout streams in Minnesota. The source of water for most of these streams is surface runoff.”
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.
page 12 The entire site was located within mapped Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance. A majority of the site was mapped within the Lower Beaver - Fault Line Ridges site, an area with a significance ranking of outstanding. A U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Official Species List for the Project site lists two threatened species, the Canadian Lynx and Northern Long-Eared Bat, and one endangered species, Piping Plover, that may be affected by the Project. Project site was located within the critical habitat of the Canadian Lynx. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Official Species List can be seen in Exhibit B.
Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) data for Lake County has been obtained by ISG via a license agreement with the Minnesota DNR (LA-1040). A review of the database identified seventeen rare features within a one-mile radius of the Project site that could have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposed project. These rare features included fourteen vascular plant species (Alpine Bistort, Appalachian Fir Moss, Arabian Whitlow Grass, Butterwort, Creeping Juniper, Encrusted Saxifrage, Hudson Bay Eyebright, Intermediate Sedge, Neat Spikerush, Northern Single-spike Sedge, Pale Moonwort, Rock Fir Moss, Smooth Woodsia, and Spike Trisetum), two vertebrate animal species (Lake Chub and Peregrine Falcon), and one fungus species (Parmelia stictica). Two colonial waterbird nesting areas were also listed within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
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.
Vegetation can be compromised by disturbance, trampling, rutting, soil compaction, accelerated erosion, and wind. Wildlife may be disturbed by human activity, such as noise and vibrations associated with camping however, the surrounding vegetation would generally provide ample cover and suitable escape habitat for many common wildlife species.
Measures to prevent the spread of invasive species during construction include; working in non- infested areas first before moving to infested areas, thoroughly cleaning equipment after working in infested areas and before mobilizing to a different portion of the project site or a different project, and revegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction is completed in an area.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Unavoidable wetland impacts will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible, considering the site constraints of each proposed wetland impacts and surrounding area (such as special considerations per MN Rules 8420.0515). Additionally, tree removals will be limited to the extent feasible. The goal for the project is to remain as “rustic” as possible to maintain the character of the existing site.
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).
page 13 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.
Information was requested and received from the Minnesota Historical Society State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Upon conducting a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory, no previously known archaeological sites or historic properties/structures were identified within the Project site. Three historic sites (The Palisade Inn, Dodd Road, and Trunk Highway 61) and one archaeological site were listed within the same section as the Project site. The proposed project will have no direct or indirect adverse impacts to the surrounding archaeological sites or historical properties. A copy of the SHPO correspondence can be seen in Exhibit D.
15. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The Project site is located along the north shore with a scenic view of Lake Superior. Due to the site’s location the visual effects of the completed project will not create any additional visual nuisances, such as significant light pollution or vapor plumes. Periods of nighttime lighting consisting of small campfires are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on local or migrating wildlife.
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 result in any temporary or permanent stationary sources of air emissions. There are no existing permitted air facilities or sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed trail alignments.
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.
The project is not anticipated to permanently increase traffic congestion or result in significant increases to the local roadway system. The project will not result in a significant decrease in air quality as congestion is not anticipated as a result of the project.
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
page 14 sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
Dust common to construction and earth moving practices is expected (in the form of fugitive dust) during periods of dry weather. Dust will be visually monitored and recorded in conjunction with the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit inspections. Appropriate dust control best management practices (such as soil wetting, misting/water vapor, and hydraulic additives) may be implemented (upon inspection or public complaint) by the contractor as necessary to control dust from leaving the Project site during all phases of construction. Specific dust control best management practices will be determined based on severity, weather conditions (i.e. wind speed), and current site conditions.
Dust and odors caused from vehicles in the parking lots will vary depending on the number and types of vehicles actively moving in one area and current weather conditions. Pollutants generated from vehicle exhausts may concentrate and linger (possibly where vehicles congregate) which may cause a short-term odor that eventually dissipates.
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.
1) Existing noise in the Project area includes vehicle traffic from State Highway 61 and noise generated from the city of Beaver Bay to the southeast.
2) There are no sensitive receptors located within proximity to the project site.
3) Exterior noise while construction is taking place may range from 65-95 dBA. Post- construction exterior noise is anticipated to be generated from intermittent traffic and recreational activities. All exterior noise is expected to be less than the State of Minnesota noise rules in an industrial land use setting (<75 dBA).
4) Nearby residential homes may experience a temporary increase in noise duration and frequency during construction; however, these noises will be conducted during restricted hours. Normal operational noise will not exceed the State of Minnesota statutory limits for residential receptors (NAC 1), Minnesota Rules 7030.0040, therefore, any noise anticipated from standard operations and construction activities will not result in a decreased quality of life.
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.
page 15 Existing parking consists of a small gravel lot at the location of the existing residential home which will be expanded as part of the project. Proposed parking will consist of main parking lot with 67 standard parking stalls and 3 accessible stalls, a 5-stall lot for temporary parking located at the bath house and 11 additional stalls located at the staff housing. Estimated average daily traffic to the site is anticipated to be less than 60 vehicles per day. Traffic estimates are based on the number of camp sites available which will be 49. Availability of alternative transportation modes (including transit) is limited due to the location of the Beaver Bay. 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 project is not anticipated to permanently increase traffic congestion or result in significant increases to the local roadway system. The minimal traffic generated during construction and regular operational use is not expected to exceed 250 vehicles or total more than 2,500 trips per day.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Temporary traffic disruptions are not anticipated or planned for this project once construction is complete. If disruptions to local public roads are needed, proper traffic control measures will be implemented as specified in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). There are no identified long-term traffic minimization plans associated with facility operations.
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.
Construction is anticipated to occur over the fall/winter/spring of 2021/2022. The proposed Project’s long-term operations are not anticipated to contribute to any additional 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.
There are no known reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project.
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 .
page 16
Following construction, the proposed Project’s long-term operations are not anticipated to contribute to any additional environmental effects. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to contribute to any significant environmental effects due to cumulative effects.
In addition to the potential environmental impacts addressed by items 1 to 18, the economic, employment, and sociological impacts of the project were considered. The economic and social impacts of the project on the local community are anticipated to be beneficial by bringing additional employment opportunities and property/sales tax income during construction and operations of the facility.
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.
There are no other known or potential environmental effects that were not discussed in EAW items 1 to 19.
page 17
Appendix A – GIS Figures
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning EAW 33
34 35 33 34 35 36 33 34 35 36 31 32 36 31 32 th 7 e
Beaver 1 v
Lake r A
3 2 e 2 1 6 5 4 n 1 6 5 4 3 3 2 t e Countty Bay r M I N N E S O T A v ª a A 12 g 1 n ß a 9 11 H 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 12 7
T55N 14 T56N t 16 n R8W 16 15a i 13 18 17 m Y o D
16 15 14 R7W P R
17 o A e
13 18 e
15 14 lg v W g A C Wood Ridge o T56N d SPUR Lo Superior 21 R8W 22 19 20 Woo d 21 20 21 22 23 24 R 22 23 24 19 i dge RD Site M I N N E S O T A ª 6128 28 ß Lake 29 Lake27 26 25 30 25 30 29 28 Location 27 26 County 33 33 32 34 35 36 31 T56N 36 31 32 33 34 35 Silver Bay R7W
6 5 3 2 1 2 1 6 5 4 4 3 d x m .
T55N p 7 a M 9 R7W n o
12 i t
8 9 10 11 a 10 11 12 7 c o L
-
1
Beaver Bay13 e r
16 u g i
14 F 13 18 17 16 15 15 14 W A E
5 1
23 2 5 2
21 T55N \
22 W 24 19 20 21 R8W Site Location A 22 23 E \ s c o D p
27 a
28 M
5
28 1 27 26 25 30 29 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1
33 2
33 5 2 35 36 31 32 \ 34 N M
y a B
r
4 e M I N N E S O T A v ª
5 a e
6 61 B 3 2 1 ß - W A E
g n i
9 7 p m a
12 C
10 11 e r o h S
h t r
13 o N
15 14 5 1 2 5 2 \
16 9 9 2
21 5 2
23 - 0 0
22 2 5 2 \ J O R P
0
28 0
27 0 5 2 \ s t c e j o r P
33 \ : S Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 1 Source(s): 0 1 2 Municipalities (MnDOT, 2016) Roads (MnDOT, 2020) Miles Project Location Map Lakes (MN DNR, 2020) 1 in = 2 miles North Shore Camping Counties (MN DNR, 2013) ¯ PLSS (USGS) Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota d x m . p a M
o p o T
S G S U
-
2
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1 2 5 2 \ W A E \ s c o D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r e v a e B - W A E
g n i p m a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9 2 5 2 - 0 0 2 5 2 \ J O R P
0 0
Legend 0 5 2 \ s t c e Project Area j o r P \ : S Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215 Figure 2 0 500 1,000 Source(s): ft USGS Topographic Map Orthophoto (MnGeo Image Service) 1 in = 1,000 ft ¯ North Shore Camping Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota d x m . p a M
e s U
d n a L
g n i t s i x E
-
3
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1 2 5 2 \ W A E \ s c o D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r e v a e B - W A E
g n i p m a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9 2 5 2
Legend - 0 0
Project Area 2 5 2 \
Land Use J O
Brush/Grassland R P
Impervious Surface 0 0 0
Lawn/Landscaping 5 2 \
Wetland s t c e Wooded/Forest j o r P \ : S Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 3 0 275 550 Source(s): ft Existing Land Use Map Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) 1 in = 550 ft ¯ North Shore Camping Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota d x m . p a M
e s U
d n a L
d e s o p o r P
-
4
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1 2 5 2 \ W A E \ s c o D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r e v a e B - W A E
g n i p m a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9 2 5 2
Legend - 0 0
Project Area 2 5 2 \
Land Use J O
Brush/Grassland R P
Impervious Surface 0 0 0
Lawn/Landscaping 5 2 \ s
Wetland t c e Wooded/Forest j o r P \ : S Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 4 0 275 550 Source(s): ft Proposed Land Use Map Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) 1 in = 550 ft ¯ North Shore Camping Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota A1-30D B3-40B
A2-30D B3-40B d x m . y e v r u S
l i o S
y t n u o C
s a
A1-11D l g u o D
-
5
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1
A1-11D 2 5 2 \ W A E \ s c o
B2-20C D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r
E1-12F e v a e B - W A E
g n A1-20C i p m A1-11D a C
e r o h S
h t
A1-11F r o N
E1-20E 5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9
A1-11D A1-20C 2 5 2 - 0 0 2 5
G1-10D 2 \ J O R P
0 0
Legend 0 5 2 \
Project Area s t c e Lake County Soil Survey j o r P \ : S Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215 Figure 5 0 275 550 Source(s): ft Soil Classification Map Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) 1 in = 550 ft ¯ North Shore Camping Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, 2015) Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota 0 0 0 0 4 7 8 9 7 8 0 7 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 8 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 8 0 1 8 0 00 3 8 0 1 20 10 0 00 1 0 9 9 0 1 9 0 0 8 9 7 0 8 0 8 0 7 9 7 7 0 0 0 7 8 0 2 9 0 6 3 7 7 6 8 0 9 0 5 2 0 8 9 4 0 9 9 9 7 3 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 3 0 7 8 0 8 0 0 1 5 7 0 7 4 85 0 7 84 10 1 8 0 00 0 8 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 7 d 1 0 0 7 x 7 7 0 m 0 0 . 6 6 p 8 a 8 7 0
0 6 7 0 M
0 5 0 6 6 r 8 7 0 9 6 a d 9 4 6 i
0 L 9 7 0 7 9 - 0 1
9 7 0 6 96 0 0 4 e 0 98 r 9 8 0 6 u 0 g 9 9 5 i 9 F 680 0 W 0 A
7 E 4 0 6 0 9 9 6 5 6 1 0 0 7 0 2 93 6 65 5 0 2 0 0 \ 96 2 8 4 0 9 0 8 0 63 W 0 1 68 0 A 5 E 9 9 0 \ 6 s 00 c 9 o 0 50 D 4 6 p 90 7 0 0 a M
8 4 0 9 6 6 5
8 1 8 0 2
0 5
7 7 2 8 6 \ S 0 I 0 G 5 70 0 8 2 5 0 1 3 6 2 8 5 2
0 \
6 N 6
0 M 61 y a B
r
6 e v
0 0 a 3 0 e B
6 - 0
2 W 7 A E 0 61 g
0 n i
6 p 1 710 00 0 7 60 m a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9 2 5 2
0 -
0 0 8 0 0 2 5
8 2 \
0 J 7 7
0 O 0 7 0 6 Legend R 6
2 7 5 0 P
2
8 7 3 0
0 0 0 7 1 Project Area 0 5
8 2 \ s
10' Lidar Contour t c e j o r P \ : 760 S Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215 Figure 6
0 275 550 LiDAR Elevations Source(s): ft Contours (MnTopo, 2012) and Hillshade Map Hillshade (MnTopo, 2012) 1 in = 550 ft ¯ North Shore Camping Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota d x m . p a M
s e c r u o s e R
r e t a W
-
7
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1 2
1 5
6 2 \
H W
T A E \
N s c
M o D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 M I N N E S O T A \ ª S I
61 L2RSC G
ß 5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r e v a e B - W
L2RSC A E
g n i p m a C
e r o
L1UBH h S
h t r o N
Superior 5 1
16000100 2 Legend 5 2 \ 9
Project Area USGS Streams 9 2 5 2
Wetland Delineation National Wetland Inventory - 0 0
Impaired Waters Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2 5 2 \ DNR Public Watercourses Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland J O R
DNR Public Waters Inventory Freshwater Pond P
0
Proposed Wells Lake 0 !. 0 5 2
Riverine \ s t c e j o r P \ : S Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 7 Source(s): 0 275 550 Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) NWI (MN DNR, 2019) ft Water Resources Map PWI (MN DNR, 2020) 1 in = 550 ft North Shore Camping MWI (MDA, 2020) ¯ Impaired Waters (MPCA, 2020) Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota PUBHx PFO1D PUBF UV40 UV39 PSS1D R2UBH PSS1D PUBKx UV38 UV36 5653 PSS1D PUBKx PFO4Dq PUBKx PSS1D PFO1/4D 5654 PEM1C PFO1/4D PUBF PFO4Dq PFO1/SS1D PUBF PUBF L2RSC
M I N N E S O T A ª ß61 L2USA PUBF L2USA L2RSC PSS1D L2USA L2RSC PSS3Dq d x m .
L2RSC p a M
s e c r u o s e R
L2RSC r
PFO1D e t a W
- PFO1C 7
e r u g
PEM1C PFO1/SS1D i F
PEM1D W
L2RSC A E
PABH 5 1 2 5
PEM1C 2 PEM1C \ W
PABH A E \ s
PSS1D c o
PABH D
M I N N E S O T A p ª a M
61 ß 5 ß 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \
L1UBH N M
y a B
L2RSC r e
Superior v a e B 16000100 - W A E
g n
L2RSC i p m
L2RSC a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2
Legend 5 2 \ 9
Project Area USGS Streams 9 2 5 2
Wetland Delineation National Wetland Inventory - 0 0
1mi Radius Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2 PEM1C 5
L2RSC 2 \ Impaired Waters Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland J O R
DNR Public Watercourses Freshwater Pond P
0
DNR Public Waters Inventory Lake 0 0 5 2
(! Minnesota Well Index Riverine \ s t c e !. Proposed Wells j o r P \ : S Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 7a Source(s): 0 950 1,900 Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) NWI (MN DNR, 2019) ft Water Resources Map PWI (MN DNR, 2020) 1 in = 2,000 ft North Shore Camping MWI (MDA, 2020) ¯ Impaired Waters (MPCA, 2020) Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota #
Cary d
Residence x m ! . p a
! City of Beaver Bay M
Municipal Water N M I
Treatment Plant W
A C P M
-
8
e r u g i F
W A E
5 1 2 5 2 \ W A E \ s c o D p a M
5 1 2 5 2 \ S I G
5 1 2 5 2 \ N M
y a B
r e v a e B - W A E
g n i p m a C
e r o h S
h t r o N
5 1 2 5 2 \ 9 9 2 5 2 - 0 0 2 5 2 \ Legend J O R P
Project Area 0 0
MPCA Sites 0 5 2 \
! Investigation and Cleanup s t c e j o r P \ : S Wednesday, July 28, 2021 Project Number: 21-25215
Figure 8 0 500 1,000 Source(s): ft MPCA WIMN Map Orthophoto (Lake Co, 2019) 1 in = 1,000 ft ¯ North Shore Camping WIMN (MPCA, 2020) Beaver Bay, Lake County, Minnesota
Exhibit A – Site Plan
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning EAW COUNTY JURISDICTION EXISTING MOUNTAIN (BLUE) ARMER TOWER (140' HIGH) BIKE TRAIL
EXISTING FENCED-IN
SUPERIOR HIKING SUPERIOR TRAIL SPUR TRAIL GLAMPING SITE, TYP.; SEE DETAIL BELOW WETLAND BOUNDARY PRELIMINARY PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS, TYP. R210' PATHS TO CAMPSITES, TYP. CRUSHED GRANITE HOUSE BATH
SUPERIOR HIKING
TRAIL SPUR W BUILDING LATRINE RUSTIC PROPOSED SEPTIC FIELD, TYP. LINES, TYP. PROPERTY FOOD CART FUTURE PARKING AREA ETC.) HORSESHOES, RECREATION AREA (HOT TUB, SHUFFLEBOARD, (GREEN) CITY JURISDICTION PICK-UP AREA CHECK-IN & SHUTTLE BIKE CONNECTOR PROPOSED MTN SUBJECT PROPERTY W
TRAIL
SUPERIOR HIKING SUPERIOR TRAIL SPUR TRAIL HOMES (3) STAFF HOUSING PARK (RED) HOMESTEAD EXISTING TO REMAIN LOTS, TYP. PARKING HWY. 61 GRAVEL SHED & PARKING 30' x 50' MAINTENANCE &TCYP$[ +UUWG4GEQTF4GXKUKQP 2WTRQUG 2TQLGEV0WODGT %JGEMGF$[ &CVG 5JGGV0WODGT 5JGGV6KVNG 5JGGV-G[ H R &WNWVJ/0 9GUV(KTUV5VTGGVUWKVG +0(14/#6+10#22'#4+0)*'4'+05*#..016$' 5#5 #551%+#6'5 9+6*17694+66'0%105'061( &72.+%#6'&&+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& %QR[TKIJV#..&4#90#0&94+66'0 18'4#..5+6' : QPGKPEJ 0146*5*14' %Ä .95 #/#
%#/2+0)%1 &CVG
$'#8'4$#;/+00'516# NEW TREES, TYP.
45-DEGREE PARKING; 27 STANDARD 17 STALLS 9GUV(KTUV5VTGGVUWKVG PARKING STALLS; 3 &WNWVJ/0 ACCESSIBLE STALLS R H
%QR[TKIJV#..&4#90#0&94+66'0 +0(14/#6+10#22'#4+0)*'4'+05*#..016$' &72.+%#6'&&+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& 9+6*17694+66'0%105'061( 5#5 #551%+#6'5
+UUWG4GEQTF4GXKUKQP
2WTRQUG &CVG
PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE TRAIL TO GLAMPING SITES
PROPOSED WELL LOCATION $'#8'4$#;/+00'516# %#/2+0)%1 23 STANDARD 0146*5*14' W PARKING STALLS
EXISTING ROAD SUPERIOR HIKING EXISTING BUILDING TO BE CONVERTED TO EXISTING HOMESTEAD TO SMALL BATH HOUSE REMAIN; WILL BE USED AS CHECK-IN AND FUTURE C-STORE QPGKPEJ
5JGGV-G[ PROPOSED PARK-MODEL STYLE STAFF HOUSING
5JGGV6KVNG %*'%-Ä+0#4'# 2#4-+0)
&CVG: PROPOSED &TCYP$[ #/# ACCESSIBLE GLAMPING %JGEMGF$[ .95 SITE (1 OF 3 TOTAL) PROPOSED SEPTIC FOR 2TQLGEV0WODGT HOMESTEAD & STAFF HOUSING
5JGGV0WODGT %Ä PROPOSED 5000 SF BATH PRELIMINARY WETLAND HOUSE WITH INDOOR BOUNDARY GATHERING SPACE, LOCKERS, SHOWERS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY & MECHANICAL ROOM
EXISTING ROAD/ SUPERIOR HIKING TRAIL SPUR/ 9GUV(KTUV5VTGGVUWKVG &WNWVJ/0 PROPOSED BIKE TRAIL R CONNECTOR H
%QR[TKIJV#..&4#90#0&94+66'0 +0(14/#6+10#22'#4+0)*'4'+05*#..016$' &72.+%#6'&&+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& PROPOSED SEPTIC FIELD 9+6*17694+66'0%105'061( 5#5 #551%+#6'5 FOR BATH HOUSE FACILITY
+UUWG4GEQTF4GXKUKQP
2WTRQUG &CVG
PRELIMINARY WETLAND BOUNDARY
5 STALL SERVICE/ SHUTTLE VEHICLE GRAVEL PARKING LOT AND TURNAROUND
SPACE FOR FUTURE FOOD TRUCKS HOOKUP AND W OUTDOOR SEATING
PROPOSED WELL LOCATION FOR BATH HOUSE REC AREA/ GREEN SPACE
FOR SHUFFLEBOARD, $'#8'4$#;/+00'516# %#/2+0)%1 NEW TREES, HORSESHOES, LAWN GAMES, 0146*5*14' TYP. HOT TUB SPACE, ETC.
PROPOSED 8' WIDE CRUSHED GRAVEL QPGKPEJ PROPOSED TRAIL FOR TENT GLAMPING ACCESS, TYP. 5JGGV-G[ SITE, TYP.
5JGGV6KVNG $#6**175' 4'%4'#6+10#4'#
&CVG:
&TCYP$[ #/#
%JGEMGF$[ .95
2TQLGEV0WODGT
5JGGV0WODGT %Ä GLAMPING SITE; SEE PATH TO CAMPSITES CRUSHED GRANITE PAGE C-1.0 EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
MOUNTAIN BIKE CONNECTOR TRAIL
SUPERIOR HIKING SUPERIOR TRAIL SPUR TRAIL PARKING/ TURN AROUND AREA MAINTENANCE SHED PROPOSED 30' x 50' &TCYP$[ +UUWG4GEQTF4GXKUKQP 2WTRQUG 2TQLGEV0WODGT %JGEMGF$[ &CVG 5JGGV0WODGT 5JGGV6KVNG 5JGGV-G[ H R &WNWVJ/0 9GUV(KTUV5VTGGVUWKVG +0(14/#6+10#22'#4+0)*'4'+05*#..016$' 5#5 #551%+#6'5 9+6*17694+66'0%105'061( &72.+%#6'&&+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& %QR[TKIJV#..&4#90#0&94+66'0 /#+06'0#0%'#4'# : QPGKPEJ 0146*5*14' %Ä .95 #/#
%#/2+0)%1 &CVG
$'#8'4$#;/+00'516#
Exhibit AB -- SiteEcological Plan Resources
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning EAW United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 4101 American Blvd E Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 Phone: (952) 252-0092 Fax: (952) 646-2873 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/step1.html
In Reply Refer To: May 05, 2021 Consultation Code: 03E19000-2021-SLI-1439 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 Project Name: North Shore Camping
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation 05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 2 for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to the Midwest Region S7 Technical Assistance website for step-by-step instructions for making species determinations and for specific guidance on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA.
Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species
1. If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. An example "No Effect" document also can be found on the S7 Technical Assistance website.
2. If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species through the S7 Technical Assistance website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is No Effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. An example "No Effect" document also can be found on the S7 Technical Assistance website.
3. Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred.
Northern Long-Eared Bats
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 3
Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species.
This species hibernates in caves or mines only during the winter. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the hibernation season is considered to be November 1 to March 31. During the active season (April 1 to October 31) they roost in forest and woodland habitats. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected.
Examples of unsuitable habitat include:
· Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas,
· Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas),
· A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and
· A stand of eastern red cedar shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees.
If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the following activities are proposed:
· Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year,
· Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine,
· Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine,
· Construction of one or more wind turbines, or
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 4
· Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains.
If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. An example "No Effect" document also can be found on the S7 Technical Assistance website.
If any of the above activities are proposed, please use the northern long-eared bat determination key in IPaC. This tool streamlines consultation under the 2016 rangewide programmatic biological opinion for the 4(d) rule. The key helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. No further review by us is necessary. Please visit the links below for additional information about "may affect" determinations for the northern long-eared bat.
NLEB Section 7 consultation Key to the NLEB 4(d) rule for federal actions that may affect Instructions for the NLEB 4(d) assisted d-key Maternity tree and hibernaculum locations by state
Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should bald or golden eagles occur within or near the project area please contact our office for further coordination. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings.
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 5
Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts.
Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds.
Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities.
State Department of Natural Resources Coordination
While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area.
Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: [email protected]
Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: [email protected]
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 6
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): ▪ Official Species List ▪ Migratory Birds
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 1
Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 4101 American Blvd E Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 (952) 252-0092
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 2
Project Summary Consultation Code: 03E19000-2021-SLI-1439 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 Project Name: North Shore Camping Project Type: RECREATION CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE Project Description: Construction of a new campground. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@47.249396700000005,-91.32036047642092,14z
Counties: Lake County, Minnesota
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 3
Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
Mammals NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Population: Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Birds NAME STATUS Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Endangered Population: [Great Lakes watershed DPS] - Great Lakes, watershed in States of IL, IN, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, and WI and Canada (Ont.) There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039
Critical habitats There is 1 critical habitat wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction.
NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Final
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 4
NAME STATUS https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652#crithab
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 1
Migratory Birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
BREEDING NAME SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Dec 1 to This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Aug 31 because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds May 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 20 and Alaska.
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 2
BREEDING NAME SEASON Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Breeds This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere and Alaska.
Probability Of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence ( ) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort ( ) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 3
No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable
Rusty Blackbird BCC Rangewide (CON)
Semipalmated Sandpiper BCC Rangewide (CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links: ▪ Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php ▪ Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/ management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php ▪ Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 4
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 5
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
05/05/2021 Event Code: 03E19000-2021-E-04368 6 me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Exhibit C - SHPO Correspondence
Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning EAW Nick McCabe
From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Hello Jeremy,
Please see attached.
Jim
SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 [email protected]
Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural p roperties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at [email protected] .
1 The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/ .
Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN , SHPO staff will continue to work remotely and be available via phone and email , and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors and unable to accommodate in- person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via [email protected] . Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Jeremy Groskreutz
This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.
SHPO,
I am in need of a database search of any archaeological, historical or architectural resources in the site of a proposed campground. The project is located within Section 14, T55N, R8W, adjacent to the City of Beaver Bay, Lake County, MN. I have attached a shapefile for your reference. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Jeremy Groskreutz Environmental Scientist Employee Owner
P 507.387.6651
E [email protected] A 115 East Hickory Street + Suite 300 + Mankato, MN 56001 W ISGInc.com
2 Archaeology Database Results
COUNTY SITENUM SITENAME TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION XQUARTERS ACRES WORKTYPE DESCRIPT TRADITION CONTEXT ReportNum Natreg CEF DOE Lake 21LAh Charley 55 8 14 SW-NE-SE 1 SHIP IR-1 Historic Database Results
COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION QUARTERS USGS REPORTNUM NRHP CEF DOE INVENTNUM Lake Beaver Bay Twp. Palisade Inn/Residence 55 8 14 Silver Bay LA-BBT-029 Multiple
Dodd Road Dodd Rd. 55 8 14 Silver Bay XX-ROD-008 Trunk Highway 61: Two Harbors to Schroeder 55 8 14 Silver Bay XX-ROD-159 Multiple (formerly State Road/Trunk Silver Bay, Split Highway 1 and 3) 55 8 14 Rock Point NE XX-ROD-006