shamrock recycling and transfer station expansion projectfinal site drainage and wetland alteration...

p-ear2-46a TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period, which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling 651-757-2101. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw. 1. Project Title: Shamrock Recycling and Transfer Station 2. Proposer: Shamrock Recycling & Transfer, LLC 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contact Person Rich Gersdorf Contact Person Steve Sommer Title President Title Planner Principal Address 3280 99th Court NE Address 520 Lafayette Road North Blaine, Minnesota 55449 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 Phone 763-780-0404 Phone 651-757-2746 Fax 763-783-0505 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected] 4. Reason for EAW Preparation:

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category

subpart number and name: Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 17C (Solid Waste Transfer Stations)

5. Project Location: County Anoka City Blaine NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 27 Township 31 North Range 23 West

GPS Coordinates: N 45.150620 W -93.187576

Tax Parcel Number 27-31-23-11-0011

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw

Shamrock Recycling and Transfer Station Environmental Assessment Blaine, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

EAW Figures and Appendices Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Location Aerial Photograph Figure 3: Site Plan (Existing) Figure 3A: Site Plan (Proposed) Figure 4: Floor Plan (Existing) Figure 4A: Floor Plan (Proposed) Figure 5: Truck Pit Section Figure 6: Traffic Flow Pattern (Existing) Figure 6A: Traffic Flow Pattern (Proposed) Figure 7: Surface Water Management Plan Appendices Appendix A: Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) e-mail Appendix B: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural (DNR) Heritage Inventory Letter 6. Description:

a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Shamrock Recycling & Transfer, LLC (Shamrock) operates an existing recycling and transfer facility (Facility) located in Blaine, Minnesota. The Facility currently accepts construction and demolition (C&D) waste, recyclable materials, non-hazardous industrial wastes, appliances, and yard waste. The Facility currently is limited by its solid waste permit to a capacity of 500 tons per day (TPD) of C&D waste. The proposed project (Project) would result in the Facility being permitted to accept mixed municipal solid waste and single stream recycling material. The Project would also increase the Facility’s permitted capacity from 500 TPD to 700 TPD of all these wastes.

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Current Facility The Facility operates on a 12.13-acre industrial site near the intersection of 99th Court and Naples Street NE, Blaine, Minnesota. The Facility has been in operation since 2002. The Facility’s hours are typically from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. The Facility operates six days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a total of 312 days of operation per year; however, the Facility may operate outside these hours as needed to provide service for special projects or emergency events. The existing operations consist of a 20,000-square foot transfer station with automated processing equipment used to separate out recyclable materials from the incoming C&D wastes. The recovered materials are stockpiled prior to being delivered to various recycling markets with the residual wastes being transferred to an approved disposal facility. A majority of the waste management operations


(unloading, sorting, and material handling) are done within the enclosed Facility building. The surrounding outdoor areas are used for material storage and loading for transfer off-site (see Figure 3). The transfer building is an unheated building with a 29-foot 4-inch clearance height and is constructed with architectural concrete panels with automated overhead doors for vehicle access. The transfer station building also has a reinforced concrete tipping floor. Additionally, there is approximately 300 square feet of heated office space in the southeast corner of the building that includes sanitary facilities and storage areas. The Facility also includes an 18,500-square foot office and truck maintenance shop, which is located just south of the transfer station building. The buildings are surrounded by bituminous paving and curbing, which drain to stormwater management ponds. The stormwater management ponds then drain into on-site wetlands, which ultimately flow off site on the southwest corner of the Shamrock property (see Figure 7). The current site layout can be seen in Figure 3. The Facility currently is limited by its MPCA Solid Waste Permit No. SW-592 (PER 002) to a capacity of 500 TPD of C&D waste, recyclable material and industrial waste. Proposed Project Shamrock is proposing to expand the types of material that it is permitted to process to include mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and single stream recyclables (SSR). The MSW and SSR transfer capabilities would service the surrounding communities with waste and recyclables primarily coming from Anoka, Ramsey, Hennepin, and Washington Counties. The transfer station will allow for the consolidation of materials to maximize the efficiency of the waste management and recycling systems. The incoming materials will be delivered to the Facility by commercial haulers in packer trucks and roll-off containers. All MSW and SSR will be stored indoors on the tipping floor or outdoors in enclosed transfer trailers prior to delivery off-site and will not be in contact with any precipitation. The MSW will be managed and removed from the Facility as quickly as possible to ensure that odors are not problematic. MSW will typically be transferred out within 24 hours, but may be on the tipping floor as long as three days to allow for storage over a holiday weekend. These storage practices are used by other transfer facilities to control odor. The Facility has the capacity to store up to 5,000 cubic yards of MSW (750 tons), 1,600 cubic yards of SSR (350 tons), and 4,500 cubic yards of C&D (1,200 tons) at one time. If needed, these capacities could be combined for any given waste stream to allow for more storage capacity. For example, if there was no C&D on the tipping floor, both sides of the tipping floor could be used to store MSW, which would allow for the storage of 9,500 cubic yards of MSW. The MSW will be transferred from the Facility to an approved processing or disposal facility as dictated by the market conditions. The SSR will be transferred from the Facility to an approved recycling facility for materials recovery. Shamrock is also proposing to increase the permitted capacity from 500 to 700 TPD, which will be a solid waste permit limit. The Facility is also accepting a solid waste permit limit of 218,400 tons per year (TPY). Shamrock is expecting to process approximately 250 TPD of C&D waste, 250 TPD of MSW, 100 TPD of SSR, and 100 TPD of yard waste, after the Project is implemented. Shamrock will continue to use its existing 20,000-square foot transfer station building and the surrounding outdoor storage areas for the new material. However, the proposed Project includes the removal of the Facility’s existing automated C&D processing equipment to allow for space to process MSW and SSR material. Post-Project, the Facility would continue to accept C&D waste, recyclable materials, non-hazardous industrial wastes, appliances, and yard waste, but these wastes would be processed manually instead.


The proposed Project also includes the addition of an outbound scale near the southeast corner of the processing building to improve traffic flow at the Facility and to better accommodate the transfer trailers leaving the site. The Project also includes the demolition of the office space inside the southeast corner of the transfer building to allow more space on the tipping floor. A three to five-foot deep load-out pit (see Figure 5) would also be added in the middle of the tipping floor to allow for the top-loading of transfer trailers. After the Project is implemented, transfer trailers would back into the load-out pit via the center overhead door (Door 4), located on the south side of the building (Figure 3A). The load-out pit would divide the tipping floor into two halves, with the western half being designated for C&D material management and the eastern half designated for MSW, non-hazardous industrial waste, and SSR management. The C&D materials will be enter the building through Doors 2 and 3. MSW and SSR would be delivered through Doors 5 and 6. The SSR materials will be stored in an indoor bunker located on the MSW tipping floor side of the building. The recyclable C&D materials will be recovered manually on the tipping floor or sent to an off-site recycling facility as markets allow. The removal of the processing equipment and the transition to the new Facility layout will occur over time to minimize disruptions to the ongoing facility operations. Therefore, Shamrock will initially operate under the existing configuration and transition in phases to the proposed Facility operations and design. The proposed site layout can be seen in Figure 3A.

c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the project is to accommodate the current market demands for service to the community by allowing for the transfer of MSW and SSR.

d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes No

e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No

If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. The Facility received its original CUP from the city of Blaine in 2001. The Facility received its C&D Transfer Station and C&D Processing License from Anoka County in 2001. The Facility received a Final Site Drainage and Wetland Alteration Permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District approval on June 17, 2002. The Facility received its MPCA Solid Waste Permit No. SW-592 on September 12, 2002. The Facility has not gone through Minnesota’s environmental review process in the past. The Facility began operations in the fall of 2002 after all approvals had been received.


7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 12.13 (existing) or Length (miles)

Number of Residential Units:

Unattached

Attached

Maximum Units Per Building:

Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space):

total square feet

20,000 (existing)

Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office 18,500 Manufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Institutional Light Industrial 20,000 Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building height 29 If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial

assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minn. R. 4410.3100.

Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Blaine Revised Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application Submitted, pending

approval

Anoka County MSW Transfer Station License # PT0005609

Application Submitted, pending approval

MPCA Solid Waste Permit Draft permit ready for public notice MPCA National Pollutant Disposal Elimination

System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Industrial Stormwater Permit

Issued May 31, 2011 – Administrative Change Form submitted to MPCA to inform them of MSW and SSR capabilities

9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent

lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The Facility site is located at 3280 99th Court NE, Blaine, Minnesota. See Figure 2 for an aerial view of the site. The property is zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial property and has been used as a C&D recycling and transfer station since 2002. The surrounding properties are zoned I-1 light industrial and airport zoning. The proposed Project will not change the basic function of the Facility (i.e., the Facility will continue to operate as a recycling and transfer station).


The area surrounding the Facility consists of wetlands and marshes with a nearby airport and other industrial businesses. The existing and proposed use of this property is consistent with the surrounding property uses and zoning and is not expected to have any negative impacts on the local community or the environment. There are no known past uses of the site that would present an environmental conflict with the proposed Project.

10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:

Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 4.84 4.84 Lawn/landscaping 1.88 1.88 Wooded/forest Impervious Surfaces 4.0 4.0 Brush/grassland Stormwater pond 0.70 0.70 Cropland Other (gravel surface) 0.71 0.71 TOTAL 12.13 12.13 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would

be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. A portion of the Facility property, and the surrounding area, contain wetlands and grassland areas that are likely home to deer, small mammals, song birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Since this is an existing facility on a previously disturbed site, and the only physical change out-doors is the addition of a scale to weigh trucks, the Facility is not expected to cause a significant impact to wildlife in the area.

b. Are any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? Yes No

If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project.

The DNR sent a letter dated August 21, 2012 (Appendix B), to the Project proposer that indicated that the DNR does not believe that the proposed Project will negatively impact any known occurrences of rare features in the Project area.

Describe any measures that will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-___________) and/or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB_20130009) from which the data were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources. Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.

12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No

13. Water Use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes No


14. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning

district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No

15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes No

16. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: 0.0 acres; 0.0 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control

measures to be used during and after project construction. Not applicable.

17. Water Quality – Surface-water Runoff. a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent

controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm-water pollution prevention plans. Waste transfer activities will continue to be conducted indoors. The Facility has three on-site stormwater ponds and a series of ditches with overflows that manage stormwater runoff from the site (see Figure 7). All proposed modifications, other than the addition of a truck-scale, will occur to the inside of the existing buildings and, therefore, will not have any impact on surface water. Thus, the quantity and quality of the site runoff before and after the proposed Project will not change.

b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Figure 7 shows the drainage routes from the site and the routes for stormwater runoff. The stormwater flows across the site from northeast to southwest and is managed by a series of infiltration swales and ponds that lead to a wetland that ultimately flows off the site on the southwest corner of the Facility property. After leaving the property, the water proceeds through a series of wetlands that ultimately discharge into a water management ditch named BR-6. This ditch ultimately discharges into Golden Lake on the east side of Interstate 35W. The proposed Project is not expected to have an effect on downstream receiving waters since the Project would not result in any change outdoors, other than construction of the new scale for outgoing trucks.

18. Water Quality – Wastewater. a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater

produced or treated at the site. The Facility will continue to generate small quantities of sanitary wastewater from the employees and customers using the site. Based on an average of 15 people using the site, it is expected that approximately 50 gallons of sanitary wastewater will be generated per day. The transfer station building is also equipped with floor drains and a flammable waste trap system that discharges into


the sanitary sewer system. However, given that the waste will be stored and managed in an enclosed building, very little, if any, industrial wastewater is expected to be generated from the transfer building operations. All wastewater generated will be directed to the city of Blaine sanitary sewer system and conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Wastewater Treatment Facility in St. Paul, Minnesota. MCES has adequate capacity to convey and treat the small amount of wastewater generated at the Facility.

b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies (identifying any impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. The Facility does not have on-site wastewater treatment.

c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility’s ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. All wastewater will be discharged into the city of Blaine’s sanitary sewer system, which discharges to the MCES Metro Wastewater Treatment Facility prior to discharge into the Mississippi River. No pretreatment activities are required for the type of wastewater generated at this Facility. The volume of wastewater generated by this Facility is not expected to change significantly with the proposed Project.

19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Ground water: 5 minimum; 7 average. Bedrock: 250 minimum; 300 average.

Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. There are no known geologic site hazards at the Facility.

b. Describe the soils on the site, giving Natural Resources Conservation Service classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture and potential for ground-water contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.

The general surficial geology of the area consists of lake sand with minor silt, as well as organic- rich sediment deposits. The proposed Project will not result in the generation of wastes or chemicals that are a significant hazard to groundwater.


20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks. - a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal

manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.

The Project will result in a small amount of solid waste being generated due to demolition of the Facility’s current office space (located within the Facility building). The demolition waste generated by the Project will be processed in the same manner as all of the other demolition waste that the Facility is already permitted to process. The Facility currently accepts C&D waste, C&D recyclable materials, non-hazardous industrial wastes, appliances, and yard waste. The proposed Project would result in the Facility also being permitted to accept MSW and SSR materials. The Project would also result in the Facility’s Solid Waste Permit (SW-592) being modified to increase its capacity from 500 TPD (110,000 tons/year) to 700 TPD (218,400 tons/year). The permitted waste limit includes all the current waste streams and the new MSW and SSR. Recyclables collected from C&D material do not count against the Facility’s solid waste permit limit. The following are the types and approximate volumes of incoming material that Shamrock is expecting to receive per day, if the Project is implemented:

· C&D waste - 250 TPD · MSW - 250 TPD · SSR materials - 100 TPD · yard waste - 100 TPD

The incoming waste and recyclable materials will be dumped into a three to five-foot deep load-out pit. The pit will be added in the middle of the tipping floor to allow for the top-loading of transfer trailers, which will back into the pit via the center overhead door. The transfer trailers will deliver the material to a recycling facility or an MPCA-approved disposal facility. Prior to leaving the Facility, the transfer trailers will be covered with tarp to eliminate windborne litter from the trailers. All waste disposal activities such as quantities and ultimate location of deposition will be recorded and kept on file as part of the Facility records.

No hazardous wastes will be accepted at the Facility.

b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. The Facility does not accept or use any toxic or hazardous materials. Facility personnel inspect each load delivered. If the Facility were to receive any toxic or hazardous materials, it would be managed in accordance with the Contingency Action Plan prepared for the Facility. Unacceptable materials


will be rejected upon arrival and the transporter of the waste will be instructed to return the waste to the generator. If any unapproved wastes are discovered at the Facility and the transporter of the waste cannot be identified, the waste will be isolated, containerized and delivered to the appropriate disposal facility.

c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. There are two above ground fuel storage tanks located on the west end of the building that are used for the transfer station operations. Both of these are above-ground, double-walled storage tanks with leak detection and are located on an impervious asphalt surface. One tank is a 2,000-gallon tank used for on-road fuel, while the other is a 1,000-gallon tank used for off-road fuel. Containment of any spills from these tanks will be done in accordance with the spills section of the Emergency Response Plan prepared for the Facility.

21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 0 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 40

Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 75 vehicles per day (vpd)

Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence:

25 vehicles per hour, summer

Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates.

The estimated vpd for the Facility and trip generation rates were taken from actual traffic counts at the existing Facility (i.e., 55 average and 75 peak). To estimate the post-Project traffic count, these values were increased by 33 percent to account for the expansion of the Facility from 500 to 700 TPD. 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. Using the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/Chapter%205.pdf) or a similar local guidance, provide an estimate of the impact 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. The Facility does not exceed the 250 vpd. Given the industrial nature of the surrounding area and the existing infrastructure, the project is not expected to cause traffic congestion in the area. According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic map, the intersection of Naples Street and 99th Court has an annual average daily traffic count of 4,750. The Project would result in a maximum daily traffic increase of 100 vpd. This is equivalent to a maximum increase of two percent. This small increase is not significant. The existing and proposed traffic flows within the Facility are illustrated on Figures 6 and 6A, respectively.

http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/Chapter%205.pdf


22. Vehicle-related Air Emissions. Estimate the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air quality,

including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. The proposed Project will generate some additional air pollution in the immediate area, resulting from an increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving the Facility site. However, given the relatively small increase in traffic, the air pollution added from these vehicles is not expected to significantly change existing air quality. In addition, these vehicles are already on the road and presumably this Facility would result in a decrease in total vehicle-miles driven, since the purpose of the transfer station is to aggregate loads from smaller vehicles into larger vehicles.

23. Stationary Source Air Emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing), any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides), and ozone-depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. There are no significant stationary sources of air emissions associated with the Facility or proposed Project. The only stationary sources of air emissions are the two above ground storage tanks.

24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes No

If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Odors The majority of the operations of the Facility, associated with the Project, would occur within the existing enclosed processing building and, therefore, issues with odor are not anticipated. In addition, the maximum storage time for MSW will be three days. Litter Litter generation will be controlled due to the fact that operations are completed within the tipping area in an enclosed building. The site is inspected and cleaned on a daily basis to ensure that litter does not become a nuisance issue, as required by the MPCA permit for the Facility. In addition, haul vehicles leaving the site will be covered to prevent blowing waste during transport. Dust The Facility site is covered by an asphalt surface that produces little dust.


Noise The MSW and SSR associated with the Project will be processed inside the existing Facility structure; therefore, process noise is not expected to be a problem. The vehicles transporting the MSW and SSR will create intermittent noise, but this is not expected to be a nuisance due to the industrial nature of the area.

25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes No b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes No c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Yes No d. Scenic views and vistas? Yes No e. Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resources. Describe any

measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.

The SHPO was contacted to determine if any cultural resources existed at the Facility that may be impact by the proposed Project. The SHPO e-mail of July 11, 2012 (Appendix A), indicates that there are no historic structures identified on the Facility site.

26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes No

27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local

comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes No

If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The Facility is on a property zoned I-2 for heavy industrial use and surrounded by industrial zoned properties of similar nature. The Project will require an update to the Facility’s CUP from the city of Blaine. Shamrock has submitted an application for an amendment to its CUP to the city of Blaine for the proposed Project. The proposed Project is compatible with the zoning and land use in the area.

28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No

Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.com

Site Location

Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

SHAMROCK RECYCLINGAND TRANSFER FACILITY

Site Location Map

JUN 2012

Figure 11800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232

2,000 0 2,0001,000Feet ±

Circle Pines 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (USGS: 1993)New Brighton 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (USGS: 1997)

WenckPath: L:\1101\1101-08\mxd\Site Location Map.mxd

Area of Detail

AnokaCounty

HennepinCounty

WashingtonCounty

RamseyCounty

ChisagoCounty

Date: 6/29/2012 Time: 11:40:56 AM User: ShuJC0243

Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.com

SHAMROCK RECYCLINGAND TRANSFER FACILITY

County Well Index

JUN 2012

Figure 21800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232

1,700 0 1,700850Feet ±

Aerial Photograph (Source: Bing Maps)

WenckPath: L:\1101\1101-08\mxd\County Well Index.mxdDate: 6/29/2012 Time: 11:35:08 AM User: ShuJC0243

LegendProperty Boundary

1 Mile Radius

!ACounty Well Index(Field Verified Wells Only)

From: Bill Keegan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:19 AM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA) Cc: Affeldt, Craig (MPCA); Mojsiej, Lisa (MPCA) Subject: Shamrock Transfer Facility Expansion Project - Query Request Steve, Attached are the results from the search of the cultural resources database for the area surrounding the Shamrock Transfer Station as well as the Wenck cover letter summarizing the search results. This request had been placed prior to the submittal of the EAW to the MPCA but we had not received the results until now. Please include the attached as part of our initial EAW submittal for this site. Additionally, as noted in our application, we have a pending request into the MN DNR for a NHIS database search and are awaiting the results. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me via email or at 612‐845‐5075. Regards, Bill Keegan

William P. Keegan, P.E. Vice President Dem-Con Companies, LLC 13020 Dem-Con Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 W: 952.224.7102 C: 612-845-5075 www.dem-con.com From: Tom J. Shustarich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:46 AM To: Bill Keegan Subject: FW: Shamrock Transfer Facility Expansion Project - Query Request FYI for EAW. From: Amy J. Denz Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:17 AM To: Tom J. Shustarich Subject: FW: Shamrock Transfer Facility Expansion Project - Query Request Tom, I saved this email and the attachment from SHPO to the project folder. There was one archaeological site (SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ ) and no historic structures found in Section 27. Based on this information, it does not appear there are any archaeological or historic structures located in the project area. Thanks, Amy Amy Denz, Environmental Planner

Wenck Associates Inc., 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr., P.O. Box 249, Maple Plain, MN 55359-9000 www.wenck.com | [email protected] | D 763.479.5148 | F 763.479.4242 | G 763.479.4200 |

Appendix A

From: Thomas Cinadr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:29 AM To: Amy J. Denz Subject: Re: Shamrock Transfer Facility Expansion Project - Query Request

THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.

This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search produced results for only previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. Please read the note below carefully. No historic structures were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the archaeological sites identified is attached. The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at [email protected]. The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm SHPO research hours are 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday. The Office is closed on Mondays.

Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator 651-259-3453

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Amy J. Denz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Cinadr,

Shamrock Disposal is proposing to expand the capacity of their existing transfer and recycling facility, as well as add municipal solid waste and single stream recycling capabilities. We are requesting a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory regarding potential cultural resources within T31N, R23W, Section 27. Please see the attached materials for more information. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thanks,

Amy

Amy Denz, Environmental Planner

Wenck Associates Inc., 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr., P.O. Box 249, Maple Plain, MN 55359-9000 www.wenck.com | [email protected] | D 763.479.5148 | F 763.479.4242 | G 763.479.4200 |

Archaeological Site Locations Site Number Site Name Twp. Range Sec. Quarter Sections Acres Phase Site Description Tradition Context Reports NR CEF DOE

County: Anoka 21AN0151 Lovell Farmstead 31 23 27 SW-NE-SW 2.22 1 SR,AS RA-1 AN-02-02

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 Page 1 of 1

July 11, 2012 William P. Keegan, P.E. Vice President Dem-Con Companies 13020 Dem Con Drive Shakopee, MN. 55379 RE: SHPO Query Results for Shamrock Transfer Facility Blaine, Minnesota Dear Mr. Keegan, The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted on July 6, 2012 to query the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory regarding potential cultural resources within T31N, R23W, Section 27, which is the general location of the Shamrock Transfer and Recycling Facility in Blaine, Minnesota. This query was completed as part of the environmental review process for the proposed expansion and upgrade of that facility. Wenck received the results of that query, which indicate there are no historic structures and one archaeological site located in T31, R23W, Section 27. The archaeological site record was for Lovell Farmstead (Site #21AN0151). However, upon further Wenck review, this archaeological site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 27, while the facility site (project site) is located in the northeast quarter, and therefore, Wenck does not believe there are any known historic structures or archaeological sites in the project area/facility site. Please feel free to contact me at (763) 479-5148 or email: [email protected] if you have any questions. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Amy Denz Environmental Planner

Cc: Tom Shustarich

Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr. P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Fax (763) 479-4242 E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.mndnr.gov

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

August 21, 2012 Correspondence # ERDB 20130009 Ms. Amy Denz Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center, PO Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Shamrock Transfer and Recycling Capacity Expansion, T31N R23W Section 27, Anoka County Dear Ms. Denz,

As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, several state-listed plants have been documented within the search area (for details, see the enclosed database reports; please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). However, given that the project does not include construction outside of the existing building, I do not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features.

The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.

The enclosed results include an Index Report and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted.

The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The Detailed Report is for your personal use only as it may include specific location information that is considered nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0872, subd. 2. If you wish to reprint or publish the Detailed Report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission.

For environmental review purposes, the Natural Heritage letter and database reports are valid for one year; they are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or if an updated review is needed.

Please note that locations of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), state-listed as special concern, and the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), federally-listed as threatened, are not currently tracked in the NHIS. As such, the Natural Heritage Review does not address these species.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025

Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix B

Furthermore, the Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. Additional rare features for which we have no data may be present in the project area, or there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. For these concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required.

Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely,

Lisa Joyal

Endangered Species Review Coordinator enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report Rare Features Database: Detailed Report Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields cc: Melissa Doperalski

Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System: Rare Features DatabaseDetailed Report of records within 1 mile radius of:

ERDB# 20130009 - Shamrock Transfer & Recycling ExpansionT31N R23W Section 27

Anoka County

Page 1 of 9Printed July 2012

Data valid for one year

Vertebrate Animal

MN Status: Tracked, but no legal statusLast Observed Date: 1990-06-19 Last Survey Date: State Rank: S4B First Observed Date:

EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper) #244

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:

Location Description: Anoka County, MN

Observed Area: Extent Known?: Ownership Type: Unknown

EO ID #: 11509

T31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S27 Site Name: BLAINE 27 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Surveyor(s): Robertsen, M.General Description: INFERRED BREEDING. ONE PAIR SEEN/HEARD. PAIR SEEN AGAIN ON JULY 4, 1990 AT SAME LOCALITY BY K. BARDON.EO Data:

MN Status: Tracked, but no legal statusLast Observed Date: 1990-06-19 Last Survey Date: State Rank: S4B First Observed Date:

EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper) #245

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 11510


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Surveyor(s): Robertsen, M.General Description: INFERRED BREEDING. ONE PAIR SEEN/HEARD. NEAR CBS SITE #17. PAIR SEEN AGAIN ON JULY 4, 1990 AT SAME LOCALITY BY K. BARDON.EO Data:

Vascular Plant

Copyright 2012, Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR - MAY NOT BE REPRINTED OR PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION



Anoka County



MN Status: Tracked, but no legal statusLast Observed Date: 1999-08-21 Last Survey Date: State Rank: SNR First Observed Date: 1999-08-21

EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #2

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:


Observed Area: Extent Known?: Ownership Type: Private individual

EO ID #: 31056

T31N R23W S35, T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S34 Site Name: BLAINE 26 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 1000+ PLANTS ESTIMATED THROUGH PORTIONS OF 40+ ACRE SITE. MOST COMMONLY DISTRIBUTED ALONG DEER PATHS IN FULL SUN, & IN AREAS OF EXPOSED SOIL/SPARSE VEGETATION. WET MEADOW/RICH FEN. SOUTH OF 95TH AVE & EAST OF 35W. ASSOC SPP: CAREX LASIO, VIOLA LANCE, RUBUS SPP, SPIRAEA TOMEN, S. ALBA, POLYGALA CRUC, CAREX CRYPT, SPHAGNUM SPP, LIATRIS PYCN, DROSERA INTER, PANICUM LANUG & JUNCUS MARGIN.EO Data:


EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #3

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 31053

T31N R23W S22, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S27 Site Name: BLAINE 27 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 500+ PLANTS OBSERVED IN FLOWER IN OVER 10+ ACRES OF WET MEADOW/RICH FEN HABITAT. PRODUCING SEED. ON EXPOSED, SANDY, SATURATED SOILS ALONG EDGES OF A RECENTLY EXCAVATED WETLAND MITIGATION BASIN WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA IN SE BLAINE. NO ORGANIC MATERIAL WITHIN THE SURFACE SOIL HORIZON, POOR SOILS. ASSOC SPP: VIOLA LANCE, ELEOCHARIS ACIC, LUDWIGIA PAL, JUNCUS BREV, POLYGALA SANG, RUBUS SPP, CAREX CRYPT & POLYGALA SPP. NO APPARENT THREATS, EXCEPT FOR STORMWATER LEVELS.EO Data:




Anoka County




EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Aristida longespica var. geniculata (Spiked Needlegrass) #3

Global Rank: G5T5?

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 30953


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: ESTIMATED 300-400 INDIVIDUALS IN TWO SMALL WET MEADOW SWALES W/IN 40+ ACRE HIGH QUALITY WET MEADOW/RICH FEN WETLAND COMPLEX. POPULATION IS PATCHY. SWALES ARE EXPOSED, ACIDIC & SATURATED. ASSOCIATES: CAREX LASIOCARPA, JUNCUS MARGINATUS, FIMBRISTYLIS AUTUMNALIS, VIOLA LANCEOLATA, SPIRAEA ALBA, S. TOMENTOSA, LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA, RUBUS SPP, DROSERA SP, POLYGALA CRUCIATA, LIPARIS LOESELII & XYRIS TORTA.EO Data:

MN Status: ThreatenedLast Observed Date: 2002-09-16 Last Survey Date: 2002-09-16 State Rank: S2 First Observed Date: 2002-09-11

EO Rank: E - Verified extant (viability not assessed)

Element Name and Occ. #: Botrychium rugulosum (St. Lawrence Grapefern) #40

Global Rank: G3

Federal Status:


Observed Area: Extent Known?: ? - Uncertain whether full extent of EO is knownOwnership Type: Private individual

EO ID #: 30166

T31N R23W S26 Site Name: LEXINGTON 26 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Krych, S., Milburn S.General Description: Two populations with over 25 individuals total were observed by S. Krych on 16 Sept on hummocks in drained wetland. 2nd location on parcel in dugout of wet prairie. Healthy population of between 75-100 individuals found by S. Milburn on 11 Sept in overg rown meadow being invaded by Populus tremuloides.EO Data: Two populations with over 25 individuals total were observed by S. Krych on 16 Sept on hummocks in drained wetland. Associates include: Spirea tomentosa, Rubus semisetosus, Thelypteris palustris, Carex spp. 2nd location on parcel in dugout of wet prairie. Associates include: Pedicularis lanceolata, Polygala cruciata, Spirea alba, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Carex oligosperma. Healthy population of between 75-100 individuals found by S. Milburn on 11 Sept in overgrown meadow being invaded by P opulus tremuloides. Associates include Spiraea alba and Fragaria virginiana. Collection #02091101 made, at MIN Herbarium. Photo also taken.




Anoka County



MN Status: Special ConcernLast Observed Date: 1999-08-21 Last Survey Date: State Rank: S3 First Observed Date: 1999-08-21

EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #18

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 29029


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 175-250 INDIVIDUALS LOCATED IN SHALLOW DITCH ON EXPOSED ISANTI SOILS WITHIN THE ANOKA CO AIRPORT PROPERTY IN SE BLAINE. HABITAT IS SEASONALLY FLOODED & REMAINS SATURATED INTO THE LATE SUMMER. ASSOCIATED SPECIES INCLUDE PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA, AGALINIS PURPUREA, POLYGALA SANGUINEA, EUTHAMIA GRAMINIFOLIA, CAREX INTERIOR, & JUNCUS BREVICAUDATUS. ANNUALS SEEDING THEMSELVES IN EXPOSED AREAS.EO Data:


EO Rank: Not ranked


Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 29035

T31N R23W S22, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S27 Site Name: BLAINE 27 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 200-300 INDIVIDUALS FOUND OCCURRING ON EXPOSED, SANDY, SATURATED SOILS ALONG EDGES OF A RECENTLY (1993) EXCAVATED WETLAND MITIGATION BASIN WITHIN THE ANOKA CO AIRPORT PROPERTY IN SE BLAINE. NO ORGANIC MATERIAL WITHIN THE SURFACE SOIL HORIZON, POOR SOILS. ASSOC SPP: ELEOCHARIS ACIC, VIOLA LANCE, LUDWIGIA PAL, JUNCUS BREV, POLYGALA SANG, RUBUS SPP, CAREX CRYPT, & POLYGONUM SPP. OCCURRING AS ANNUAL POPULATIONS IN SPARSELY VEGETATED DRAWDOWN AREAS.EO Data:




Anoka County




EO Rank: Not ranked


Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 30509


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 750-1000+ PLANTS EST. MOSTLY DISTRIBUTED ALONG PATHS/DEER TRAILS WITH SPARSEST HERBACEOUS VEG. OCCURING OCCASIONALLY THROUGHOUT DENSER PORTIONS OF WET MEADOW/ WET PRAIRIE. FLOWERING & PRODUCING SEED. ANNUAL POPULATIONS. ASSOC: CAREX LASIOCARPA, VIOLA LANCEOLATA, RUBUS SPP, SPIRAEA TOMENTOSA, S. ALBA, POLYGALA CRUCIATA, CAREX CRYPTOLEPIS, SPHAGNUM SPP, LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA, DROSERA INTERMEDIA, PANICUM LANUGINOSUM VAR GENICULATA & JUNCUS MARGINATUS.EO Data:


EO Rank: Not ranked


Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 30955


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 300-400 PLANTS OCCURRING IN PATCHES ASSOC W/OPENINGS IN WET MEADOW. VEGETATION ALONG DEER PATHS & DRAW-DOWN MUD-FLAT POOLS. ANNUAL POP FLOWERING & PRODUCING SEED. GROWING IN WET MEADOW/RICH FEN/SHRUB CARR WETLAND COMPLEX. ASSOCIATES: SPIRAEA TOMENTOSA, S. ALBA, CAREX LASIOCARPA, C. BUXBAUMII, C. CRYPTOLEPIS, LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA, LUDWIGIA PALUSTRIS, POLYGALA CRUCIATA, P. SANGUINEA, SALIX EXIGUA, BETULA GLANDULOSA, PLATANTHERA LACERA, SPHAGNUM SPP & RUBUS SPP.EO Data:




Anoka County



MN Status: Special ConcernLast Observed Date: 2001-08-01 Last Survey Date: 2001-08-01 State Rank: S3 First Observed Date: 1999-08-01


Element Name and Occ. #: Juncus marginatus (Marginated Rush) #2

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:


Observed Area: Extent Known?: ? - Uncertain whether full extent of EO is knownOwnership Type: Unknown

EO ID #: 27392

T31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S21, T31N R23W S29, T31N R23W S35, T [...] Site Name: BLAINE 21, BLAINE 26, BLAINE 27, BLAINE 28, BLAINE 29 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J., Kramer, A.General Description: EO Data: This plant has been observed in a number of locations in this area. Typically, it has been observed on sandy soils with moisture ranging from wet to dry. The plants usually are in full sun. Often, they have been observed on margins ditches, swales, andplant communities. The number of plants at each area has ranged from a few to several hundred. Associated species include: Liatris pycnostachya, Xyris torta, Spiraea alba, Spiraea tomentosa, Fimbristylis autumnalis, Viola laceolata, Polygal cruciata, Polygala sanguinea, Carex lasiocarpa, Carex cryptolepis, Drosera sp., Panicum lanuginosum, Dulichium arundinaceum, Aristida longespica, Pycnanthemum virginianum, Rudbeckia hirta, Solidago canadensis, Lobelia spicata, Carex scoparia, Linaria vulgaris, Ambroisa artemisiifolia, Antennaria sp., Rumex acetosella, Euthamia graminifolia, Fragaria virginiana, Andropogon gerardii, Sorghastrum nutans, Sphagnum sp., Viola sagittata, Liatris borealis, Phalaris arundinacea, Salix exigua, Populus tremuloides, Juncus interior, Lespedeza capitata, Sisyrinchium montanum, Bromus inermis, Juncus tenuis, Lobelia siphilitica, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Eupatorium maculatum, Scirpus cyperinus, Lycopus americanus.

MN Status: EndangeredLast Observed Date: 2001-08-01 Last Survey Date: 2001-08-01 State Rank: S1 First Observed Date: 1999-06-20


Element Name and Occ. #: Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein-orchid) #39

Global Rank: G4?T4Q

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 29008


Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Kramer, A., Husveth, J.General Description: EO Data: Two populations observed were observed in one area of the site. 1 with 12 mature and 25 immature plants growing in aspen scrub-shrub margin along emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass. Partial sun, moist. The other with one mature and 6 immature plants growing in wet-mesic meadow area between aspen scrub-shrub margin and mesic prairie area. Aspens overhead and adjacent emergent marsh (reed canary grass). Partial sun, moist. Assoc. spp: Solidago spp., Carex spp., Salix bebbiana, Popul us tremuloides and others. 5 mature plants growing in sedge meadow fringe area along southwest corner and 5 mature plants were growing along the southeast corner of marsh/ponded area. Full sun. Slightly sloped area grading to pond. Assoc. spp: Carex spp. Onoclea sensibilis, Linaria vulgaris, Scirpus cyperinus, Cirsium vulgare, Solidago spp., Verbena hastata, Scutellaria epilobifolia, Rumex sp. Liparis loeselli, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Salix exigua. There was also a large population with approx imately 1000 individuals occurring within a shaded wet meadow/oak forest edge. Soils are saturated Isanti fine sands with a shallow organic horizon (3-5 cm). Assoc. spp.: Salix exigua, Cornus foemina, Spirea tomentosa, Euthamia graminifolia, Thelypter (truncated...)




Anoka County



MN Status: EndangeredLast Observed Date: 2003-06-25 Last Survey Date: State Rank: S1 First Observed Date: 2003-06-25


Element Name and Occ. #: Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein-orchid) #57

Global Rank: G4?T4Q

Federal Status:


Observed Area: Extent Known?: Ownership Type:

EO ID #: 31933

T31N R23W S26 Site Name: Blaine Water Tower Site Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Dunevitz, H.General Description: Approx 20 plants, all with flowers, growing in an area of about 5 meters diameter. Habitat is shallow rich fen, in area recently disturbed by vehicle tires in standing water. About 20 feet from quaking Aspen trees and planted evergreens. Rich fen in site is disturbed by ditching and past farming practices, but with outstanding populations of listed rare plant species.EO Data: Approx 20 plants, all with flowers, growing in an area of about 5 meters diameter. Habitat is shallow rich fen, in area recently disturbed by vehicle tires in standing water. About 20 feet from quaking Aspen trees and planted evergreens. Rich fen in site is disturbed by ditching and past farming practices, but with outstanding populations of listed rare plant species.



Element Name and Occ. #: Polygala cruciata (Cross-leaved Milkwort) #5

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 30952

T31N R23W S26 Site Name: BLAINE 26 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: The wet meadow has a characteristically low stature. The site has shallow ditches throughout. However, these ditches appear to have been fallow for many years. According to account of long-time area residents, the site was occasionally hayed. The site ha s gently rolling topography, with 1 to 2 meters of variation across 80 acres. The site will be experiencing development presure in the coming years. Other surrounding land uses include mobile home parks, light residential storage facility (west), City of Lexington public park (south), Blaine water tower facility (east) and fallow agricultural land (north of 95th Avenue).EO Data: The population south of 95th Avenue is estimated to be greater than 10,000 plants (1999 survey). The plants are growing mostly in large patches of 100 to 300 individuals within 1 square meter patches. However, in shaded areas (such as under Spiraea spp., Salix sp., and Betula glandulosa) this species is persisting in a more uniform density with 200 to 500 individuals per 100 square meters. Plants were quite robust, and flowering prolifically. Seedlings were also observed. The soils are Isa nti fine sandy loams. There is a shallow organic layer at the surface (6 cm) is composed of sedge peat and retains moisture. The pH is likely slightly acidic, as evident by such species as Drosera sp., Dulichium arundinaceum, and Carex lasiocarpa. The population north of 95th Avenue is somewhat sparse when compared to the other populations in the area. Individual plants appear healthy and are flowering and producing seed. Seedlings were observed. The population is estimated between 100-200 individuals. The soils are Isanti fine sandy loams, with some inclusions of Seelyville muck. There is also a shallow organic layer at the surface (6cm) is composed of sedge peat and retains moisture. The pH is likely slightly acidic as evident by specei (truncated...)




Anoka County




EO Rank: Not ranked

Element Name and Occ. #: Scirpus clintonii (Clinton's Bulrush) #14

Global Rank: G4

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 30948


Survey Type: Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: 500-600 PLANTS ESTIMATED WITHIN 1 ACRE PORTION OF WET MEADOW/WET PRAIRIE. DENSELY DISTRIBUTED. FIRE IN 2000 INCREASED ABUNDANCE & VIGOR OF POPULATION. FLOWERING/PRODUCING SEED & REPRODUCING VEGETATIVELY. ASSOC: XYRIS TORTA, CAREX LASIOCARPA, VIOLA LANCEOLATA, RUBUS SPP, SPIRAEA TOMENTOSA, S. ALBA, POLYGALA CRUCIATA, CAREX CRYPT, SPHAGNUM SPP, LIATRIS PYC, DROSERA SPP, PANICUM LAN, DULICHIUM ARUND, JUNCUS MARGINATUS. LOW PRESENCE OF PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA.EO Data:

MN Status: ThreatenedLast Observed Date: 2002 Last Survey Date: 2002 State Rank: S2 First Observed Date: 1999-05-10


Element Name and Occ. #: Viola lanceolata (Lance-leaved Violet) #30

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 13624

T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S34, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S35 Site Name: BLAINE 26, BLAINE 27 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Kramer, A., Husveth, J.General Description: EO Data: The plant has been observed in a number of locations in the area within and near the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. The subpopulations have ranged in number from a few individuals to more than 9000 (estimated) individuals. Often plants were observed in wet -mesic areas in moist sand in full sun. Also found in wet meadows. Associated species throughout the area include: Euthamia graminifolia, Lotus corniculata, Carex scoparia Salix sp., Trifolium pratense, Rudbeckia hirta, Juncus interior, Polygala sangu inea, Onoclea sensibilis, Sphagnum sp., Andropogon gerardii, Sorghastrum nutans, Juncus marginatus, Viola sagittata, Liatris borealis, Phalaris arundinacea, Salix exigua, Populus tremuloides, Poa pratensis, Carex stricta, Pycnanthemum virginiana, Fragaria virginiana, Spiraea tomentosa, Potentilla simplex, Carex tenera, Juncus brevicaudatus, Rubus spp., Agalinis purpurea, Lycopus uniflorus, Cornus stolonifera, Lobelia kalmii, Liatris pycnostachya, Carex cryptolepis, Platanthera flava, Platanthera lacera, Rubus alleghaniensis, Eleocharis sp., Carex lacustris, Carex buxbaumii, Carex oligosperma, Carex conoidea, Carex gracillima, Carex echinata, Carex pellita, Carex viridula, Carex vesicaria, Hierochloe odorata, Lysimachia thyrsifolia, Equisetum hyemale, K (truncated...)




Anoka County





Element Name and Occ. #: Xyris torta (Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass) #7

Global Rank: G5

Federal Status:



EO ID #: 27391

T31N R23W S26 Site Name: BLAINE 26 Managed Area(s):

Survey Type: Qualitative ground survey Survey Site #/Name: Vegetation Plot: Surveyor(s): Husveth, J.General Description: Surrounding land use include: mobile home parks, light residential storage facility (west), City of Lexington public park (south), Blaine water tower facility (east) and fallow agricultural land (north of 95th Ave.).EO Data: This population of Xyris torta is quite large, in fact it is the largest surviving population known in the state to date. Population size over the wet meadow approaches several thousand. The plants are persisting in large patches (as dominants) in sunny wet meadows, and as scattered individuals in slightly drier or slightly shaded areas. The plants are persisting perennially (from tuberous root stock) and are flowering and producing viable seed. Seedlings were observed in 1999. In places, Xyri s torta is among several dominant species, including Carex lasiocarpa, Viola lanceolata, Rubus spp., Spiraea tomentosa, S. alba, Polygala cruciata, Carex cryptolepis, Sphagnum spp., Liatris pycnostachya, Drosera sp., Panicum lanuginosum var. <i>lanuginosum, and Dulichium arundinaceum. Aristida longespica var geniculata is found on this site, a Minnesota state record. Juncus marginatus is an associated species as well. The wet meadow has a characteristically low stature, as with other recently-discovered wet meadows harboring similar rare species and species associations. The habitat is predominantly saturated, exposed, acidic wet meadow formed on Isanti fine sands. The topography of the site is gently rolling, (truncated...)


of 3Minnesota Natural Heritage Information SystemIndex Report of records within 1 mile radius of:


Anoka County

Printed July 2012 Data valid for one year

Rare Features Database:EO ID #

Last Observed Date

GlobalRank

StateRank

MNStatus

FederalStatusElement Name and Occurrence Number

Vertebrate Animal

S4B G5 1990-06-19Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper) #244 NONT31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

11509

S4B G5 1990-06-19Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper) #245 NONT31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

11510

Vascular Plant

SNR G5 1999-08-21Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #2 NONT31N R23W S35, T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S34; Anoka County

31056

SNR G5 1999-08-21Agalinis purpurea (Purple Gerardia) #3 NONT31N R23W S22, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

31053

SNR G5T5? 1999-08-14Aristida longespica var. geniculata (Spiked Needlegrass) #3 NONT31N R23W S35, T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S34; Anoka County

30953

S2 G3 2002-09-16Botrychium rugulosum (St. Lawrence Grapefern) #40 THRT31N R23W S26; Anoka County

30166

S3 G5 1999-08-21Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #18 SPCT31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

29029

S3 G5 1999-08-20Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #19 SPCT31N R23W S22, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

29035

S3 G5 1999-08-21Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #22 SPCT31N R23W S35, T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S34; Anoka County

30509

S3 G5 1999-08-21Fimbristylis autumnalis (Autumn Fimbristylis) #23 SPCT31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26; Anoka County

30955

S3 G5 2001-08-01Juncus marginatus (Marginated Rush) #2 SPCT31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S21, T31N R23W S29, T31N R23W S35, T [...]; Anoka County

27392

S1 G4?T4Q 2001-08-01Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein-orchid) #39 ENDT31N R23W S28, T31N R23W S27; Anoka County

29008

Copyright 2012, Division of Ecological and Water Resources, State of Minnesota DNR



Anoka County


Rare Features Database:EO ID #

Last Observed Date

GlobalRank

StateRank

MNStatus

FederalStatusElement Name and Occurrence Number

Vascular Plant

S1 G4?T4Q 2003-06-25Platanthera flava var. herbiola (Tubercled Rein-orchid) #57 ENDT31N R23W S26; Anoka County

31933

S1 G5 1999-08-21Polygala cruciata (Cross-leaved Milkwort) #5 ENDT31N R23W S26; Anoka County

30952

S3 G4 1999-05-10Scirpus clintonii (Clinton's Bulrush) #14 SPCT31N R23W S35, T31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S34; Anoka County

30948

S2 G5 2002Viola lanceolata (Lance-leaved Violet) #30 THRT31N R23W S27, T31N R23W S34, T31N R23W S26, T31N R23W S35; Anoka County

13624

S1 G5 1999-07-15Xyris torta (Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass) #7 ENDT31N R23W S26; Anoka County

27391

Records Printed = 17 Minnesota's endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. For plants, taking includes digging or destroying. For animals, taking includes pursuing, capturing, or killing.

An Explanation of Fields:

Element Name and Occurrence Number: The Element is the name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements it is solely the element name. Native plant community names correspond to Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0). The Occurrence Number, in combination with the Element Name, uniquely identifies each record.

Federal Status: The status of the species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: LE = endangered; LT = threatened; LE,LT = listed endangered in part of its range, listed threatened in another part of its range; LT,PDL = listed threatened, proposed for delisting; C = candidate for listing. If null or 'No Status,' the species has no federal status.

MN Status: Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern; NON = tracked, but no legal status. Native plant communities, geological features, and colonial waterbird nesting sites do not have any legal status under the Endangered Species Law and are represented by a N/A.

State Rank: Rank that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the taxon or plant community in Minnesota. The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available. S1 = Critically imperiled in Minnesota because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled in Minnesota because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable in Minnesota either because rare or uncommon, or found in a restricted range, or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently secure in Minnesota, usually widespread. S5 = Demonstrably secure in Minnesota, essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SH = Of historical occurrence in the state, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, but suspected to be still extant. An element would become SH without the 20-year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. SNR = Rank not yet assessed. SU = Unable to rank. SX = Presumed extinct in Minnesota. SNA =




Anoka County


Rank not applicable. S#S# = Range Rank: a numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element. S#B, S#N = Used only for migratory animals, whereby B refers to the breeding population of the element in Minnesota and N refers to the non-breeding population of the element in Minnesota.

Global Rank: The global (i.e., range-wide) assessment of the relative rarity or imperilment of the species or community. Ranges from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by NatureServe, an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers.

Last Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was last observed to be extant at the site in format YYY-MM-DD.

EO ID #: Unique identifier for each Element Occurrence record.

Element Occurrence: An area of land and/or water in which an Element (i.e., a rare species or community) is, or was, present, and which has practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location. Specifications for each species determine whether multiple observations should be considered 1 Element Occurrence or 2, based on minimum separation distance and barriers to movement.


Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields Revised August 2012

The Rare Features Database is part of the Natural Heritage Information System, and is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water

Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

**Please note that the database reports are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission** Field Name: [Full (non-abbreviated) field name, if different]. Further explanation of field.

-D- Draft Status: Proposed change to the legal status of the plant or animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern; Watchlist = tracked, but no legal status.

-E- Element Name and Occ #: [Element Name and Occurrence Number]. The Element is the name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements (such as native plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. Native plant community names correspond to Minnesota’s Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0). The Occurrence Number, in combination with the Element Name, uniquely identifies each record.

EO Data: [Element Occurrence Data]. For species elements, this field contains data collected on the biology of the Element Occurrence* (EO), including the number of individuals, vigor, habitat, soils, associated species, peculiar characteristics, etc. For native plant community elements, this field is a summary text description of the vegetation of the EO, including structure (strata) and composition (dominant/characteristic species), heterogeneity, successional stage/dynamics, any unique aspects of the community or additional noteworthy species (including animals). Note that this is a new field and it has not been filled out for many of the records that were collected prior to conversion to the new database system. Some of the information meeting the field definition may be found in the General Description field.

EO ID#: [Element Occurrence Identification Number]. Unique identifier for each Element Occurrence record.

EO Rank: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of an Element Occurrence (EO) from A (highest) to D (lowest). Represents a comparative evaluation of: 1) quality as determined by representativeness of the occurrence especially as compared to EO specifications and including maturity, size, numbers, etc. 2) condition (how much has the site and the EO itself been damaged or altered from its optimal condition and character). 3) viability (the long-term prospects for continued existence of this occurrence - used in ranking species only). EO Ranks are assigned based on recent fieldwork by knowledgeable individuals.

Extent Known?: A value that indicates whether the full extent of the Element is known (i.e., it has been determined through field survey) at that location. If null, the value has not been determined.

-F- Federal Status: Status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: LE = endangered; LT = threatened; LE,LT = listed endangered in part of its range, listed threatened in another part of its range; LT,PDL = listed threatened, proposed for delisting; C = candidate for listing. If null or “No Status” the species has no federal status.

First Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was first reported at the site in format YYYY-MM-DD. A year followed by “Pre” indicates that the observed date was sometime prior to the date listed, but the exact date is unknown. -G- General Description: General description or word picture of the area where the Element Occurrence (EO) is located (i.e., the physical setting/context surrounding the EO), including a list of adjacent communities. When available, information on surrounding land use may be included. Note that the information tracked in this field is now more narrowly defined than it was in the old database system, and some of the information still in this field more accurately meets the definition of the new EO Data field. We are working to clean up the records so that the information in the two fields corresponds to the current field explanations described herein. Also note that the use of uppercase in sentences in this field is not significant but rather an artifact of transferring data from the old database system to the new system.

Global Rank: The global (i.e., range-wide) assessment of the relative rarity or imperilment of the species or community. Ranges from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by NatureServe, an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers.

-L- Last Observed Date: Date that the Element Occurrence was last observed to be extant at the site in format YYYY-MM-DD.

Last Survey Date: Date of the most recent field survey for the Element Occurrence, regardless of whether it was found during the visit. If the field is blank, assume the date is the same as the Last Observed Date.

Location Description: County or Counties in which the Element Occurrence was documented followed by Township, Range, and Section information (not listed in any particular order). Each unique Township, Range, and Section combination is separated by a comma. In some cases, there are too many Township, Range, and Section combinations to list in the field, in which case, the information will be replaced with, “Legal description is too lengthy to fit in allotted space”.

-M- Managed Area(s): Name of the managed area (e.g., federal, state, local, or private park, forest, refuge, or preserve) containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(Statutory Boundary)" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or park.

MN Status: The legal status of plant or animal species under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law: END = endangered; THR = threatened; SPC = special concern; NON = tracked, but no legal status. Native plant communities, geological features, and colonial waterbird nesting sites do not have any legal status under the Endangered Species Law and are represented by a N/A.

MN Statute Name: The name of the species as identified under the Minnesota Endangered Species Law. This name may differ from the scientific name due to changes in the scientific nomenclature since 1996, when the Minnesota List of state-listed species was last revised.

-N- NPC Classification (v1.5): Native plant community name in Minnesota’s Native Vegetation: A Key to Natural Communities (Version 1.5). This earlier classification has been replaced by Minnesota’s Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0).

-O- Observed Area: The total area (acres), measured or estimated during fieldwork, of the Element Occurrence. If null, the value has not been determined.

-S- SGCN Status: SGCN = The species is a Species in Greatest Conservation Need as identified in Minnesota's State Wildlife Action Plan (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/index.html). This designation applies to animals only.

Site Name: The name of the site(s) where the Element Occurrence is located. Sites are natural areas of land with boundaries determined and mapped according to biological and ecological considerations.

Survey Site #/Name: The name of the survey site, if applicable, where the Element Occurrence is located. Survey sites are sites that provide a geographic framework for recording and storing data, but their boundaries are not based on biological and ecological considerations. Minnesota County Biological Survey site numbers, if applicable, are also listed in this field.

Survey Type: Information on the type of survey used to collect information on the Element Occurrence.

Surveyor(s): Name(s) of the person(s) that collected survey information on the Element Occurrence.

State Rank: Rank that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the taxon or plant community in Minnesota. The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available. S1 = Critically imperiled in Minnesota because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled in Minnesota because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable in Minnesota either because rare or uncommon, or found in a restricted range, or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently secure in Minnesota, usually widespread. S5 = Demonstrably secure in Minnesota, essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SH = Of historical occurrence in the state, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, but suspected to be still extant. An element would become SH without the 20-year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. SNR = Rank not yet assessed. SU = Unable to rank. SX = Presumed extinct in Minnesota. SNA = Rank not applicable. S#S# = Range Rank: a numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element. S#B, S#N = Used only for migratory animals, whereby B refers to the breeding population of the element in Minnesota and N refers to the non-breeding population of the element in Minnesota.

-V- Vegetation Plot: Code(s) for any vegetation plot data that have been collected within this Element Occurrence (i.e., either Releve Number or the word “RELEVE” indicates that a releve has been collected).

* Element Occurrence – an area of land and/or water in which an Element (i.e., a rare species or community) is, or was, present, and which has practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location. Specifications for each species determine whether multiple observations should be considered 1 Element Occurrence or 2, based on minimum separation distance and barriers to movement. Data Security Locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to the rare features. For example, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valuable plants such as ginseng are vulnerable to exploitation by collectors; other species, such as bald eagles, are sensitive to disturbance by observers. For this reason, we prefer that publications not identify the precise locations of vulnerable species. We suggest describing the location only to the nearest section. If this is not acceptable for your purposes, please call and discuss this issue with the Endangered Species Review Coordinator at 651- 259-5109.

shamrock recycling and transfer station expansion projectfinal site drainage and wetland alteration...

Documents