The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-05-15 Amended Alternative Urban Areawide ReviewAMENDMENT To the ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE RENEW For the Albertville Business Park Project Prepared for the City of. A\Ibcrtvi SnmN Town LM g. Big City tills. May 15, 2003 Prepared By RILK �KUUSISTO LTD Project No. 2001-239-M Offices: Hibbing ♦ Minnetonka ♦ Ham Lake ♦ Twin Ports Tel. 952-933-0972 ♦ 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 ♦ Minnetonka, MN 554343 ♦ Fax 952-933-1153 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Description and Information..........................................................................................3 II. Mitigation Plan..........................................................................................................................3 IIA. Traffic...............................................................................................................................4 IIB. Wildlife Species and Vegetation......................................................................................6 IIC. Water Appropriation........................................................................................................9 IID. Stormwater Runoff..........................................................................................................9 IIE. Construction Impacts..................................................................................................... 11 IIF. Permits and Approvals...................................................................................................11 III. Comments Regarding the AUAR............................................................................................12 Response to Comments - Minnesota Department of Transportation.........................................................................13 - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources....................................................................13 - Otsego City Engineer........................................................................................................15 - Otsego City Transportation Engineer................................................................................16 Revised Table 1 from Appendix G of the original AUAR.....................................................18 Revised Figure 1 from Appendix G of the original AUAR....................................................20 ATTACHMENTS Appendix A...........................................................................Wetland Permit Application (Phase 1) Appendix B.......................................................................... Wetland Permit Application (Phase II) Appendix C.............................................................................. Agency Letter Comments on AUAR EXHIBITS The following list of exhibits is provided for reference. The exhibits are included in the original AUAR and have not been changed unless so noted. Copies of exhibits listed in boldface type are included in this amendment for reference. Exhibit1 ...............................................................................:..........................Location Map Exhibit2 ............................................................................................................... USGS Map Exhibit 2.1 ........................................................................ I.................. Regional Road System Exhibit3 ....................................................................... Comprehensive Development Plan Exhibit4 ...................................................................I................................Water Master Plan Exhibit 5 ..................................................................................... Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Exhibit6 ....................................... ....................................................................... Zoning Map Exhibit7 ....................................................................Wetland Impact / Replacement Plan Exhibit8 ..................................................................................................Existing Conditions Exhibit 9 ........................................................................... Grading and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit 10 ............................................... ..................................Offsite Drainage Routing Map Exhibit11 ........................................................................................ Wright County Soils Map SWMP 1 ..................................................................... Existing Drainage Conditions Exhibit SWMP2 ............................................................................ Concept Drainage Plan Exhibit 11 Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 2 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 11 17 ' AMENDMENT To The ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW Albertville Business Park Project -Albertville, MN This Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Albertville Business Park Project has been prepared to provide a mitigation plan for the development and address comments ' received during the public review period. The AUAR was previously distributed on March 3, 2003 and has completed the 30-day public comment period. The mitigation plan and response to comments include references to appendices and exhibits previously included in the original AUAR as noted. tComments will be received on this Amendment through June 3, 2003. If no outstanding issues remain, a resolution to adopt the March 3, 2003 AUAR and May 15, 2003 Amendment will be placed on the agenda of the Albertville City Council on June 16, 2003. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INFORMATION ' The AUAR area encompasses the proposed Albertville Business Park project, a mixed use development, on approximately 111 acres of farmland in Albertville, Minnesota. The project will involve approximately 750,000 square feet of building area including light industrial, office/warehouse and commercial use. The property is within Planning District Seven of the City of Albertville Comprehensive Plan and is currently guided and planned for commercial and industrial use. t At the southeast corner of the project, 25 acres have recently been rezoned to Planned Unit Development (PUD), designated as Phase 1 and platted as a subdivision with four buildable lots, one outlot encompassing wetlands, and public right of way for a road and public utilities. Construction of ' the Phase 1 public improvements and a retail multi -tenant building on Lot 1 of the subdivision began in the spring of 2002 and is anticipated to be completed this year. A conceptual site plan that illustrates a potential development scenario for the ± 111 acres is included as Exhibit 3. Except as noted above, specific end users have not been identified for the majority of the site. Parcels will be identified within the unplatted 86 acres during future phases that will most ' likely be ranging from 1.5 acres to 12 acres as needed for the potential users and as allowed by code. Rezoning of the property is anticipated to be completed in phases as the parcel develops, to be consistent with the proposed uses. Considering wetlands, right of way requirements and proposed storm pond area, approximately 75 acres of the 111-acre site are developable. Proposed building coverage is anticipated to be 23 percent of the net developable area. II. MITIGATION PLAN The Mitigation Plan describes the proposed mitigation measures for the environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the Albertville Business Park. Key mitigation measures for the subject project include traffic, wetlands, wildlife species and vegetation, water appropriation, stormwater runoff and construction impacts as follows. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 3 of 19 ' May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN k I�I I F7 L I HA. TRAFFIC Impacts General Information The project will generate additional traffic, combined with an increase in traffic projections for other existing and proposed facilities in the vicinity of the site, will result in growth in traffic congestion on the local roadway system. The traffic study included in Appendix G of the AUAR and referred to in this plan analyzed traffic conditions for the City of Albertville, as well as the surrounding area including parts of the Cities of Otsego and St. Michael. Two scenarios for the year 2013 were analyzed: a No -Build scenario with background growth only and a Build scenario. Background growth was estimated based on a general understanding of potential development in the vicinity and region. The background growth estimates are based on the anticipated development in the Albertville, St. Michael and Otsego area to approximate background conditions in the vicinity of the AUAR area for the build -out year 2013. The background forecasts include general growth projections in the aforementioned cities, specific vehicle trips related to the proposed 93.9-acre Vetch Town Lakes Phase II Mixed Use Development on the east side of CR 19, and potential growth associated with the sanitary sewer service expansion north of the AUAR area in the City of Otsego. The general growth projections are part of significant regional growth around the AUAR study area and are derived from anticipated land uses identified in existing city comprehensive plans. A comprehensive regional transportation plan and traffic analysis, the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study, is underway by the City of Albertville and the City of St. Michael that will further address potential growth scenarios in Albertville, Otsego and St. Michael in greater detail. The Corridor Study is scheduled to be completed by early 2004 It is noted that the study is accounting for build -out of the AUAR area and will identify improvements required throughout the period of build -out of the AUAR project and region. Impacts to the Local RoadwaySystem Upon full build -out of the 111-acre AUAR area, the daily trip generation potential of the project is approximately 17,467 trips (ADT). Development on the proposed AUAR site will result in approximately 1,860 PM peak hour trips, which are assigned to the adjacent street system based on the City's Traffic Model. The anticipated traffic demand is in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan for land use. It is noted the timing of the development of the project area is uncertain other than it is expected to occur within the next twenty years. Based on a Peak Hour analysis of the seven existing and future intersections anticipated to be impacted by the AUAR area, only the CSAH 37 intersection at CR 19 was identified to have a peak hour Level of Sevice (LOS) worse than D; LOS D or better is considered to be acceptable in the Twin Cities area. The CSAH 37 intersection at CR 19 is anticipated to have a LOS F in the Build condition in 2013, while it is anticipated to operate at LOS D in the No -Build scenario in 2013. (See Table 21.1, page 18 of the AUAR document, for an Intersection Level of Service Summary.) Regional System Impacts Interstate 94, the principal arterial serving the site, currently operates near capacity in the peak hours and will continue to be congested as the region develops, regardless of development of the AUAR site. Development of the site will increase PM peak/peak direction traffic on I-94 by approximately 5 percent in the vicinity of the site. The development will provide a benefit to the regional system by increasing the potential work opportunities for local residents, resulting in opportunities for shorter commutes. Amendment to the AUAR ' May 15, 2003 Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN Page 4 of 19 ' As noted above, the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study is a regional transportation plan and traffic analysis that is currently underway by the City of Albertville and the City of St. ' Michael. The study will identify and clarify regional growth expectations, potential traffic routing alternates, impacts to the regional traffic system and required mitigation, which may possibly include a recommendation for additional access for I-94. Potential improvements to the AUAR area related to additional I-94 access, which may be identified in the study, may ' include right of way requirements adjacent to Kadler Avenue or other roadways. Mitigation ' Proposed Improvements to the Local Roadway System Information provided by the City of Albertville, Wright County and MnDOT identified the following already programmed improvements: • CSAH 19 will become a divided 4-lane facility from north of 671h Street to south of 571h Street. (2003) • CSAH 19 at 571h Street will become a signalized intersection. (2003) • CSAH 19 at 67th Street will become a signalized intersection. (2003) • A traffic signal will be installed at the ramp terminal intersection of westbound I-94 and ' CSAH 37. (2003) Additional improvement proj ects are planned, but are not yet programmed: • New I-94 interchange or interchange modification at CSAH 19/1-94 to provide eastbound access to and westbound access from I-94. (The I-94 Corridor Study previously mentioned may recommend this additional I-94 access. However, the study may recommend an alternate location for a new I-94 access such as Kadler Avenue or other location that would ' supersede this planned improvement. The Corridor Study will also identify mitigation to the local roadway system required for the location ultimately recommended in the study. ' Any proposed access modification to I-94 will be subject to federal interstate access guidelines.) • Signalization of the ramp terminal intersections at CSAH 19/1-94. • Widening of CSAH 19 north from 671h Street to beyond 70`h Street (this is a correction from ' the AUAR text). The SEH Traffic Report indicates the intersection of CSAH 19 and 70t1 Street will require mitigation as a result of the development of the AUAR area. Suggested improvements include ' the following: • Provide dedicated southbound right and northbound left turn lanes from CSAH 19 to ' westbound 70t1 Street. • Provide a dedicated left turn lane and a shared through plus right turn lane on the west approach to the intersection. • Provide a fully -actuated traffic control signal with protected/permitted left turn phasing which can be interconnected with the 67 Street signal to the south. ' The City of Albertville will coordinate with Wright County on behalf of the AUAR development for the timing and implementation of these improvements. The developer is expected to participate in the mitigation discussed for CSAH 19 at 701h Street on a pro rata basis with others benefiting from the improvements. Regional Miti ag tion The regional Transportation Development Guide includes improvements to I-94, but these have ' not been programmed at this time. In the near term, the effects of the additional demand due to the development of site would need to be mitigated by implementation of travel demand Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page S of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN management (TDM) elements. TDM elements that may be appropriate for the anticipated uses include distributing information regarding alternate modes of transportation, working with Metro Transit to enhance transit opportunities as demand is produced, flex time and car pool/ ride share opportunities. The AUAR Traffic Report indicates the surrounding roadway infrastructure may require modification to mitigate growth in background traffic as well as site -generated traffic within the next ten years. Enhanced access to eastbound and from westbound I-94 will be necessary to accommodate future growth in the Albertville/St. Michael's area. As previously noted, the ' Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study is currently underway and will address options for enhanced access to the freeway. This improvement may include the addition of an eastbound on ramp from CSAH 19 and a westbound off ramp to CSAH 19. Alternatively, the expansion of CSAH 37 to a four -lane facility with additional turn lanes at critical intersections ' as well as dual left turn lanes from southbound CSAH 19 to CSAH 37 may be considered. Either improvement will need to be undertaken as a joint venture including the cities of Albertville, St. Michael, acid Otsego, Wright County, MnDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. All benefiting parties will be expected to participate in the cost sharing on a pro rata basis. ' Potential mitigation identified in the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study will be considered at the time of site development application(s) for the AUAR area, including additional access to I-94 and improvements to the roadway system that may impact the AUAR area. Mitigation may include site design considerations that would accommodate potential transportation improvements without constraining the project development if it occurs prior to approval and permitting of the recommended mitigation. Specific impacts, potential impacts and site design considerations will be addressed as the project phases are identified and during review of the project development application(s) as they are submitted. Existing and Planned Transit Services Metro Transit does not currently offer transit service to the Albertville/St. Michael Area. However, existing options for commuters to the Twin Cities include: • Service to and from the metro area from park and ride lots in Champlin and Maple Grove. ' • Commuter bus service from Elk River. • Ridesharing set up and sponsored by Metro Commuter Services. ' Discussions have been ongoing and concept plans have been developed for the creation of a Northwest Corridor Transit route. Although no plans are programmed at this time, possibilities include commuter rail and bus service extending to St. Cloud with the possibility of access in or near Albertville/St. Michael (per discussion with Metro Transit). Pedestrian/Trail Access The City of Albertville Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan designates a proposed trail ' through the project that is anticipated to follow the proposed public road alignment and connect the future development east of the project to a proposed trail along the south side of 70th Street. The final alignment of the trail will be determined during site planning and development. The Developer may be required to design and construct the trail within the project as part of the Park Dedication requirements of the City. IIB. WETLANDS, WILDLIFE SPECIES AND VEGETATION Impacts The site has been used for agricultural purposes and much of the wetlands area and natural wildlife habitat has been degraded due to past crop production and ditching on the property. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 6 of 19 ' May 1 S, 2003 Albertville, MN ' The on -site wetlands currently support a limited amount of wetland vegetation and provide minimal amounts of habitat for wildlife. Only where open water is present does the dominant vegetation exhibit species diversity and change from reed canary grass to cattails, broad-leaved arrowhead, wool grass, etc. The proposed development anticipates impacting 2.3 acres of the existing 19.2 acres or approximately 12% of the total delineated wetland area. The development will improve the existing wetland quality by recreating the native buffer areas that have been destroyed during past farming operations that plowed close to, and into, the existing wetlands. The highest quality and largest of the wetlands, Wetland 1, will have an approximately 0.55- acre impact on the south due to the construction of a public road; however, wetland creation will expand Wetland 1 over 1.7 acres in the southeast portion of the wetland. Impacts to Wetlands 7, 8, and 9 are associated with Phase 1 of this development, were properly ' permitted and have been constructed (a copy of the permit application is included in Appendix A). A wetland permit application for Phase 11 has been prepared and submitted for review and approval and is included in Appendix B for information, including the detailed sequencing process previously discussed with the Technical Evaluation Panel. All of the wetlands awaiting permit approval (1 through 4) are of medium -low quality. Although the conversion of agricultural land to industrial and commercial development will ' decrease the overall area of potential wildlife habitat, there will be an increase in the acreage of actual habitable wetland and areas of higher quality vegetation at the site. This will be achieved by means of a planting, seeding and maintenance plan for the newly constructed buffer areas where none are currently existing adjacent to the wetland areas. The site wetlands proposed for impact feature degraded vegetation; all are nearly monotypic stands of invasive reed canary grass. The project increases the acreage and quality of the large wetland (Wetland 1) by means of mitigation and wetland buffer areas. The addition of high quality seeding and plantings will increase the floral diversity in the wetland and buffer areas attracting more faunal diversity. A aggressive management of the existing wetland and newly ' created buffer vegetation is planned in order to keep exotic and invasive species at a minimum. Further improvements to the quality of the existing wetlands and associated vegetation will result from the construction of a storm drainage system. The drainage system will route runoff from the parking lots, roadways and other impervious areas into storm ponds for treatment and detention prior to rate -controlled discharge into the wetlands. Where feasible, weir outlets will ' be implemented to discharge treated runoff from the ponds into the wetlands, in order to minimize the impacts of winter salt applications that will be spread on the parking lots and roadways in the winter. fMitigation Wetland fill areas and associated mitigation measures are identified in the permit applications included for Phase 1 and Phase II in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Mitigation includes wetland creation adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 9 as well as public value credits in the form of buffer improvements. Native grasses and forbs as well as indigenous trees will be planted within the reconstructed wetland buffers of the currently farmed wetlands, and may be planted to upgrade the existing wetland buffers that are not otherwise impacted. As part of the development along the south part of the site, the hydrologic and/or vegetative connection identified for the three lobes of Wetland 2 will be reconstructed where possible. During the phased site development, proposed pond edges and adjacent connections to the wetlands will tincorporate native landscaping such as native grasses, forbs and indigenous trees to provide high quality habitat. The project includes the construction of stormwater ponds that will be located throughout the development. The storm -ponds will minimize impacts to existing wetlands and new wetland Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 7 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 1 II I 1 H creation areas as shown on SWMP 2, Concept Drainage Plan exhibit. Wetland impacts will be minimized by routing runoff from the proposed parcel developments into the ponds, where the stormwater will be treated and detained prior to discharging into the on -site wetland system at the required controlled rates. Stormwater ponds will be designed and coordinated to meet the goals of the Concept Drainage Report (Appendix F of the AUAR) as project phases are identified. The intent of the storm pond design is to maintain the approximate net inflow/ outflow volumes contributing to each of the wetlands to ensure recharge, and to design the inflow rate to control the bounce within the wetlands. The design runoff volume routed through the proposed storm pond system into Wetland 1 and 9 has been increased to ensure that the proposed wetland creation areas are recharged. Table II-1 provides a summary of the drainage design criteria that will be used during the phased site development, including normal and high water levels to be maintained with the drainage design, and proposed inflow and outflow volumes for each of the wetlands. Existing conditions are included in the table for reference and consideration, to be used in the analysis if a modified design is proposed by the developer. Design criteria is provided for the 100-year, 1-inch and 2.5-inch storm events. TABLE U-1 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA (WETLANDS) Wetland Existing NWL Existing 100-yr HWL Proposed 100-Yr HWL Existing 2.5" HWL Proposed 2.5" HWL Existing 1" HWL Proposed 1" HWL 1 54.3 56.9 58.0 55.1 55.3 54.4 54.5 2-west 57.5 57.9 58.8 57.6 57.9 57.5 57.5 2-east 57.5 58.2 58.6 57.6 57.8 57.5 57.5 4 54.2 54.3 54.3 54.2 54.2 54.2 54.2 9 54.0 54.5 54.5 54.1 54.2 54.0 54.0 *NWL = Normal Water Level Amendment to the AUAR May 15, 2003 *HWL = High Water Level Existing: Proposed: Volume In/ Volume In/ Wetland Volume Out Volume Out 0.47 1.60 1 0.13 0.29 0 0.06 2-west 0 0.01 0.001 0.02 2-east 0.001 0.02 0.08 0.32 4 0.08 0.32 0.21 0.81 9 0.20 0.81 Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN Page 8 of 19 IIC. WATER APPROPRIATION ' Water Wells Impacts and Mitigation There are two wells existing on the property that are not registered with the Minnesota Department of Health. One well is located near a tool shed and is currently active, providing ' water for the homestead and farming operation. The second well is reportedly inactive. Both wells will be capped in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations when they are abandoned at the time of development of the existing homestead site. 1 Analysis of Existing Water Supply System Impacts The project water supply demands are anticipated to be typical for commercial and light industrial uses as proposed. The water supply for the City of Albertville has been planned to be adequate for potential demands that are allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the AUAR area, which include the proposed uses. The sizing of the existing and proposed water distribution infrastructure in the AUAR area will accommodate these anticipated uses. To confirm that adequate water supply will be available for the potential users, each applicant will be required to estimate water demand requirements for the City at the time of initial site plan application for any potential development. Mitigation A Feasibility Report for the 2000 Northwest Sewer and Water Extension, dated March 31, 2000, was completed by the City of Albertville. The report identified proposed infrastructure requirements for the AUAR study area and vicinity including a 12-inch diameter distribution main throughout the development and two connections to the existing City water supply piping system. One of the proposed connections identified was a pipe crossing of I-94 through the AUAR area (see Exhibit 4, Water Master Plan). As part of the Phase I development, a 12-inch diameter water distribution main was installed through the Phase I area, bored under I-94 and connected to the existing public water main on the south side of the freeway. The alignment of the distribution main within the remainder of the AUAR study area will be designed and the piping will be constructed as part of the phased development, in conjunction with the design and alignment of the remaining roadways. A 12-inch diameter pipe is anticipated to be installed, unless proposed demands identified with the proposed developments require a larger pipe and/ or other facilities. IID. STORMWATER RUNOFF Impacts ' Although the proposed development includes an overall increase in the impervious area on site, the resulting quality of the stormwater runoff will be improved through the use of the proposed storm ponds designed per National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In the existing ' conditions, farmed land discharges runoff from cleared and fertilized fields directly into the wetlands and then off -site, allowing uncontrolled sediment and chemicals to enter the natural drainage system. The proposed NURP ponds will provide treatment to remove suspended solids and associated phosphorus, as well as providing a controlled rate of runoff to minimize the bounce in the wetlands. With the change of use from farmland to a business park, and with the addition of permanent vegetation around the storm ponds and wetlands, the potential amount of chemicals anticipated to runoff into the ponds and wetland system will be significantly reduced. Stormwater from the proposed developments will be routed to on -site stormwater retention ponds that are designed to accommodate the fully developed site in accordance with NURP Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 9 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN standards for treatment and detention. The treated water will be discharged from the NURP ponds to recharge the on -site wetlands. Runoff ultimately leaving the site through this ' integrated system of ponds and wetlands will be of high quality and will not exceed the predevelopment rate of discharge. A concept drainage report is included in Appendix F of the AUAR that details the existing and ' approximate proposed drainage conditions. Proposed development will result in approximately 60 acres of impervious area such as parking lots, roof areas and streets. Based on the rational method of calculation, existing and post -development runoff flow rates for the 100-year rainfall event are estimated to be 89 cfs and 62 cfs, respectively. Preconstruction runoff volume is approximately 103.9 acre-feet; the runoff volume anticipated after project completion is approximately 109.5 acre-feet. The project will significantly reduce the rate of runoff from the site while resulting in a minimal increase in volume of flow off the site. Each phase of ' development will include drainage design that provides for NURP requirements. Impacts to the downstream drainage facilities, including the wetlands on the Outlet Mall site, School Lake, Mud Lake and Otsego Creek, are designed to be minimal as noted by the reduced runoff flow rates. In conjunction with a recent drainage study completed by the City of Otsego that modeled School Lake and Mud Lake, the City is designing a new discharge control structure for the lakes that incorporates the design flows and volumes identified in this mitigation plan. Mitigation Site drainage facilities will be designed and constructed to accommodate the phased development within the project area as shown in the Concept Drainage Report, Appendix F of the AUAR. Drainage improvements for the Phase 1 area are completed as described in the ' AUAR. Runoff from the proposed development will be defined by two separate contributing areas that generally follow the existing drainage area boundaries. The south area currently drains into rWetland 9, a large wetland in the southeast corner of the site. The north area encompasses the contributing area currently draining into Wetland 1 at the northwest corner of the site and the wetland ditch flowing from Wetland 1 to the east. The north area includes Wetland 4 drainage from the northeast corner of the site that also drains into the wetland ditch carrying outfall from Wetland 1. Proposed drainage areas and routing are illustrated on SWMP 2, Concept Drainage Plan. ' As noted in Section H.B, Table H-1 provides a summary of the drainage design criteria associated with wetland water levels and volumes that will be used during the phased site development in order to meet the wetland mitigation and quality requirements. Additional ' flow rate and volume design criteria is included in the Drainage Report (Appendix F of the AUAR). Existing conditions are included in the tables for reference and consideration in the event a developer proposes a modified drainage system. South Drainage Area The limits of the existing south drainage area will generally be maintained in the fully developed condition. Contributing areas of the wetlands will be roughly maintained. In the proposed condition, Wetland 9 and the majority of Wetland 2 will be preserved. Flow from the I-94 right of way on the west side of the project will continue to be discharged into Wetland 2 south of the project. Overflow from Wetland 2 will be carried within a piping system into the Phase 1 storm pond north of 67"' Street which discharges into Wetland 9. Constructed with the Phase 1 improvements, flow from the I-94 right of way on the east half of the project is now carried within a channel along the south project boundary that discharges through storm sewers into Wetland 9 The Phase 1 ponds are discharged into Wetland 9 via Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 10 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 1 storm sewers. Runoff from the proposed parcels in the south drainage area will be captured by surface drains and routed to several on -site NURP ponds, including the Phase 1 ponds, through a subsurface piping system that will be designed with each lot development. Each NURP pond west of the Phase 1 area will be discharged via a system of storm sewers and ditches into Wetland 2. Treated runoff will continue to exit Wetland 9 over the east property boundary and into the existing ditch on the adjacent property. North Drainage Phased site design will include drainage improvements that capture runoff from the proposed parcels and roadways via surface drains that route the flow to several on -site NURP ponds through a subsurface piping system. The ponds capturing flow from the west two-thirds of the ' site will discharge into Wetland 1, which will continue to discharge into the wetlands on the property to the east via an existing ditch that crosses the AUAR area, draining eastward. The ponds proposed to capture runoff from the east one-third of the site will discharge into Wetland 4 or directly into the ditch that captures discharge from Wetland 1, both of which ultimately flow into the wetlands on the property to the east of the AUAR area. IIE. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Impacts Dust, noise and vibrations will be associated with the construction of the project, typical of development activities. Specific measures will be taken to significantly reduce dust, noise and vibrations during construction. The impacts will end with the completion of the construction. Mitigation The following measures will be incorporated into the construction procedures for this project to minimize noise, vibration and dust emissions: ■ All internal combustion motors will be fitted with mufflers and other noise control equipment as specified by the manufacturer. ' ■ Compliance with the City of Albertville noise requirements. ■ Compliance with Minnesota Rules 7005.0050 on the control of fugitive particulate matter from construction and hauling activities to minimize adverse air quality impacts. ■ The design of the project will minimize the amount of off -site material haul required. ■ Individual lot developers will be required to follow the same measures during construction of the building and site improvements. Each of the individual developers will be in conformance with the MPCA's General Construction Storm Water Permit during construction. The contractor will implement Best Management Practices (BMP's) to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the site and to manage the stormwater runoff during each phase of construction. The proposed stormwater ponds and/or temporary sedimentation basins, if necessary, will be excavated prior to disturbance of the soil to provide retention/treatment until the final pond improvements are in ' place. After completion of the construction, no unusual dust, odors and noise will be generated from the site. Impacts will be limited to normal operation of vehicles accessing the site and 1 mechanical operations typical of commercial and light industrial facilities. IIF. PERMITS AND APPROVALS The following permits and approvals are anticipated to be required and will be obtained at the appropriate times during the project development: Unit ofgovernment Type ofapplication Status Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 11 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 1 r US Army Corps of Section 404 Approval/ Waiver (Phase 1) Approved ' Engineers Section 404 Approval/ Waiver (Future phases) To be applied for Minnesota Department Grading Permit (Phase 1) Approved of Transportation Grading Permit (Future phases) To be applied for (MnDOT) Plat Approval (Phase 1) Approved Plat Approval (Future phases) To be applied for Minnesota Dept of Well Closure Certificate(s) To be applied for Health (MDH) Watermain Extension (Phase 1) Approved Watermain Extension (Future phases) To be applied for Minnesota Pollution Underground Storage Tank Notification To be applied for Control Agency NPDES Permit (Phase 1) Approved (MPCA) NPDES Permit (Future phases) To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension (Phase 1) Approved Sanitary Sewer Extension (Future phases) To be applied for City of Albertville Alternate Urban Areawide Review Under Review Traffic Impact Study Under Review Rezoning Approval/Planned Unit Dev. (Ph. 1) Approved Rezoning Approval/Planned Unit Dev. (Future) Conditional Use Permit for Wetlands Systems To be applied for Overlay District To be applied for Stormwater Management Plan (Phase 1) Approved Stormwater Management Plan (Future phases) To be applied for Preliminary and Final Plat (Phase 1) Approved Preliminary and Final Plat (Future phases) To be applied for WCA Permit Application (Phase 1) Approved WCA Permit Application (Future phase) Under Review Public Roadway and Utilities (Phase 1) Approved Public Roadway and Utilities (Future phases) To be applied for Development Agreement (Phase 1) Approved Development Agreement (Future phases) To be applied for Construction Permits (Phase 1) Approved ' Construction Permits (Future phases): Water Connection Permit To be applied for ' Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit Building Demolition Permit To be applied for To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Utility Permits To be applied for r III. COMMENTS REGARDING THE AUAR Written comments were received from the following agencies: ' ■ Minnesota Department of Transportation- District 3 (MnDOT) letter dated April 2, 2003. ■ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) letter dated April 1, 2003 ■ Otsego City Engineer, Ronald Wagner, Hakanson Anderson Associates, letter dated April 2, 2003 Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 12 of 19 ' May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 1 1 E 1 [I ■ Otsego City Transportation Engineer, Jim Johnson, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., letter dated March 27, 2003 Copies of the written comments are attached to this document in Appendix C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following information is provided in response to the comments received from the agencies noted above. Responses are offered for the substantive issues and are included in the Mitigation Plan where appropriate. Minnesota Department of Transportation. District 3 -letter dated April 2. 2003 1. Comment: In Section 17. Water Quality: The document states "runoff impacting the site includes a significant amount of salt from I-94, which greatly reduces the water quality ". We find the use of the term "significant" to be an exaggeration in the absence of quantitative data to the contrary. The application of chemicals to Minnesota roads rarely causes acute or chronic impacts to aquatic life. At the same time, the use of deicing chemicals does provide a major contribution to human safety. Response: Comment noted. 2. Comment: In Section 21. Traffic: Existing Conditions: Please note that a traffic signal will be installed at the ramp terminal intersection of WB I-94 at CSAH 37 during 2003. Response: Comment noted. 3. Comment: Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements: Interchange access modifications at I-941CSAH 19 have not been planned for or programmed by Mn/DOT. Additional access to or from I-94 at this location will be the responsibility of the local government units and is subject to federal interstate access guidelines. Response: Comment noted. 4. Comment: Regional System Impacts: The interchanges on I-94 at Albertville are under the jurisdiction of Mn/DOT District 3, and would not be added to the Metro Ramp Metering System. Response: Comment noted. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources letter dated April 1. 2003 1. Comment: Items 6 & 10. Description & Cover Types: The AUAR states that buildings will occupy 25% of the buildable land, or about 19 acres (page 3), but when parking areas are factored in, the total amount of impervious surface is projected to be about 60 acres. The DNR recommends that the Local Government Unit require parking lots (which by subtraction, would amount to about 40 acres) be constructed of pervious asphalt. This would reduce the amount of runoff and pollutants going into wetlands and allow them to recharge from underneath. Response: The site is relatively low and is primarily made up of silty clays which are cohesive and have high moisture contents. The existing material quickly becomes unstable when moisture is introduced. Additionally, the introduction of moisture from the surface would result in problems with frost heaving which would lead to additional deterioration of the subgrade and pavement. Due to these existing soils, the site grading and pavement section will Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN Page 13 of 19 be designed to create a seal that prevents moisture from infiltrating into the subgrade and causing damage to the pavement section and parking areas. Therefore, the construction of a pervious pavement on this site is not an option. Please note that all parking areas will be routed ' through stormwater basins to fully address rate and water quality requirements prior to any discharge into the wetlands. 2. Comment: Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources: As proposed, the project does not meet the sequencing requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The wetlands on site are degraded, but not without some natural vegetation and wildlife value. In particular, ' fragmenting Wetland 2 would substantially degrade it further and reduce its value for wildlife (see Exhibit 7 of the wetland delineation report). The DNR recommends maintaining the connective-ness of Wetland 2, and ifpossible, enhancing its value through vegetation manipulation and improved water quality and quantity. The fragmentation of Wetland 2 can be avoided by either: I) combining Lot 5 and Lot 3, ' and/or; 2) accessing Lot 5 through Lot 3, instead of through Lot 6 (see Exhibit 7 of the wetland delineation report). This approach would minimize wetland impacts and must be accomplished according to WCA, if at all practicable. The DNR does not see a justification for filling Wetland 3, regardless of its size or condition. Response. A sequencing analysis has been completed and discussed with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and is included in the Phase II wetland permit application in Appendix B and recently submitted to the RGU for distribution, review and approval as required by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The wetland permit application also includes a mitigation plan for the impacted wetlands. The TEP and RGU (City of Albertville) have agreed with the concept during initial TEP meetings. Avoiding Wetland 2 was a high priority for the TEP and applicant. The proposed impacts to Wetland 2 allow for the maximum use of the available site area with the minimum amount of wetland impact to Wetland 2. Proposed impacts to Wetland 2 and measures to improve wetland quality have been further detailed in the permit application, and as proposed meet all WCA requirements. Wetland 3 currently receives hydrology from surficial runoff from both I-94 and the small hill to the north of the wetland. As the site is developed, the direct runoff from the north hill will be greatly reduced. This reduction in the runoff will further degrade this wetland. This would reduce the amount and quality of wetlands in the watershed. In order to improve wetland quantity and quality for the watershed as a whole, the project identifies impacts to Wetland 3 and mitigation elsewhere on the site as a preferred site development alternative as noted in the sequencing. As part of the permit application process, this concept was discussed with the TEP and received favorably. ' 3. Comment: Item 13. Water Use: The DNR is not aware of any current water supply issues in Albertville; however, the AVAR should address what would happen if any tenants of the park are large water users and what impacts that might have on Albertville's water supply system. Response: The sizing of the existing and proposed water distribution infrastructure in the project area has been designed based on anticipated uses identified in the current Comprehensive Plan and the typical water demands associated with those uses, which include light industrial and commercial uses. The proposed uses identified in the Albertville Business Park AUAR meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 14 of 19 May 1 S, 2003 Albertville, MN ' The City of Albertville water supply has been planned to be adequate for the potential demands that are allowed by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan within the AUAR project area. To confirm that adequate water supply will be available for the potential users, each applicant will be ' required to estimate water demand requirements for the City at the time of initial site plan application for any potential future development. 4. Comment: Item 17. Water Quality: stormwater and surface water runo- The project site currently drains toward School Lake (86-25p) through the Albertville outlet mall site. The AUAR should have a greater emphasis on stormwater quantity and quality. Response. As noted in the Concept Drainage Report in the AUAR, the proposed drainage measures result in conditions that approximate the existing water levels in the on -site wetlands 1 and are a reduction to the off -site stormwater discharge rates. The on -site stormponds have been designed to provide detention and to delay the impact of the discharge on the downstream water bodies. The conceptual design meets the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and City requirements for quality analysis and treatment. Further reduction of impacts to School Lake, Mud Lake and the Albertville outlet mall site can be made with better control of the surficial runoff within the remainder of the watershed as it enters the drainage system, including the design of facilities to address bounce and detention time that will be implemented as future development occurs outside the AUAR area. Please refer to the AUAR Mitigation Plan for a summary of the quantity and quality impacts of the development to downstream drainage facilities. Also included are specific design criteria and assumptions that will be used during the phased design of the AUAR area to ensure that the rate control and treatment measures identified in the Mitigation Plan will be accommodated. Otsego City Engineer, Ronald Wagner, Hakanson Anderson Associates, letter dated April 2, 2003 1. Comment: The stormwater calculations of the peak runoff out of Otsego into Albertville appear appropriate as they are similar to the peak flows shown in the City of Otsego Study of the Otsego Creek completed in February of 2003. Response: Comment noted. 2. Comment: The overall location of the project is in the vicinity of the proposed Kadler Avenue Interchange with I-94 being reviewed as part of the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor iStudy. If the interchange is to be located in this area, some additional right-of-way will be necessaryfor ramps. It was indicated at the last Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study meeting, a moratorium on the adjacent parcels should be considered until location and a proposed design for the interchange can be more closely determined. Response: As a planning tool that is used to identify potential environmental impacts and associated mitigation, the AUAR does not constitute site plan or platting approval for a development. Prior to site plan or platting approval of a development in the vicinity of Kadler Avenue, the City of Albertville will consider the status of the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study and review the development application accordingly. 3. Comment: We request that appropriate portions of this development be reserved for future right-of-way at least until after the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study is completed. Evaluation of the need for right-of-way preservation can be better determined then. Response: It is noted that there may be a need to reserve portions of this development for additional right of way if an interchange and associated roadway improvements are identified for Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 15 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN Kadler Avenue as a preferred option by the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study. Such potential right of way needs will be considered at the time of a site plan/ platting application for property adjacent to Kadler Avenue and the development application will be reviewed accordingly. 4. Comment: 67`h Street is proposed to intersect with Kadler Avenue. This intersection may cause conflicts with close proximity with the above -mentioned interchange. If the development does proceed as shown in the AUAR, we request that Kadler Avenue from 671h Street to 701h Street be upgraded from a gravel road to a paved section at the Developer's expense. Although the road is 1/2 in Otsego, it serves no benefit to Otsego as MN Road facility borders the entire west side of this section of road. Therefore, the City of Otsego should not be required to pay for any of the upgrade. Response: These issues will be addressed according to the status of the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study and associated transportation needs identified for the project at the ' time of proposed site development. Otsego Citv Transportation Engineer. Jim Johnson. Hakanson Anderson Associates. Inc.. letter dated March 27, 2003 1. Comment: Item 21: In general, I found the detailed traffic analysis performed by SEH, Inc. to be technically sound and well-done.. However, I felt that it was too narrowly focused in evaluating the traffic impacts of the new developments on the adjacent streets and intersections. i The concept plan for the Albertville Business Park (Exhibit 3) shows 67`h Street being extended westward to Kadler Avenue and Keystone Avenue being extended northward from 67`h Street to 70`h Street. Yet, no traffic projections and analysis are performed on Kadler Avenue, 70`h Street or the intersections of Kadler Avenue/67`h Street, Kadler Avenue/70`h Street, and 70 Street/ Keystone Avenue. ' Likewise, the future development of the "Western Sanitary Sewer District of Otsego " (identified as background growth in this report), particularly to the east of CSAH #19, is likely to use 701h Street, Maciver Avenue and the I-94/CSAH #37 interchange rather than using the CSAH #19 — CSAH #37 routing as promoted in this study. The traffic analysis needs to be expanded to include more than just CSAH #19 from 70`h Street to SO`h Street and CSAH #37 from Kadler Avenue to the I-94 interchange. Response: As noted, significant regional growth is anticipated around the AUAR study area. A comprehensive traffic analysis will be completed as part of the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study referenced above in the comments from Ron Wagner, City of Osego Engineer. The regional analysis will identify detailed growth expectations, potential traffic routing alternates and impacts to the regional traffic system (including the particular streets noted in the comment). B 2. Comment: Item 21: As mentioned in this AUAR, a detailed I-94 Corridor Study is currently underway for Eastern Wright County involving the Cities of Albertville, Otsego and St. Michael as well as Wright County. A major transportation system alternative being evaluated in that Corridor Study is an interchange with I-94 at or near the Kadler Avenue alignment. If that interchange is deemed to be needed and desirable, right-of-way may be needed and should be ' dedicated or purchased in the southwest corner of the Albertville Business Park development. Such an interchange would make a 67`h Street/Kadler Avenue intersection undesirable due to its close proximity to the I-94 ramps and the 70`h Street/Kadler Avenue intersection. Response: Comment noted. Please see the responses to the comments from Ron Wagner above. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 16 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN 3. Comment: Item 21: The trip generation section of the traff c analysis reduces the number of daily trips on the area's major roadway system due to internal -internal trips and such a ' reduction is appropriate. Yet, in reviewing the Albertville Business Park Concept Plan (Exhibit 3), I find no direct transportation link between it and the Albertville Outlet Mall to the east- southeast. All vehicular traffic between the two (2) developments must access CSAH #19. And, in the interest of public safety, I find it unconscionable that the Outlet Mall has only a single point of ingress -egress. A secondary means of access to and from the Outlet Mall should be incorporated into this development proposal such as the extension of Keystone Avenue to the southeast and east. Response: Comment noted. 4. Comment: Near the bottom of Page 16 of 22, it states "70`h Street runs east/west from the site to CSAH #19 ". In fact, 70`h Street continues eastward to Maciver Avenue as a 2-lane, rural section, gravel road. Maciver Avenue then runs north -south from 80`h Street to CSAH #37 and provides an alternative means of access to both proposed developments. As such, the 70`h Street-Maciver Avenue — CSAH #37 routing should also be analyzed. Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 1 above. ' 5. Comment: On Page 17 or 22, Bullet #1 and Bullet #6 under Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements appear to be a duplication of roadway widening along CSAH #19 from Outlet Mall Road to north of 67`h Street. Response: Comment noted. 6. Comment: Table 21.1 or 22.1 (per paragraph above it) on Page 18 of 22 provides Level -of- ' Service for seven (7) area intersections but does not indicate the year. The second paragraph on Page 18 of 22 states that it is the "Build Year PM Peak Hour Levels -of -Service ", but the "Build Year" is not stated. The detailed traffic analysis by SEH, Inc. in Appendix G identifies that the background growth (other developments in Albertville & Otsego) will occur by Year 2010 while these two (2) proposed developments will have a minimum 10 year build -out (to Year 2013 or beyond). Are the background traffic volumes, development traffic volumes and follow-up intersection capacity analysis for Year 2010, 2013 or some other year? Response: The background traffic volumes, development traffic volumes and follow-up intersection capacity analysis are for the Build Year 2013. 7. Comment: The lower half of Page 18 of 22 identifies modifications to the surrounding roadway infrastructure which is limited to CSAH#19 and CSAH#37 improvements. Alternative access options or routing, such as an I-94/Kadler interchange with Kadler Avenue improvements between I-94 and 70`h Street or the 70`h Street/Maciver Avenue/CSAH #37 routing, should, at least, be mentioned if not analyzed. Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 1 above. 8. Comment: The addition of a legend to Figure I in Appendix G would help in identifying the two (2) proposed developments as well as the background growth areas mentioned in the first two paragraphs on Page I of Appendix G. Response: A revised Figure 1 is attached to these comments for your information. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park Page 17 of 19 May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN E I G I 1 f'. C 1 11 9. Comment: The "Planned Developments " heading in the middle of Page 2 of Appendix G should be modified to 'proposed developments " to be consistent with text above and below it on the same page. Response: Comment noted. 10. Comment: Line 3 of the final bullet at the bottom of Page 2 of Appendix G states "There is over 2600 housing units and an industrial park latted or this area. The word "platted " should be changed to "planned " or "anticipated". Response: Comment noted. 11. Comment: The blanket statement found at the top of Page 3 of Appendix G that "almost all of the regional traffic from Otsego will pass through the City of Albertville on County Road (or CSAH) #19 is probably true for the existing conditions of the existing roadways. However, it may be dramatically altered in the future depending on the interchange locations along I-94. In addition, the paving of 70`h Street and Maciver Avenue to CSAH #37 will make that a desirable travel route, particularly for those living and/or working to the east of CSAH #19 in Otsego or Albertville. Response: Comment noted. Please see the response to Comment No. 1 above. 12. Comment: Table I on Page 4 of the Appendix G provides the "direction of approach for traffic in and out of Albertville ". What is the basis for arriving at the percentages shown? I would have expected a higher percentage for I-94 to/from the east (metro area) than for I-94 to/from the west (Monticello/St. Cloud). Response: Below is a revision to Table 1 from Page 4 of the traffic study in Appendix G of the AUAR. The location of east I-94 and west I-94 were transposed in the location column. Table 1 Direction of Approach for Traffic In and out of Albertville Location Inbound Outbound West I-94 27% 29% East I-94 32% 17% North Count 19 7% 13% South County 19 17% 17% East Count 37 6% 9% West Count 37 4% 11% aber Avenue 7% 4% 100% 100% 13. Comment: As with Item #6 above, Table S and Table 6 on Pages 6 and 7 of Appendix G respectively do not indicate the year of analysis (2010, 2013 or some other year). Response: The year of analysis is the Build Year 2013. Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN Page 18 of 19 1 11 11 0 H u 1 u fl H F 14. Comment: The last sentence on Page 7 of Appendix G states, "If this traffic were to be relocated to a full access interchange at County Road (or CSAH) #19, overall congestion would be reduced. " Would it indeed be reduced or simply relocated to the I-94 on/off ramp intersections with CSAH #19? The traffic analysis has considered only improvements along CSAH #19 and CSAH #37 and has not evaluated alternatives for mitigating the anticipated congestion. Again, the traffic analysis used for evaluating this single routing alternative of CSAH #19 — CSAH #37 is very satisfactory, but additional routing alternatives need to be analyzed and evaluated to arrive at the best possible "area wide transportation system " in terms of operations and safety. Response: Comment noted. Please see the response to Comment No. 1 above. CONCLUSION Comments will be received on this Amendment through June 3, 2003. If no outstanding issues remain, a resolution to adopt the March 3, 2003 AUAR and May 15, 2003 Amendment will be placed on the agenda of the Albertville City Council on June 16, 2003. Adopted by Albertville City Council this _ day in the year as Resolution No Amendment to the AUAR Albertville Business Park May 15, 2003 Albertville, MN Page 19 of 19 -25PF'o'+. ilbie OAi 1"'Y" APPENDIX A Wetland Permit Application (Phase I) Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN Albertville Business Park Albertville, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application Prepared for Darkenwald Real Estate by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project # 2001-023) April 2, 2002 7 J H 1 0 u 1, TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1 H. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION............................................1 III. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION..........................................................2 WetlandAvoidance..........................................................................2 Wetland Impact Minimization.............................................................3 SequencingFlexibility......................................................................3 Elimination of Impacts over Time........................................................5 Summary of Impacts........................................................................5 IV. PROPOSED WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN................................5 VI. REPLACEMENT WETLAND MONITORING PLAN ............................6 Figures: • Figure 1 — Site Location Map • Figure 2 — USGS Map • Figure 3 — Site Plan • Figure 4 — Grading Plan • Figure 5 — Alternative Plan Attachments: • Appendix A — Combined Project Application Form • Appendix B — Wetland Delineation Report • Appendix C — MnRAM Answer Sheet • Appendix D — Wetland Mitigation Seeding and Management Plan Project Notice Summary Applicant Darkenwald Real Estate Agent Kjolhaug Environmental Services Co. (Attention Ken Powell) 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone (952)401-8757 Primary County Wright, MN Section 35 Township 121 Range 24 WCA LGU City of Albertville PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to fill 1.03 acres of partially drained Type 1 and Type 3 wetlands to facilitate the development of a 26-acre parcel in the City of Albertville for commercial use. Affected wetlands are dominated by reed canary grass and cattail. The proposed plan involves grading to create roadways, building pads, ponds, and wetland mitigation areas. Three commercial lots are proposed. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Mitigation for the proposed impacts includes the creation of 1.22 acres of new Type 3 wetland onsite and generation of 0.85 acres of Wetland Conservation Act Public Value Credit (PVC) through the establishment of upland buffer adjacent to the created wetland. Proposed wetland creation areas involve expansion of an existing Type 3 wetland. Fringe areas of the new wetland and the upland buffer will be seeded with an appropriate native seed mix. 1 Albertville Business Park Albertville, Minnesota ' Wetland Permit Application ■ I. INTRODUCTION ■ Darkenwald Real Estate is proposing a 3-lot commercial development on a 26-acre parcel of land in the City of Albertville, Minnesota (Figures 1 & 2). The proposed plan involves ' grading to create a roadway and cul-de-sac, building pads, stormwater ponds, and wetland mitigation (Figures 3 & 4). The site is within the Highway Commercial District and is adjacent to the Albertville Outlet Malls. ■ The applicant proposes to fill 44,650 square feet (1.03 acres) of Type 1 and 3 wetland to accommodate the proposed development. Mitigation for the proposed impacts includes the creation of 53,205 square feet (1.22 acres)of new Type 3 wetland onsite and generation of 37,072 square feet (0.85 acres) of Wetland Conservation Act Public Value Credit (PVC) through the establishment of upland buffer adjacent to the created wetland. ' The following text includes a description of existing conditions, the proposed replacement plan, and a sequencing discussion. Figures and appendices referenced in this application are included. The application form is included in Appendix A. H. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ■ The 26-acre site is located in the Northwest'/4 of Section 35, Township 121 North, Range ' 24 West, City of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. The site lies on the north side of Interstate 94 (1-94) directly west of the Albertville Outlet Mall. ' The property is currently part of an old farmstead consisting of partially drained wetlands and abandoned crop and pasture areas. Abandoned crop and pasture areas include smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada thistle, quackgrass, timothy, common ragweed, and a variety of farm weeds. There are portions of 4 wetlands on the site that were delineated as part of an overall ' delineation of 111.6 acres in 1999 (see delineation report in Appendix B). The wetlands occurring on the site correspond to Wetlands 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the attached wetland delineation report. ■ Wetlands 6 and 8 flow into Wetland 9 via drainage ditches. Wetland 9 outlets to the east_ via a ditch onto City of Albertville property. Runoff from the I-94 road ditch flows into Wetland 8. Wetland 7 is an isolated basin adjacent to the I-94 roadway. Wetlands 6 and 9 are Type 3 wetlands dominated by cattail and reed canary grass. Wetlands 7 and 8 are Type 1 wetlands dominated by reed canary grass. ■ 1 i I M. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION The following discussion addresses wetland avoidance, impact minimization, impact reduction and elimination over time, and replacement in compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Specifically, the sequencing discussion includes a summary of plan alternatives considered and impact minimization elements of the plan. In addition to wetland impact avoidance and minimization, the site plan had to meet the following goals and requirements: 7 11 1. Designated Lot areas are designed for retail development. 2. 30-foot side and rear lot line building setbacks 3. 35-foot front lot line building setback 4. Parking spaces must be a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line. 5. A maximum grade of 5% is allowed for parking lot areas. 6. Parking space size must be 8.5 feet by 20 feet with a 24-foot drive aisle 7. 1 parking stall per 200 square feet of building area for retail/service establishment 8. 1 parking stall per 40 square feet of restaurant seating area and 1 stall per 80 square feet of kitchen area. 9. 3 stalls per 200 square feet of office building area 10. Utilize upland areas efficiently and effectively. 11. Provide site access that is compatible with existing and proposed roadways and adjacent land uses. 12. Provide a road alignment that allows for potential future commercial lots to the north and west. 13. Provide ponding to meet City stormwater requirements. Wetland Avoidance Per WCA guidelines, wetland avoidance alternatives evaluated included the no -build alternative and alternate site designs that avoid all wetland impacts. The no -build alternative leaves the site as is and results in no direct wetland impacts. Because of location and zoning of the property, the no -build alternative is not a valid alternative for a privately -owned, developable property adjacent to I-94 and a popular outlet mall with ready access to City services. This alternative fails to meet the development goals of the applicant and defeats planning efforts to cluster commercial/retail developments in areas with sufficient resources to service them. The proposed project would provide commercial lots in an area with the infrastructure and site features necessary to accommodate this type of development. In addition, Wetlands 7 and 8 would continue to receive untreated stormwater from the highway which eventually flows to Wetland 9. The no -build alternative fails to address the stormwater/water quality issues associated with wetlands on the site. For these reasons the no -build alternative was rejected. ' A second wetland avoidance alternative is an alternative site design that avoids all wetland impacts, Such an alternative could include a large -lot residential development instead of a commercial development. A large -lot residential development could n ' conceivably be designed without wetland impacts. However, such a development would be incompatible with the adjacent outlet mall and commercial lots being proposed north of the mall. In addition, large -lot residential development would be unappealing adjacent to I-94 due to traffic noise and would be insufficient to recoup the costs of utilities and access roads. Due to these factors, an alternative site design such as a large -lot 1 residential development that avoids all wetland impacts was rejected. A second alternative site design that avoids wetland impacts is shown in Figure 5. In ' this alternative, a retail/showroom lot is eliminated along Interstate 94. This results in most of the impacts to Wetlands 7 and 8 being eliminated. This design was rejected because it does not provide economic justification for the extension of infrastructure and ' fails to consider the quality of the existing wetlands (see sequencing flexibility discussion). In addition, this plan does not proved treatment for the highway stormwater that supplies Wetlands 7 and 8 and that eventually flows into Wetland 9. ■ Wetland Impact Minimization The project design attempts to minimize wetland impacts while meeting requirements ' and goals of the project. The proposed road from the east and the access cul-de-sac are aligned to miss Wetland 9 which is the highest quality basin (largest and most diverse) on the site. Ponding and site drainage have been designed to provide consistent water to ' remaining wetlands, thus insuring long-term hydrology. The proposed plan presents a reasonable effort to accommodate the desired development ' within the context of the basic requirements of a commercial development while minimising wetland impacts and replacing unavoidable impacts. ' Sequencing Flexibility The proposed wetland impacts can be justified in part due to sequencing flexibility. Sequencing flexibility may be applied if alternatives have been considered and any of the ' following apply: 1. the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it ' would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2. preservation of a wetland would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public values, for example, because of surrounding ' land uses and the wetland's ability to function and provide public values cannot reasonably be maintained through other land use controls or mechanisms; 3. the only feasible and prudent upland site available for wetland replacement or ' development has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetland; 4. alternatives are demonstrably cost prohibitive; or ' 5. the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. Items 1 and 2 apply to proposed impacts to Wetlands 7 and 8. A MnRAM 2.0 functional analysis was completed by comparing the 2, Type 1 wetlands along the I-94 road ditch with the proposed wetland mitigation area adjacent to Wetland 9. The functional analysis was completed assuming the current condition of the wetlands to be impacted and the 3 11 1 II 1-1 projected future conditions of the wetland mitigation area following development of the site. The answer sheet for the MnRAM analysis is included in Appendix C. The results of the functional analysis are summarized in the following table: Summary Table of MnRAM Functional Analysis Results CONDITIONS Actual A Pmlected P FUNCTIONAL LEVEL* FL72VC TONS (and Related Values) N/A Low Medium High Exceptional Comments Plant Comm #3 A P Plant Comm #4 Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime A P Float/Stormwater/Attenuation A P Water Quality Protection A, P Shoreline Protection A, P Ground water Interaction A, P Wildlife Habitat A P Fishery Habitat P, A Aesthetics/Recreation/Educ./Cultural Commercial Uses A, P The functional analysis indicates an increase in vegetative diversity/integrity (low to medium), wildlife habitat (low to medium), flood/stormwater/attenuation (low to medium), maintenance of hydrologic regime (low to medium), and aesthetics/recreation/education (low to medium). The remaining functions examined (water quality protection, shoreline protection, groundwater interaction, fishery habitat, and commercial uses) did not change or were not applicable. These results indicate that the 2 wetlands proposed to be impacted have relatively low functional value and that the proposed replacement (new wetland and buffer) adjacent to the highest quality wetland on the site would result in a gain in wetland functions and values. The 2 wetlands proposed to be impacted are severely degraded due to the dominance of invasive plant species (reed canary grass), stormwater input from the highway road ditch, and past farming around the wetlands. Upon development and removal of most of the surrounding watershed, these wetlands would likely be further degraded and provide even less public values and functions in a developed landscape. 4 ' The proposed plan will provide pre-treatment of stormwater from the I-94 road ditch before it enters Wetland 9 and the replacement wetland. The replacement wetland and ' adjacent buffer would be seeded with native seed mixtures and management appropriately. The consolidation of the wetland mitigation with the largest and highest quality wetland on the site (Wetland 9) provides for increased functional value. Elimination of Impacts over Time Elimination of impacts over time to the existing wetlands will be accomplished by ' providing erosion control in accordance with Best Management Practices of the NPDES permit and providing treatment of existing stormwater from I-94 and stormwater generated from site development. Summary of Impacts The proposed commercial development involves 1.03 acres of wetland fill. Portions of ' Wetlands 6, 7, and 8 are proposed to be filled to provide buildable commercial lots and to accommodate the proposed access roadway. Fill for Wetlands 7 and 8 are to provide a sufficient amount of building area to accommodate a typical commercial development. ' Fill for Wetland 6 is due to the roadway. Shifting of the road to the north to avoid the wetland would jeopardize the development potential of land to the north and west by reducing lot sizes below minimum requirements. IV. PROPOSED WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN ' The required WCA replacement calculations for wetland impacts in a "<50% county" q P �P Y (i.e. a county with less than 50% of its presettlement wetland acreage remaining) are as follows: 44,650 sq. ft. of proposed fill x 2 (2:1 ratio) 89,300 sq. ft. of required replacement (half must be new wetland credit) Total wetland replacement is proposed as follows: 53,205 sq. ft. of new wetland credit +37,072 sq. ft. of public value credit (buffer) 90,277 sq. ft. of total replacement The 1.22 acres of new wetland will be created adjacent to Wetland 9 via excavation as shown on Figure 5. Additional wetland creation adjacent to this same wetland complex is being proposed by the City on the property to the east. This will provide a contiguous area of wetland mitigation. The new wetland is anticipated to develop into a shallow marsh (Type 3) similar to Wetland 9. Fine -textured soils in the area are expected to provide an appropriate 1 substrate for wetland establishment, however topsoiling of excavated hydric soils (excluding the upper 1.5 feet due to reed canary grass seeds) would be conducted if soils are determined to be inappropriate for wetland establishment. The wetland is anticipated to revegetate with cattails. A� buffer area around the replacement wetland and the existing wetland totaling 0.85 acres will be seeded with a wet meadow seed mix to create native vegetation and discourage the invasion of reed canary grass (Appendix D). The predicted wetland boundary corresponds with the 954 elevation within the existing basin. Routing of pre-treated stormwater to the wetland complex will insure that hydrology will be maintained. 1 V. REPLACEMENT WETLAND MONITORING PLAN 1 The wetland bank from which the credits are proposed to be used will be monitored in compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act. Monitoring will include the following required components, as listed in the WCA rules: ' 1. A description of the project location, size, current wetland Cowardin P type ( classification), and desired wetland type (goal). 2. A comparison of the as -built conditions in relation to the design specifications (first annual monitoring only) and a rationale for significant changes. 3. Seasonal water level elevations measured during the period April through October ' (msl or referenced to a known bench mark). 4. A list of the dominant vegetation in the wetland, including common names of the 1 vegetation exceeding 20 percent coverage and an estimate of coverage; for example, 50 percent willow, 20 percent cattail, and 30 percent sedge. 5. Color photographs of the project area taken during the period June through August, 1 referenced to the fixed photo -reference points identified on the Wetland Replacement Plan and labeled accordingly. ' The replacement wetlands will be monitored for a maximum of five years after creation and monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Albertville. The replacement wetlands will be examined three times between April and October each year and the depth of standing water or depth to free water in an unlined bore hole will be measured from the wetland hydrology monitoring points chosen after construction. Color photographs of the vegetation within the wetland creation areas will be taken during each ' growing season from the photo -reference points shown on the Wetland Replacement Plan. Hydrology measurements will be evaluated to assess the viability of the wetland in relation to the creation/restoration goal. The percent coverage of dominant vegetation will be estimated visually. All monitoring reports will include a description of the condition and composition of the vegetation within the wetland replacement areas. Albertville Business Park Wetland Permit Application Figures: • Figure 1— Site Location Map • Figure 2 — USGS Map • Figure 3 — Site Plan • Figure 4 — Grading Plan • Figure 5 — Alternative Plan 25 gel 0$ 43 Bailey _ 10 ` 14 Hw or LU e = C 39 - 30 -' '- T . 52 8St St E 10 [ � i- st zE ff •111 72-nd St I E SITE �p Oth St 37 *� l -94 pit il a 37 118 3562 - fir• 4Ej it 2 -� r + �}� '� .mom y-77 �!{-�yji.•, Ma.�� : � i •stir ; 120 19 �`�, a lie =* nth gat C �DOO. tiro eft C andfbr ks.s liars. All n s reser•:Vpri - - Figure 1— Site Location Albertville Business Park (KES Prof. # 2001-023) Albertville, Minnesota �� IiJOLHAUII ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY TN No Scale 0 F 446 SITE 7.5 MINUTE 449 R 2,1 23 b'r Ci COW, 'CORP $L1 _ S 981 pro 35 1' 3: i is i 1 `ql qu. 979 RaiIDsposai� dio P lowers I .. • Ott } t A I Park !•. 1 - I WT. 2 — USGS Ma Albertville Business Park (KES Proj. # 2001-023) j(T ��. Albertville, Minnesota ��- KjOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY TN Scale 1 inch — 2,500 feet L qtw 1-LL6w�SM� 1 � vo-w aoe +...va a •mns .wmw i .5 mm om M7310 JC 03MJ3HJ __ NIWLU 03N MO SNOqx� mans oU N� 4� m W <> mo w�o � N r O g�gzz ~F4 o ¢ Z aWo �Zo I` yZZp Cl O U W i = U 17i oz $ d W Z ma a Z Nix N dll 0 0 WOW I • 1 11 I W < U 6 Z O < 5 w z z o F m y U G zJ2 w F1� n IS �w a 3iR NN ri W UK o o tom ! ' Q L€ZZ .% 3 'ON '311 3LWO UOJ J =rT aP431" I I.YI pe m1.N.ir� s.11o Am rqn n wo mM RP l.N NIW RO.I.V 1 IL I J 1�. to C: c 'y I I I \wrr/V WrCnett-NtVww) ww wrre� OEESS NW 'tl 3AItl N13 'OVOtl 83Altl '3-N SESL 3 1 V 1 S 3 d 3� ` iN3WaoNq a3Sodo" bd MEMO" W We3liep Y10S3NNIW 'i LLmew I� Navd ss3Nisne £/„cl TnIAIN3SIV x ww tia�n•.ww . ari '+1^t . -n •wv .� om �.-_.- 'ON On 3LYO `�qIzus�s •Y'^V ---- M03q 001 MONO 4e lns NNYtlO 0 M.W aNW!N I.�•oml \, ---. o3ND53o 'wvwMn N «w5 «a w ..q �qt uaam �/ SNOIS,A321 M'W two�W�.m,- Ra I—, A3AWIS nod r rq •a ww 4u I \wwNf+rlM4,n-Mt-cb:\.�.I �Y.w!\Ha'wwx..Nt oeess Nw 'aanla ilia '°voa aanla •3-N sest zo/el/t 3 1 b 1 S 3 � b 3 8 N"d18rawao� °Mna a 146MOoa m i Dft p VIOS3NNrn '3T1VLLM3H7V ana�aar II NNVd SS3NISn9 �/C 3TIVU8391V s; W= i y< U '> /[.. N O 41 Q O - yJ Z p aN 2"Y =zI YJ $ N< m p f a W OD OO y<j zz< J ZZ C O LI Uti , �FWW' < F =m ;r F �� C �< J� 2 y< W OLn I.L p 6ZZ O Fj Y g N NW c�J ¢� W W Z < iN O W O 2 J W O r1 I.L y� y Z 5 �R y K ZW U W zgo <J Z % �Hhe 1ty�� w< F(ZK Y Y O Aq U VW uu • 1t/�—T y y � E3�5 z - I IL - ?-i_ C o 4. 1 ' � t r ,g I i :�\\ \, ` � 9� ,!\ ,a�- �is "' Ir xz, i�.�.m;��-��.�f;• 0�' r> / . /! , YP /, / t r + I ._�^ _. OOrel / • lv aO*i-!_� _'„ 11 //'�``ry� So C /� � f ✓ � ,.t,.;i F- S�� .-/' / / V Jiffigq vi ZY Sit i v _ _.. / - % ON RON Mo I . \ `" �t � s/ �` � � � � �'�4�'� �'�y�#� d�s4��i�� fir• ` \ �� ~ \ , �� : I t a t m 7� Lu i cl v � W x,v vw w.mn _._ — ••a mro 1 1 1— roN -on ava OC69S NW 'URAUA N-13 'OVOU a3Ala 'TN 9CS1 —0 _, •I• • •WI Y I l b i S 1 -1 b 3 J czcc�--- -- WYM s ple�Cej� t sMab Ntvros A soxl3a /ra apw.,wl.xwYI ZZZ Nm< Oa LLFj O W< �zF O�Q Y <WWO ax$< MN <� yoW�G f:J LZI3 ySyc mTj' yOl OW W7 imN W , m� °JWO Wm$ ? QWp 82 4 V ZC>Z Z yQy ��Wy� WwywOm I Orm= <RN if1 WpZ 2 zo <g< _a6�m ' i r�°8� ZNN fA $z m3 �m Wi �6 z° cFQ+q W avWWo WWay °Z�ZZp o �' � � ! p < 1� ~p Egg J�N �� Wes= < °W Z m4N rZOCK l U,j1 PR Z `9•y.1j iNZ� zog � y�1� Z �<$ �P<W x V\ � y<j0 Z a!/<�I.7 IOIC� (pig Fa�,{ F �KUW 1wx L0 xN mry,NiN . FUOM O OW�WO�Z ",—� dZa Z WNW W� !— W(FJW WOp 1 11 r VV c�z�i5 a? ~ '^� 'Z z8<" a€ MR15 �mN �F I— o W N� =°1 zW (7 ii.ozoo a° FNao� u° oSSi thWo= $ W LU Q �3xx xx�S it—FNaS W2 �y Uaa Z�> r2g wa KOm LU W.z W<Z < ` :=KF W�� ` VIF F-3 WmVm <8�i N �a UQ J Wr > N4� NzQO< 1 a r ' El OW iQ 1 W O ZZ Y/ ZFO �N -OtN � W F j � W oyu�g n� J < yaWk m m>W <rcWK Q 1 = Q FM< WSZ N < Q'- Z m gyp= O 'W 5W Om° W xyy � J m OJ aUZN Oz UJZ 1 Z ZF �NmJ �6 Z ; y z; g 4 C K W F 4 < J i'v x H LL1 1 �N QD wum �N N 1:0 d V1C a V1K <o Cos q� W bz Cad �Q r< (J y yUrcU A Ntmi $ no oo < w 641 d' W47 U{� WW NfK LLW Na. LLW Nd. ¢W h< �< orx n� mn Nr� ra'N <v nd �o nd Zvi °iv zzW im M h T Lw zo 1J lr iWG u Z aZ m< o m/el/s NYTd NOLLYS3LW ONYLL3IN yw w�szloos MOWN '3 P LK*rfV' >INVd ss3NJsna �"nu + vim\•/ M M min CI L 11 Albertville Business Park Wetland Permit Application Appendix A — Combined Project Application Form ' NHNNESOTA LOCAL/STATE/FEDERAL APPLICATION FORMS FOR WATER/WETLAND PROJECTS r] I LOCAL AND STATE: pplication for Local Government Unit Approval Pursuant to Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) Application for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit to Work in public Waters ..pplication for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification FEDERAL: Application for Department of the Army Permit (33 CFR 325) r Ise these application forms to apply to 1) the appropriate Local Government Unit (LGU), 2) the Minnesota Department of natural Resources (DNR), and 3) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for authorization of any proposed iater/wetland project affecting lakes, rivers, streams or wetlands that may fall within the jurisdiction of any (or all of "iose three agencies. If 401 certification is required from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the COE will torward these application forms to the MPCA for processing. You do not need to send this application to the MPCA. _his application packet includes the following: - dPART 1: BASIC APPLICATION musts be filled out by all applicants (pages 1-3, plus requested attachments). 'IAPPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (page 4) must also be completed (non -shaded blocks only), signed and submitted by the applicant or agent, along with Part 1, to complete the Federal (U.S. Army Corps of .L.ngmeers) component of the application process using these forms. NPART 2: REPLACEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT must be filled out by applicants who need to develop a replacement plan for wetland mitigation (pages 5-8, plus requested attachments). IIINSTRUCTIONS (Instructions 14) are provided to assist with completion and mailing of the application. -'efore beginning work on your project, you must receive all required approvals from your LGU, the DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If you have not received a replay after 45 days, or if you wish to confirm the status of your application at any time, contact the agencies directly (see Instructions, page 4). Proceeding with work before all required ..uthorizations are obtained may result in fines or other penalties. ff you have questions or need assistance with filling out these forms, contact your local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office, your LGU, your regional DNR office, or your COE regulatory field office (see Instructions, page 4). NOTE 1: If you believe that your project may be subject to Watershed District regulation, local Planning and Zoning ,arisdiction, or any other locally implemented or enacted controls besides those of your LGU, contact the appropriate •ffice(s) directly in addition to your LGU, the DNR and the COE. COTE 2: Hyou are a Federal Farm Program participant, and if your project affects a wetland or water body on gricultural land, your eligibility for USDA benefits may be affected. In addition to your LGU, the DNR and the COE, contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office to request and complete the appropriate form .,efore initiating any activity. A QUICK LOOK AT THE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS Send copies of these completed application forms to your LGU, your regional DNR office, and your OE regulatory Held office. ? Any of the agencies may make initial .ontact with you to I ) inform you that it has no ' visdiction over your project, b) request additional uformation needed; or c) inform you of applicable es. 3. When your application is considered complete d appropriate Sees have been received (if requested), your application will be distributed for ' . fropriate agency review and public comments. 4. When the review process is complete, your application will either be approved, approved with changes or conditions, withdrawn, or denied. You will be informed of the decision. 5. For information about laws, rules and regulations that direct this process, the website www.revisonlee.state.mn.us includes complete State of Minnesota waters and wetlands laws and rules, and the website www.mvp.usace.amrv.mil provides information on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations. 6. For information on the appeals process, contact the appropriate agency (see Instructions, page 4). US PART 1: BASIC APPLICATION "See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, page I. 1 Applicaat Contact Information (See HELP I): I Name: Darkenwald Real Estate Complete mailing address: 7535 N.E. River Road I Elk River, MN 55330 'I Residential phone: ( ) I Business phone: (763) Fax(favailablel: L ) ' I Email (if available):: 2..PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (if applicable): Albertville Business Park NAME OR I.D. # OFWATER BODY/BODIES ' WACTED** (i(applicable; ifknown): AT/A 1.AAUTHORIZED AGENT (See HELP IA.) (Only ifanalicable: an agent is not reauired) Name: Kiolhaug Environmental Services Company (Ken Powell) Title: Ecologist Mailing address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood MN 55331 Residential phone: ( ) Business phone- (952) 401-8757 Fax (ifavailable)• (952) 401-8798 Email 6favailable• kpowell(a0iolhaugenv com I hereby authorize Kiolhaug Environmental Services Co. To act in my behalf as an agent in the processing of this application and to famish upon request supplemental information in support of this application Applicant signature Date 4a. ANY WETLANDS UVWACTED? (circle one YES NO 4c. If YES, indicate size of entire wetland (check one): '4b. If YES, what type (if known; circle all that apply) 0 1L 2 3O 4 5 6 7 8 R unknown ® Less than 10 acre (indicate size: ❑ 10-to 40 acres ❑ Greater than 40 acres 5. PROJECT LOCATION" (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance):' '/4 section: NW Section: 35 Township: 121N Range: 24W I"ounty: Wright Lot #: Block: Subdivision: ,. ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS ** (f applicable; if known): Parcel ID #/GEOCODE: IUTM coordinates: easterly 'roject street address: northerly Fire #: * For multiple water bodies or locations, attach addi tional sheets labeled ADDITIONAL WATER BODIES IMPACTED 'DDITIONAL PROJECT LOCATIONS, or ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. 17 HOW TO GET TO THE SITE: Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark. Include highway and street names and numbers. Also provide distances from known locations and any other information that would assist in locating the site. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. See Attached Site Location Map UN PART 1: BASIC APPLICATION ' `See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, page I . I Applicant Contact Information (See HELP 1): I _ Name: Darkenwald Real Estate Complete mailing address: 7535 N.E. River Road I Elk River, MN 55330 I.. Residential phone:( ) I Business phone: (763) Fax (ifavailable): ( 1 Enu l (if available):. j..PROJECT NAME OR TITLE #fapplicable): Albertville Business Park NAME OR I.D. # OFWATER BODY/BODIES WACTED** (of applicable; if known): N/A 4a. ANY WETLANDS UVIPACTED? (circle one YES 1 AAUTHORIM AGENT (See HELP IA.) (Only if applicable: an agent is not required) Name: Kiolhaug Environmental Services Company (Ken Powell) --- Title: Ecologist Mailing address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood. MN 55331 Residential phone: ( ) Business phone: (952) 401-8757 Fax ((favailable)• (952) 401-9798 Email f►f available • kpowellia kiolhaugenv com I hereby authorize Kiolhauit Environmental Services Co. To act in my behalf as an agent in the processing of this application and to furnish. upon request. supplemental information in support of this application Applicant signature Date NO 4c. If YES, indicate size of entire wetland (check one): 4b. If YES, what type (if known; circle all that apply) 1L 20 4 5 6 7 8 R unknown ® Less than 10 acre (indicate size: ❑ 10-to 40 acres ❑ Greater than 40 acres '. PROJECT LOCATION" (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance):' -A section: NW Section: 35 Township: 121N Range: 24W I"ounty: Wright Lot #: Block: Subdivision: 1. ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS ** (rf applicable; if known): Parcel ID #/GEOCODE: QTlvi coordinates: easterly 'project street address: northerly Fire #: * For multiple water bodies or locations, attach addi tional sheets labeled ADDITIONAL WATER BODIES IMPACTED DDITIONAL PROJECT LOCATIONS, or ADDMONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. IHOW TO GET TO THE SITE: Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark. Include highway and street names and numbers. Also provide distances from known locations and any other information that would assist in locating the site. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. See Attached Site Location Map PURPOSE OF POOJECT: What do you propose to do, and why is it needed Please be brief (See HELP 8 before completing this section.) PSee Attached Narrative 0. PROPOSED TE%IELINE: Approximate project start date: Fall 2001 Projected end date: 2003? (depends on market demands) _;0. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. This is the most important part of your application. See HELP 10 before completing this section; see also What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 2). If space below is not adequate, attach separate sheet labeled PROJECT DESCRIPTION. See Attached Narrative t1. FOOTPRINT OF IMPACT (if applicable): Indicate total amount (in acres or square feet) of wetland(s) or water body area(s) to be filled, drained, inundated or excavated; and/or indicate length of stream or river affected (in linear feet). 1.03 acres or 44,650 square feet and/or linear feet ' 2. TYPE AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MAMTERIAL (S) TO BE PLACED INTO OR EXCAVATED FROM THE WETLAND OR WATER BODY (if applicable): List each type of material (such as rock, sand, clay, concrete) to be filled or excavated, and estimate amount in cubic yard. ®FILLING ❑ EXCAVATING Fi Type(s) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards T e s of material Estimated amount in cubic yards Sand & Clay 44,650 sf �3. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: N/A (for determination of DNR fees only, which are based on total project cost) 4. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? List at least two alternatives (one of which may be "No build" or "Do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. ISee Attached Narrative S. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? NO If yes, describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 15 before completing this section.) 6. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list below complete names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland or water body where the work is being proposed. (See HELP 16. If necessary, attach a separate sheet labeled ADJOINING ' PROPERTY OWNERS). Complete name (s) Complete ma ftg address (including street address, city, state, zip code) STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that are either pending or have already been approved or denied See HELP 17. Agency Tyne ofannroval ID mmnber Date annlied for Date ammed Date denied City of Albertville Preliminary & Final Plat 8. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar with the information contained in ' this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief all information in Part 1 is true, complete and accurate. I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. 19. OR Jrgnature of applicant Date Srgnature of agent Date This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (the applicant in Section I) or by the applicant's duly authorized gem (if the boxed Section 1 A has been filled out and signed by the applicant). 1 'e: f aiauE ntion:ineers Section application form on page 4 and ma7 it to the Crops (address on Instructions page 4) with a cwpy oftbe state application. Applicants may, ifthey wish, apply only for Corps authorization by using ffie umnodified Federal application form that is available from Corps offices or via ffie Internet at :1,Vw.r".usace.armv.mil i. kPPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY PERMIT (33cfr 325) OMB APPROVAL NO. (RENEWAL PENDING) Irhe public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours prep response, although the majority of applications should required 5 urs or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing urd reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 e$mson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003) ashington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing Igo empty with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of 'hew addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. RIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10,33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404,33 USC 1344; Marine tection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the Wtcation for a permit. Routine uses: this information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 to BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS NO 1 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 1 3. DATE RECEIVED . APPLICATION COMPLETED YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE SHADED AREAS. I All applicants need to complete non -shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is to be used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid for use only when included as a part of this entire state application packet. ". APPLICANT'S NAME Darkenwald Real Estate 6.AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE Kjolhaug Env. Serv. Co. (Ken Powell), Ecologist APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS 07- APPLICANT'S PHONE NO. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NO. W/AREA CODE t LJ 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (If applicable; complete only if authorizing an agent) I hereby authorize Kiolhautt Environmental Services Co. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, pon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: ►2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE See instructions t 3.NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if a livable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS if applicable) I S.LOCATION OF PROJECT �A OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN see instructions 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE I 18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 19. PROJECT PURPOSE 20. REASONS FOR DISCHARGE 1. TYPES OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS 2. SURFACE AREA IN ACRESOF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED 3. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES NO IF YES DESCRIBE COMPLETED WORK F 4. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC. WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE WATERBODY 5. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALS/DENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GENCIES FOR WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION. i6. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this appellation. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described here' or am a ' g as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. 0,, ignature of applicant Date Signature of agent (i ) Date fhe application must be signed by the person who desired to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if he statement in Block I i has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any ent or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully filsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme or disguises a material fact or rakes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR) a Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects DO YOU NEED TO COMPLETE PART 2? 'art 2: Replacement Plan Supplement must be completed by anyone who needs to develop a replacement plan for wetland mitigation. Ifyou're not sure whether your project requires a replacement plan: Call your LGU or SWCD office for guidance as to whether your project will require completing Part 1. If it is determined that your project will require land replacement, complete and submit Part 2 along with Part 1. If you prefer, you may choose to send in Part 1 only. After reviewing your application, the responding agencies will let you know if you need to somplete and return Part 2. Caution: ifyour project will require wetland replacement, completing and returning both parts immediately is advisable. ubmitting Part I and Part 2 separately rather than at the same time may extend the application review process. PART 2: ' REPLACMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT For assistance in completing Part 2, contact your LGU or a professional consultant. E 19. DESCRITPION OF WETLAND IMPACTS: Complete the chart below. 1) Use one row of boxes for each wetland impact. 2) If your project has more than one wetland impact, reference your overhead view (part of Section 10) to this chart by identifying and labeling "first impact" and "second impact" on your overhead view. 3) Ifyou are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. 4) Ifyou have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. 5) Ifyou do not have access to some of the information, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (Photocopy chart for more impacts, if needed. ) DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS eland impact Watershed site within Wedand type Predominaat vegetation in impacted of area Impacted Hog lead use is (check all 11111'asnotedon Nameor 1000 ft or a project area pverhead view) Number ake or 300 ft Hand area in acres or that apply) if known) f a river? care feet) S or NO) Mississippi River 0 1 (PEMAd) Reed canary grass 33,885 sf ® housing t. Cloud (#17) ® commercial rst ❑ industrial impact ❑ parks/recreation areas ® highways and associated 1 rights -of -way ❑forested ®firmsteads/agricoitnral ®vacant lands 1 ----- 1 (PEMAd) canary grass 442 sf- reed ❑ public and semi-public (schools/gov't facilities) ❑ airports ecoad ❑ eatracthve Mpact ------------------ -------------------------- -- - -- --- (gravelpWquarrtes) 1 ❑ other. (PEMC/A) Cattail, reed canary grass 3,323 sf bird �mpact 1 a "yuu MV wcutuyutx.nuy um wwatw typo wluuu a Ktvp ww 1 Fvl t:t atca, uNU ut0 mm uuttw lute unu Maw Inc ouras ulam. 11 yuu nave talusun to identify mono than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. rOTAIS OF AREA(S) IMPACTED FOR EACH WETLAND TYPE ON CHART (indicate acres or square feet): type 1: 11,327 sf 1L:_2: 3:3 323 sf 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: R: 20. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are you aware of any special considerations that apply to either the impact site(s) or the replacement site(s)? NO (Examples: the presence of endangered species, special fish and wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, or waste disposal sites) 1 F YES, list and describe briefly. I . ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCE DETERMINATIONS: Are you aware of any archaeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys completed concerning the project or replacement site by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) or others? NO If yes, please explain below or attach a copy of any determinations or surveys. 22. HOW PROPSOED REPLACEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED: Indicate how proposed replacement will be accomplished (check only one box below and continue as indicated): OA. WETLAND banking only • Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits From and include with your application Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.ms.us • Skip to Section 27, page 8. (You do not need to complete Sections 23-26.) ®B. Project -specific replacement only • Continue with Section 23 below. ❑C. A combination ofwedand banking and project -specific replacement ' • Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form and include with your application. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us • Continue with Section 23 below. 113. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND(S) CONSTRUCTION (Complete this section only if you marked Boa B or Box C in Section 22 above): Describe in detail how replacement wetland(s) will be constructed. If several methods will be used, describe each method. Details should include the following: 1) type of construction (such as excavated in upland, restored by tile break, restored by ditch block or revegetated); 2. type, size and specifications of outlet structures: 3) elevations relative to Mean Sea Level or established benchmarks of key features (such as sill, emergency overflow or structure height); 4) what best management practices will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; 5) proposed timetable for starting and ending the project; and 6) a vegetation management plan. Write this description on a separate sheet of paper labeled DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND CONSTRUCTION. ISee Attached Narrative �4. SURPLUS WETLAND CREDITS: If using project -specific replacement (Box B or Box C in Section 22 above), will the replacement result in any surplus wetland credits that you wish to have deposited in the State Wetland Bank for future use? (indicate YES or NO) NO If yes, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us 1, 5. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Complete the chart below: 1) Use one row of boxes for each wetland replacement site. 2) If your project has more than one wetland replacement site, reference your overhead view (part of Section 26) to this chart by identifying and labeling "first replacement site".and "second replacement site" on ' your overhead view. 3) If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given replacement site, use the first dotted line(s) and leave the others blank. 4) If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type in a given replacement site, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify type(s) of replacement credits and "restored or created" for each separate wetland type within that replacement site. 5) If you do not have access to some of the information, or if you do not know your replacement ration, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (Photocopy chart for more wetland replacements, if needed.) DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Site-------------- Wetland eplacement te Watershed Name or Number County Topographic Setting' Wetland Type (Type(s) of replacement credits in acres or s wrrefed) Restored Or created? Indicate New Wetland Public Value as noted on (If known) Credits (NWC) Credits (PVC) R or C verhead view Mississippi River Wright Isolated Type 3 (PEM IC) 53,205 37,072 C St. Cloud (#17) irst teplacement --------------- -------------------------------- Mississippi River Wright Isolated C St. Cloud (# 17) t! Ie _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ tc, gement ate--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 52,205sf 37,072sf TOTAL NWC I TOTAL PVC Topographic setting types Indicate S for Shoreland: R for Riverine; F for Flood - Jane; FT for Flow -through; T for Tributary; and I for Isolated. Circular 39 wsdand types: Indicate 1, 1L, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,R; or U. If you are tifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first lotted line and leave the others blank. If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted for each separate wetland type within that impact area. REQUIRED REPLACEMENT RATIO: 2:1 (ii known) 1.6- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FQR PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACMENT (Required only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 22): rr projects involving at least some project -specific replacement, include the following additional information; ®Two drawings to scale of the replacement wetland. Include both overhead view and profile view (side view or cross -sectional view). See What To include on Plans (Instructions, page 2) for a detailed description of what should be included in these drawings. Without drawings, your application will be considered incomplete. ®For created replacement wetlands, include additional sods information (if available) that indicates the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics. ' NNote 1: For replacement wetlands located on pipeline easements, you need to receive endorsement of our project from both the easement holder and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Office of Pipeline Safety. Before start of construction, the owner of any utilities involved must be notified The landowner or contractor is responsible for giving this notice by calling "Gopher States One -Call" at 651454-0002 (Twin Cities Metro Area) or 1-800-252-1166 (all other locations). ' ENote 2: For extensive or complex projects, supplementary information may be requested at a later date from one or more of the responding agencies. Such information may include (but not be limited to) the following: topographic map, water table map, soil borings, depth soundings, aerial photographs, environmental assessment and/or engineering reports. 7 1 1 7. SIGNED AFFIRMATIONS: Sign anJ date either Box 27a or Box 27b below. If your project involves replacement by wetland banking only, sign Box 27a. For all other projects, read Box 27b, check appropriate boxes in part B, and sign. 27 a. For projects involving replacement by wetland banking only: To the best of my knowledge and belief; all information in Part 2 is true, complete and accurate; and i affirm that the wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the States Wedand Bank. Signature of applicant or agent Date 27b. For projects involving either project -specific replacement only or a combination of wetland banking and project -specific replacement: Part A: The replacement wetland (affirm all statements): MWas not previously restored or created under a prior approval replacement plan: AND MWas not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND MWas not restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; AND ■ Was not restored using private funds, other than those of the landowner, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. , Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): []The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. ❑An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee the successful completion of the wedand replacement. ❑The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C: For projects involving any project -specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located; and I will at the same time submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and belief; all information in Part 2 is true, complete and accurate; and I affirm all statements in Parts A and C, as well as checked assurances) in Part B. — - Signature of applicant or agent Date FOR i (:11 Replacement plan is (check one): []Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (conditions attached)[] Denied LGLU official signature Date ' LGU has received evidence of title and proof of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland: ' County where recorded Instructions for Part 1 What to include on Plans Date recorded LGU official signature INSTRUCTIONS Instructions page I Instructions page 2 Document # assigned by recorder Date 1 d 17 E 7 1, Final checklists Instructions pages 2-3 Preparing Your Application for Mailing Instructions page 3 Mailing Your Application _ Instructions page 4 Instructions for Part 1 HELP 1: Every applicant needs to fill out Section 1 with the name of the responsible party. If the responsible part is an agency, company, corporation or other organization, indicate the responsible officer and title in the Name line. If more than one party is associated with the application, attach a separate sheet labeled APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION. HELP 1A: Fill out Section 1! Only if you have designated an authorized agent. An authorized agent is an individual or agency, designated by you, to represent you in this process. An agent can be an attorney, builder, consultant, contractor, engineer, or any other person or organization. An agent is not required. HELP 8: Purpose of project: indicate briefly (in a sentence or two) what you propose to-do and why it is needed. Include, if appropriate, a brief description of any related activities or benefits occurring as a result of the proposed project. HELP 10: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. Include in your written description any of the following elements that apply to your project. Do not write on this instruction sheet. Instead, include in your written description a discussion of applicable components below: ■ Whether your project will include such activities as construction, filling, draining, dewatering, removing, excavating or repair. ■ Whether you will be constructing something, such as an access path, bridge, culvert, dam, ditch, dock, driveway, riprap, road, sand blanket or tile line. ■The proposed dimensions of any structures, such as wingwalls or dikes, as well as what the structures would be made of and what method(s) would be used to do the work. ■ Whether you will be constructing any structures on fill, piles or a float -supported platform. If so describe. ■ Whether you will be dredging or discharging (placing fill material) into i wetland or other water body (including the temporary placement of material). If so, explain the specific purpose ofthe placement of the material (such as erosion control) and indicate how it will be done (such as with a backhoe or dragline). If dredged material is to be discharged on an upland site identify the site, and indicate the steps that. will be taken (if necessary) to prevent runoff from the dredged material back into the wetland or water body. Describe the characteristics of the soil you are discharging, dredging or excavating. ■Your description must also include a detailed overhead view that clearly depicts the work to be undertaken. See What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page2). HELP 15: If any part of the work has already been completed, describe the area already developed. Include a description of structures completed; any dredged or fill material already discharged (including type of material and volume in cubic yards); acres or square feet filled (if a wetland or other water body); and whether the work was done under an existing permit (if so, identify the authorization, if possible). HELP 16: For information regarding adjacent landowners, contact the city or county tax assessor where the project is to be developed. HELP 17: Other permits, review or approvals related to the project may include the following: conditional use permit; plat approval; zoning variance; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit; state disposal system permit (includes dredged material disposal); watershed district/watershed management organization permit (stormwater, erosion, floodplain); environmental assessment worksheet/environmental impact statement; hazardous waste site; feedlot permit; groundwater appropriation permit; or county/township driveway/road permit. What To Include on Plans (Parts 1 and 2) Detailed overhead views of impact site(s) (Part 1) and replacement site(s) (Part 2), as well as profile view (s) of replacement site(s) (Part 2), may be either hand drawn, computer generated or professionally prepared, as long as they contain all necessary information ' clearly, accurately, and in adequate detail. Please include specific dimensions whenever possible. You may also include photos, if you wish. ' ■Overhead views of Part 1 impact site (s) and Part 2 replacement site (s) should include the following items that pertain to your project: Property boundaries and/or lot dimension Location and extent of shoreline, wetlands, and water Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include length, width, elevation and other measurements as appropriate. ' Points of reference (such as existing homes, structures, docks or landscape features) Location of inlet and outlet structures Indication of north Location of spoil and disposal sites (ifapplicable) ' Location of photo reference points for future monitoring -Required for Part 2 replacement drawing -Optional fro Part I impact drawing (provide only if photos are included) Areas of wetland and upland plants established ' -Required only for Part 2 replacement draw ■Part 2 only: Profile view (side or cross -sectional view) should include the following items that pertain to your project: 1. Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include elevation, depth, soil profile, side slope, and other ' measurements as appropriate. 2. Proposed water level elevation Final Checklists Part 1: Basic Application ❑ Have you completed all of Part 1(pages 1-3), plus the Federal application (page 4)? ' ❑ Did you (or your agent) sign Boa 18 on page 3? ❑ Did you also sign Box lA on page 1 if you have authorized an agent? ❑ Have you signed the Application for Department of the Army Permit (page 4) to seek Federal authorization of your project? ❑ Have you included the necessary attachments for Part 1? Attachments must include: ❑ Site Locator Map (section 7) ❑ Overhead View of Project (Section 10 and HELP 10) Attachments may also include: ' ❑ Applicant Contact Information (HELP 1) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Additional Water Bodies Impacted (Section 3), Additional Project Locations (Section 5) and/or Additional Location Descriptions (Section 6) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Project Description (Section 10) (if additional space was needed) ' ❑ Photographs with reference points indicated (What To Include on Plans, Instructions, page 2) (if available) ❑ Work Already Completed (section 15) (if you answered YES) ❑ Adjoining Property Owners (Section 16) (if additional space was needed) ' Instructions 2 Part 2: Replacement Plan Supplement ' ❑ Have you completed all of Part 2 (pages 54)? ❑ Did you (or your agent) sign Boa 27a or Boa 27b on page 8? ❑ Have you included the necessary attachments for Part 2? Attachments must include: ❑ If the project includes any wetland banking (complete or partial), include Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form (Section 22) ❑If the project includes any project -specific replacements (complete or partial), include: Description of Replacement Wetland(s) Construction (Section 23) ' • Copy of vegetation management plan (Section 23) • Scale drawing of overhead view of replacement wetland (Section 26) • Scale drawing of profile view of replacement wetland (Section 26) 1 Attachments may also include: ❑ Additional Description of Wetland Impacts charts (Section 19) (if additional space was needed) ' ❑ Copy of any archaeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys (Section 21) (if you answered YES) ❑ Additional Description of Replacement Wetlands charts (Section 25) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Additional soils information for created replacement wetland(s) (Section 26) (if available) ' Note: To deposit surplus wetland credits in the State Wetland Bank, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU (Section 24). Preparing Your Application for Mailing ' []To apply for both state and Federal authorization, your application must include Part 1 (pages 1-3), the Federal application (page 4), and attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part 1 (Instructions, page 2). ❑ Your application may also include Part 2 (pages 5-8 )and additional attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part 2 (above). ' ❑ Make three copies of the entire application and all attachments. Keep the original, and mail the three copies to the appropriate local, state and Federal agencies (see Instructions, page 4). 1 Instructions 3 �J Albertville Business Park 1 Wetland Permit Application Appendix B — Wetland Delineation Report RODEN PROPERTY Albertville, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Darkenwald Real Estate Prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company January 21, 2000 KoRoPKnTDnKXVKrAT00V RVICES JCOMPANY Providing Sound, Balanced, Comprehensive Natural Resource Solutions 1 I Roden Property Albertville, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report ' Darkenwald Real Estate IPrepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company ' INTRODUCTION ' The Roden Property site was examined on December 1, 1999 for the presence and extent of wetland areas. The 111.58-acre site is located in the NW 1/4 of Section 35, T121N, R24W, City of Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. The north property boundary is ' indicated by 70m Street, Kadler Avenue indicates the west property boundary, Interstate Highway 94 indicates the south property boundary, and a field boundary and fence line indicates the east property boundary. An exception to the continuous boundary is located in the southwest corner of the property. ' This property lies within the Angus -Cordova soils association according to the Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota (USDA, 1998). This association is described as "Nearly level to undulating, well drained and poorly drained soils on moraines." Typical hydric soils in this association include Cordova, Glencoe, and Klossner. The property currently includes fields farmed for the production of annual agricultural ' crops, a single-family home site, an abandoned pasture, an excavated ditch system, and wetland areas. The field was farmed for corn production in 1999 and was harvested and plowed prior to the delineation. The site is being evaluated for development potential. Figure 1 indicates property boundaries, existing topography, and delineated wetlands. I osrEcrivEs ' • The purpose of the study was to locate areas on the property satisfying the jurisdictional criteria for wetlands and delineate their boundaries. 1 . - I METHODS tWetlands were identified using standard wetland delineation methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. ' Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper -most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland -upland boundaries were marked with pm flags and subsequently located by Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. by using standard land survey methods.. Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company reviewed surveyed wetland boundaries for accuracy. ' Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland -upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for the tree and shrub layers and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being sampled. ' Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-20 inches utilizing Munsell Soil Color Charts -1994 Revised Edition, and standard soil texturing methodology. ' Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy was based on the Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, Ed. 2 (New York Botanical Garden, 1991). Indicator status of plant species was taken from the ' National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Minnesota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988). FSA Aerial Slides were reviewed using hydrology indicators as described in State of Minnesota Interagency Cooperative Agreement for Implementation of the Federal Wetland Delineation Memorandum of Agreement (August, 1994). RESULTS I Review of Soils, NWI, DNR, and FSA Information The Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota (USDA, 1998) indicates no upland soils ' mapped within the site. Hydric soils mapped within the site are identified as Cordova loam (1156), Glencoe clay loam (114), Klossner muck, Klossner (539), Okoboji, and ' Glencoe soils, ponded (1080), and Angus -Cordova complex (1094B). Hydric soils are frequently associated with wetlands when they are not altered by drainage. Mapped soils are presented in Figure 2. 2 1 The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI), St. Michael and Big Lake quadrangles, indicate ten wetland areas within the property. Mapped wetlands are presented in Figure 3. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters and Wetlands Map, e Wright County indicates no protected waters or wetlands on or adjacent to the site (Figure 4). FSA Aerial Slides for the years 1979-1999 indicated the presence of no wetlands on the farmed area of the property. Five potential wetland areas within the fanned portion of the property were reviewed and determined to be non -wetland (Table 1). All other areas ' appeared to be cropped regularly without indications of crop stress or inundation 11 1 1 � f i Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations. Nine wetlands were identified and delineated as indicated on Figure 1 and summarized on Table 1. Corresponding data sheets are included in Appendix A. Table 1— Roden Property Wetland Summary Area NWI -Map Hydric Soil Unit FSA Slide Review Field Determination 1 PEMCd/ PEMAd Klossner muck/Cordova loam NA PEM 1 Cd/PEM 1 Ad 2 PEMAd Glencoe clay loam NA PEM1Ad 3 None Angus -Cordova complex NA PEM1A 4 PEMA Angus -Cordova complex NA PEM1A 5 PEMCd Glencoe clay loam NA PEM1Cd/PEM1Ad 6 PEMCd Cordova loam NA PEM1Cd/PEM1Ad 7 None Angus -Cordova complex NA PEM1A 8 PEMCd Angus -Cordova complex NA PEMlAd 9 PEMCd Klossner, Okoboji, and Glencoe soils NA PEM1Cd/PEM1Ad A PEMAd -Cordova complex 4/19 ears Non -wetland B PEMAd Angus -Cordova complex— 4/19 years Non -wetland C PEMAd -Cordova complex 3/19 years I Non -wetland D PEMAd -Cordova complex 5/19 years Non -wetland E PEMAd An igus-Cordova complex 6/19 ears Non -wetland The following,narrative describes the delineated wetlands and presents rationale for the wetland boundary locations. Wetland I was a Type 3 (PEM 1 Cd/PEM 1 Ad) wetland located in an area mapped with Klossner muck and Cordova loam soils and within areas mapped as PEMCd and PEMAd ' wetlands on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by cattail and reed canary grass and also included smartweed, sedge, and willow shrub. Soils in the A- ' horizon included black mucky peat and black loamy clay with a few faint iron concentrations from the surface and black mucky loam and dark yellowish brown clay below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was ' assumed based on drainage patterns, topographic position, a dominant hydrophytic plant community, and hydric soils. A topographic break was observed above the delineated boundary. An excavated drainage ditch was located in the center of the wetland, draining east through upland within the property and onto the adjacent property. The adjacent upland is farm field managed for annual crops and grass hay production. The field in the area managed for annual crop production was plowed. The plant community in the hay field was dominated by smooth brome grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and Canada thistle. Soils were black silty clay to loamy clay in the A -horizon and grayish brown to very dark grayish brown clay with a few faint iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample boreholes. The delineated boundary was based on distinct differences in plant communities and ' supported by topographic differences. The eastern portion of delineated wetland boundary corresponded to the approximate top of the slope of the excavated drainage ditch. Wetland 2 was a T 1 EM1Ad wetlan ype (P ) d located in the northeast corner of the property in an area mapped with Glencoe clay loam soils and within an area mapped as a PEMCd/PEMAd wetland on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by reed canary grass. Soils were black silty clay with common distinct iron concentrations to 20 inches and very dark grayish brown clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole, however, hydrology was assumed based on hydric soils, a dominant hydrophytic plant community, and ' topographic position A topographic break was observed above the delineated boundary. The wetland continued onto the adjacent property to the east. An excavated drainage ditch was observed within the center of the wetland, continuing through Wetland 2 towards the south. It connected to the excavated ditch previously described within Wetland 1. The adjacent upland was a plowed field, which had been planted to corn in 1999 and appeared to have been harvested normally. Soils were black loamy clay with common distinct iron concentrations to 18 inches and.dark grayish brown clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample borehole. The delineated boundary was based on FSA slide review and supported by topographic differences. 11 Wetlands 3 and 4 were small, isolated Type l (PEM1A) wetlands located adjacent to the south property boundary in an area mapped with Angus -Cordova complex soils. Wetland ' 4 was also mapped as a PEMA wetland on the NWI map. The plant communities were dominated by reed canary grass. Soils were black silty clay with common distinct iron concentrations in the A -horizon and dark gray clay with may distinct iron concentrations ' below. No water was observed in the wetlands or the sample boreholes but hydrology was assumed based on topographic position, hydric soils, and dominant hydrophytic plant communities. ' The plant communities in the adjacent upland were dominated by quackgrass, timothy, and Kentucky bluegrass. Soils were black loamy clay in the A -horizon and dark gray clay below. No water was observed in the sample boreholes. The delineated boundaries were based on distinct differences in plant communities and ' supported by topographic differences. Wetland 5 was a Type 3 (PEMICd/PEM1Ad) wetland located in the abandoned pasture along the south property boundary in an area mapped with Glencoe clay loam soils and as a PEMCd wetland on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by reed canary grass and cattail. Soils were black silty clay with a few distinct iron tconcentrations to 20 inches and dark gray clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was assumed based on hydric soils, topographic position, and dominant hydrophytic plant tcommunity. A distinct topographic break was observed above the delineated wetland boundary. An excavated drainage ditch drained Wetland 5 towards the east, through the abandoned pasture, and through Wetlands 6 and 9. The ditch continued onto the property to the east. ' The plant community in the adjacent upland was dominated by quack grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and timothy. Soils were black silty clay to 12 inches and dark gray clay with a few distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample borehole. The delineated boundaries were based on distinct differences in plant communities and supported by topographic differences. Wetland 6 was a Type 3 (PEM1Cd/PEM1Ad) wetland located in the abandoned pasture in an area mapped with Cordova loam soils and as a PEMCd wetland on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by reed canary grass and scattered cattail. Soils were black clay loam with common distinct iron concentrations to 28 inches. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was assumed based on hydric soils, a dominant hydrophytic plant community, and topographic position A topographic break was observed above the delineated boundary. The ditch previously described partially drained the wetland. 1 The plant community in the adjacent upland was dominated by quackgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and Canada thistle. Soils were black clay loam to 20 inches and dark gray clay with common distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample borehole. ' The delineated boundary was based on distinct differences in plant communities and supported by topographic differences. Wetland 7was a small, isolated Type 1 (PEM1A) wetland located in the southeast comer of the property in an area mapped with Angus -Cordova complex soils. The plant community was dominated by reed canary grass. Soils were black clay loam with a few distinct iron concentrations to 16 inches and dark grayish brown loamy clay with common distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was assumed based on hydric soils, topographic position, ' and the dominant hydrophytic plant community. A distinct topographic break was observed above the delineated boundary. The plant community in the adjacent upland was dominated by quackgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and timothy. Soils were black clay loam to eight inches and very dark gray clay with common distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample borehole. The delineated boundary was based on distinct differences in plant communities and supported by topographic differences. ' Wetland 8 was a Type 1 (PEM1Ad) wetland located in the abandoned pasture adjacent to the south property boundary in an area mapped with Angus -Cordova soils and as a PEMCd wetland on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by reed canary ' grass. Soils were black clay loam with a few faint iron concentrations to 30 inches and dark gray clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was assumed by the presence of hydric soils, a dominant hydrophytic plant community, and topographic position. An excavated drainage ditch within the wetland boundary flowed east, through Wetland 9 ' and onto the adjacent property. The ditch partially drained Wetland 8. The plant community in the adjacent upland was dominated by quackgrass, Kentucky ' bluegrass, and Canada thistle. Soils were black silty clay loam to 12 inches, black clay loam with common distinct iron concentrations from 12 to 20 inches and dark gray clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the sample borehole. The delineated boundary was based on distinct differences in plant communities and ' supported by topographic differences. I ' Wetland 9 was a large Type 3 (PEM1Cd/PEM1Ad) wetland located along the east property boundary in an area mapped with Klossner, Okoboji, and Glencoe soils and as a ' PEMCd wetland on the NWI map. The plant community was dominated by cattail and reed canary grass. Soils were black silty clay with a few distinct iron concentrations to 12 inches, black silty clay loam with a few distinct iron concentrations from 12 to 26 inches, and dark gray silty clay with many distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the wetland or the sample borehole but hydrology was assumed based on the presence of hydric soils, a dominant hydrophytic plant community, and topographic eposition. Excavated drainage described earlier transected the wetland from north to south, continuing onto the adjacent property to the east, partially draining the wetland. The adjacent upland had been planted to corn in 1999 and appeared to have been harvested normally. The plant community in adjacent uncropped areas was dominated by common ragweed and green foxtail.. Soils were black clay loam to 10 inches and dark gray clay with common distinct iron concentrations below. No water was observed in the ' sample borehole. The delineated boundary was based on differences in plant communities and FSA slide review and supported by topographic differences. ' Other Areas Five other areas were evaluated and determined to be non -wetland. Areas A, B, C, D, and E (Figure 1) were small depressions located in the farmed field in and area mapped with Angus -Cordova complex soils and as PEMAd wetlands on the ' NWI map. These areas were all planted to corn in 1999 and plowed at the time of delineation. The corn appeared to have been harvested normally. Shallow ditches were observed draining these areas. One the line intake was also observed within Area B. An FSA slide review was completed to determine frequency of hydrology indicators within these areas. The summary of these results is indicated in Table 1. ' These areas were determined to be non -wetland on the basis of low frequency of wetland signatures as indicated during FSA slide review. All areas were determined to contain ' wetland signatures less than 32% of the years reviewed. Review for Concurrence The delineated boundaries were reviewed for the City of Albertville on December 3, ' 1999 by Mark McNamara, Wright SWCD. The delineated wetland boundaries were approved as delineated. DISCUSSION The entire site is mapped with hydric soils. However, original hydrology was found to be significantly altered by drainage ditches and/or sub -surface tile lines. This drainage system effectively drained at least five small, isolated Type 1 wetlands within the farmed ' area of the property and altered hydrology to six of the delineated wetlands on the site. The drainage ditches described continued onto the adjacent property to the east. SUAMARY ' . • The 111.58-acre site reviewed was located in the City of St. Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. ' • Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota maps indicated that the entire site is mapped with hydric soils. The delineated wetlands were all located within areas mapped with hydric soils. L • The NFff Maps indicate ten wetland areas within the property. Seven of the delineated wetlands were located within the areas mapped as NWI wetlands. • Nine wetlands were identified and delineated during the field review of the site. • Five additional areas mapped as NWI wetlands were evaluated and determined to be non -wetland. 8 I CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Both the delineation and report were conducted in ' compliance with regatory stand�d�s at the time the work was completed. ' Reviewed by: Date: 00 ' Mark S. Kj ug Professio d ientist No. 000845 r FIGURES Figure 1— Topography and Delineated Wetland Boundaries Figure 2 — Wright County Soil Survey Figure 3 — National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 — DNR Protected Waters Map — Wright County C p 0 I— p M O 3 4c L. z ' Z viY xa W W .� �a NAlf a °C Z z -� k_ W A.L gdOdd N300Ei ao� SNOUMNOO ONIISIX3 s AuU �N MMtG SN RW :M cim on"Mrt'= ift MUM -S" oMn Pw w' - M JrVr - lwt M 3wm 71*UM yaw 71owo1�lON �n w � 1 0 OS At a �w - . Now Mla�obvm -.� wac .lr+-w wllt .a r em .a .rrr ' IN* r.e�•a•le 1./MMy 4n r .. 16" Jr ■a-" = •fir wlw w ow,* pa~ wr sin w MIIrIJNrA %W 40 Jill 4s Amw I-- ---� 00%0/�O 3tJ1T L 3unoi3 1 li I a � y a �� a .y S.1 -p - no �l I 611111111 k .4w su a cR Y �a a� w 2 _ w�Gj� f cON '3TY ey of wliot County Soil lZoden property ntal Ser`dce' Con1P30'y K�olliaug �n�onme 4 N Scale _ 1 lnch =1320 feet 4 N =- pssx FIGURE 3 — NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP Key: PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded PEMAd = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded drained PEMCd = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded drained St. Michael and Big Lake Quadrangles Roden Property Scale — I inch = 2030 feet Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company 11 n FIGURE 4 — DNR PROTECTED WATERS AND WETLANDS DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands — Wright County Roden Property Scale —1/2 inch = 5280 feet Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company APPENDIX A Appendix A — Wetland Delineation Data Sheets 11 l �JOLHAUG ENVIRC>NMEW-rAL. SERVICES COMPANY Ent l Date. / z s): owm D:D: Sample Pt. ID: -� SAMPLE POINT - SOILS V-' Wet side ____ Up side wA Mapped Soil Type Depth in. Matri Color Mottle Colors ras Mottle abundJcontt Texture, Structure, etc. 2 -s- Y 2.S 0'1'e'/ 4t -Zy' 2N -3Z 2•5- Y l/ y /oYQ Y Field Indicators of Hydric Solis (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all soils, s = sandy soils, F = loamy i clayey sous) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix __t-115. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material -AeF6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? des No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- wet swe ✓ up side wA Mapped Soil Type: Depth in. Matrix olor Mottle Colors Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. 0 -/ vyle z T- 11-si: 2.s 713 2- z s y y � Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= slI soils, S = sandy soils, F = loamy 8 clayey soils) _ Al. Histceol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix _✓F5. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material _ F6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? 4.4'es _No Undetermined Remarks: I SAMPLE POINT - HYDROLOGY ✓ Wet side Up side wA Prima H drolo Indicators Secondag Hydrology Indicators 2 reWetland Hydrology? _ Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels ✓ Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No _ Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. ✓ FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines :✓Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation DrainM Patterns Other - Explain: SAMPLE POINT- Wetsid• ✓ upside wA r 1 r. _ Inundated, Depth in. _ Oxidized Root Channels Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves ✓ No - Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: - Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test _ Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drains a Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 612.4724875, Fax: 612472-1040 pn�jegiSite Y�-z1 Aa`''tvI/c- VEGETATION sampe Pant ID SAMPLE POINT- ✓ wat sift up swe WA S ies ::.: Stratum o% Cover' Ind: Status H W S T o <20% ��- H V S T >20'/o <200/o H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% Q00/6 H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20a/o <20% H V S T >20% QO% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20a/o <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: lea % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter.. tr0 SAMPLE POINT- Wet side up side WA Species _ Stratum ; .off Cover Ind. Status m►�uo !/►t,t�vrruo V S T 0° > <l0'/0 1�L. V S T > 0% o i Witt— V S T >20% o r1le — ! H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >200/9 <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20a/o Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. IWETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE POINT- '�wet:ra. up side WA No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? &/Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? ✓ Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge ft. N/A SAMPLE POINT Wat side pup side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _�G,No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes /s the area a wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge 2- ft. N/A ' COMMUNITY SUMMARY Wetland Community Type: PEA 1 Upland Community Type: Overall Dominant�Vj Overall Dominanton: Vegetation = Remarks: Remarks: ..' �i. KJOl�Vr T Tyr G ENVIRONMENTAL- SERVICES COMPANY 1 Projewsite.. ftn Date: /Z 1 Investigator(s): ,w BasiNArea ID: I Sample PG ID: 2 SAMPLE POINT SOILS wet stile - ue We _ -_ wA Mapped Soil De th in. Matrix C for Mottle Colors Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. O- z.cYr 1^1( - 8'�srt- /V Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A■ an sons, s ■ sander sops, F ■ Iosmy a clayey sous) Al. Histosol _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S 1. Sandy Mucky Material _ S6. Stripped Matrix _ Loamy Mucky Material _ FS. Thick Dark Surface F6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions AS. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? ./Yes _No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- wet swo _�/i'!p side wA Mapped Soil Type: De th in. Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle abundJcontrast Textu , Structure, etc. O -'d 2• S Y V •rr - 11-74 �sy Qom Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A ■ air soils, s ■sandy sons, F loamy 3 clayey Botts) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix `IFS. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ on S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material �6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? �I'es _No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- ✓wet owe HYDROLOGY upside WA Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels -Yes Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No Water in borehole, Depth in. _ Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: Water Marks, Height in. "PAC -Neutral Test Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Lment Deposits Flattened Vegetation ma Patterns Other - Ex lain: mmma SAMPLE POINT- wet side Upswe WA "-1 Inundated, Depth in. _ Oxidized Root Channels Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves Water in borehole, Depth in. _ Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test t Drift Lines _ Topographic Position Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drainage Patterns Other - Explain Wetland Hvdrolotav? _ Yes ✓No _ Assumed - Explain: _ Undetermined - Explain: 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612472-1040 projeaGile n uc"" — cAoW w/ V1 1 Ki Q65 I,JR r VO. w I VEGETATION c• w uel C DAIItIT_ !/ ..u. tin .le. ww I r ■ AAUPLE POINT. Remarks' r• Wet side Up side WA S e ies Stratum % Cover Ind. Status -I "Hj V S T I > /o <20% V S T o <20% 714) V S T 2 Q0% r,4Gw H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20%* H V S T >20% <20% % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. Z Remarks' ■ SAMPLE POINT- / WETLAND DETERMINATION v Wet side Up side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? _,,Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? --Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge /0 ft. N/A SAMPLE POINT- Wet side vop side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes L.-No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _,,,—No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? —Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge ft. WA COMMUNITY SUMMARY Wetland Community T e: E44/ Upland Community Type: Overall Dominant /� Ve etation: Overall Dominant Vegetation: ,c,•� Remarks: Remarks: Page 2 KJ01.HAUG ENVIRONMEN-TAL. SERVICES COMPANY Project/Site: 177 - ✓� Date: Z - - 9 Investigator(s): J. Ors.► BasirVArea ID: L Sample Pt. ID: Z - / SAMPLE POINT - SOILS ",--, wet side -Upside wA Mapped Soil Type: DeE!tJ1n.L Matrix C for Mottle Colors Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. i7-20' 2-S ,2s oYKy 70777 .' 20 - 2.S' y.y s y�y Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all sous, s = sandy sous, F = loamy i clayey sous) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muds _ S6. Stripped Matrix = FS. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material 6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers - S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? ✓Yes _No Undetermined Remarks: 1 SAMPLE POINT- wet side Up side wA Mapped Soil Type: Depth Matrix Col r Mottle C lore Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. d -I8Z-s J-74- t..s /o /8 - 2•9-y.y 7s-YR Field indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all soils, s = sandy soils, F = loamy 3 clayey soils) Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix IFS. Thick Dark Surface _ _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. loamy Mucky Material ✓F6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? 7Ves No Undetermined Remarks: 1 SAMPLE POINT - HYDROLOGY Wat side Up aids WA PrImaq Hydrology Indicators Secondaq Hydrology Indicators 2 re . Wetland Hydrology? _ Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No - Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: - Water Marks, Height in. / FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: _ Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation ✓ Drai2M Patterns Other - Ex lain: SAMPLE POINT- . wet side .' up we wA i Primaa Hydrology Indicators -§e-condag Hydrology Indicators J2 Wetland Hydrology? _ Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels Yes - Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No - Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test _ Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: _ Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drains a Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612.472-1040 Il Proled/Site O�C'Gr� -'�V' K- Sample Point 1D - -- �— VEGETATION • .. w�u.� V n--Id- WA - %7PUerw---- S cies Stratum •� Cover Ind. Status V S T 2 ° QO% rA<.Wf V S T >20% e Or3L ` V S T >20% FAG , V S T >20% FfCW--4- H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: ,L Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. 100 SAIVT-..II...[A. UTA Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status H V S T >20% : 20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20%s <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. WETLAND DETERMINATION 3AMPL.E POINT- _�_ wet Wde UP side wA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ✓ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes /s the area a wetland? ✓ Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge _L�L_ ft. WA SAMPLE POINT- Wer side // uo side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? ✓ Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes of No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge j 0 ft. WA CAMMIIMITY SUMMARY Wetland Community Type: PEA1 J #d Upland Community Type: Overall Dominant Vegetation: Overall Dominant Vegetation: Remarks: V FRemarks: Page 2 KJoLHAUG E144VIRC+NMEjrrAL SERVICES COMPANY ;> ProJect/Site: Investigator(S): BasiNArea ID: SAMPLE POINT - ,/ uu...LA. ue:lds SOILS Sample Pt. ID: wA Macoed Soil Tyne:_ Depth in. Matrix Color Mottle C )ors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. Ue -3Y Z.s y 5 YJf Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A- all soils, s sandy soils, F - loamy a clayey sops) Al. Histosol A9,10. 1-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix =F5. Thick Dark Surface _ _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material _±-T6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? des No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- wet side '/Up side wA Mapped Soil Type: Depthj!j.L Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast ATexture, Structure, etc. tq-/9 2.s � zs i - - p- Z0 Z.r-Y, Y / If - Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A - all soils, s sandy soils, F = loamy & clayey soils) Al. Histosol A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix ff51bick Dark Surface _ _ _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ FI. Loamy Mucky Material _ F6. Redox Dark Surface A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified layers S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? Yes No Undetermined Remarks: 1 . - SAMPLE POINT - HYDROLOGY `/wet side Up side wA Primaq Hydrology Indicators Seconds Hydrology Indicators 12 re Wetland Hydrology? - Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels _ Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No _ Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. _j/FAC Neutral Test _ Drift Lines ✓Topographic Position _ Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation Drains a Patterns Other - Explain. SAMPLE POINT- wet side Up side WA Prima H drolo Indicators Seconday Hydrology Indicators J2 req.) Wetland Hydrology? _ Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels - fifes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves_/'No _ Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression _ Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test _ Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: _ Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drains Le Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612.472-1040 Proj6CtlSjEe IUKAh VEGETATION Sample Pprd ID 7 J Y/A Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status V S T > o H V S T >20% QO% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >200/0 <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks' /»4,m,r /f. Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. w AAUPLE POINT. Wet :id. ✓ Uosift WA Species tratumR>2 Cover Ind. Status V S T <20% FACq V S T V S T r " V S T >20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% mi H V S T >20% <20% Remarks' % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter: SAMPLE POINT- �V-' wet side Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? Distance from Wetland Edge POINT- wet swe WETLAND DETERMINATION Up We WA No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes c/ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes r7Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes _Yes No Remarks: N/A Up side WA f Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes i1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes •-**No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ---Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes n is the area a wetland? Yes ---No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge /7- R. WA _ Wetiand Commun Overall Dominant .,Vegetation: "Remarks: COMMUNITY SUMMARY Overall Dominant Vegetation: k Remarks: Page 2 r KJOLLIAUG ENVIRONMEN-rAI. SERVICES COMPANY Project/Site: -&C2 1 Lq 7re Date: Z / Investigator(s): BasiNArea ID: Sample Pt. ID: S'- SOILS SAMPLE POINT- wet side up side wA Mapped Soil Type: Matrix Col Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. 2. S" . 2• D yk y X- Y. y s YR Y rFieldindicators of Hydric Solis (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A- ail soft, s=sandy sous, F loamy a clayey sous) sol Epipcdon _ A9,10.1-2 cm Muck _ S 1. Sandy Mucky Material S6. Stripped Matrix _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material YFS. Thick Dark Surface �6. Redox Dark Surface _ .k Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified Layers _ SS. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? -des _No Undetermined Remarks: 1 SAMPLE POINT Wet side 61*" up side wA Mapped Soil Type: Depth in. Matrix olor. Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. /L P i?/2 Z Z'LD Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (An all soils, So sandy soils, F - loamy 3 clayey soils) - Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix ✓F5. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material ✓P6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified Layers S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? --,,Yes No Undetermined Remarks: ' HYDROLOGY SAMPLE POINT- wet side ua am* wA -Prlmaq Hydrolegy Indicators Secondaq Hydrology Indicators 12 req.) I Wetland Hydrology? Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels _Yes Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No Water in borehole, Depth in Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression _ Assumed - Explain: Water Marks, Height in. ✓FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines _-/Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation Drains a Patterns Other - Ex lain: SAMPLE POINT- _ Wet side ✓un aid& use Inundated, Depth _ Saturated Soil, Depth _ _ Water in borehole, Depth Water Marks, Height _ Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Secondary Hydrology Indicators in. Oxidized Root Channels in. Water -Stained Leaves in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression in. FAC-Neutral Test Topographic Position Flattened Vegetation: Other -,Explain _ Yes ✓No Assumed - Explain: Undetermined - Explain: 1 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612472-1040 VEGETATION Upsws WA SAMPLE POINT- wetswe Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status V S T o <20% S T >20% "010 O L H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <200/9 H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. SAMPLE POINT- wetswe Upside WA Species Stratum % Co_Xer Ind. Status V S T >20°/ /o 4"Ie K V S T > o <20% FAG — a +^ V S T ° <20% 4<,Lk V S T 520% o V S T >20% V S T >20% te20N ujac H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. WETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE POINT- ✓wet side Up side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? --"—Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? ✓ Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge _0 ft. WA SAMPLE POINT- wet side up we WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _;;"No Does an Atypical Situation East? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge _/_ ft. WA COMMUNITY SUMMARY Wetland Community Type: FEA1 PEAW Upland Community Type: Overall Dominant _ Overall Dominant Vegetation: !1 Vtion: Remarks: Remarks: Page 2 1 1 l fJOL.r A G EkTNnRC 14MEW rAI_ SERVICES COMPANY moor Project/Site: i Date: Investigator(s): Dry BasiNArea ID: Sample Pt. ID: SOILS SAMPLE POINT- wet swe up side WA Mapped Soil Type: Matrix Color Mottle Co rs Mottle abundJcontrast TextureStructure, etc. Z.S , . Z.S l0-7qFiel pDepthin. ndicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (Am all sous, S = sandy sous, F a loamy i clayey sous) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix -fF5. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material _vK Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? des _No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT - Wet side r/ Upside wA Mapped Soil Depth in. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. -zo Z s Y. ?,s 1 - - TO I -5- y, q i 5YXy tie dayn C/ Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all soils, s sandy soils, F • loamy a clayey soils) _ Al. Histosol A9,10. 1-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix _�5. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. loamy Mucky Material _ F6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Pew _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _, A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? ✓Yes No Undetermined Remarks: HYDROLOGY SAMPLE POINT- ✓ wet side up swa N/A Primag Hydrology Indicators Secondag Hydroloqj Indicators Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels ' Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water in borehole, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Water Marks, Height in. _k�f FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines .-,Topographic Position 1EZ,.DraiMEPwterns Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation Other - Explain: SAMPLE POINT- . Wet side _ _ ✓Uo side ww Wetland Hydrology? ✓ Yes No _ Assumed - Explain: Undetermined - Explain: Prima Hydrologl Indicators Secondary Hjgrol2py Indicators 2 re . Wetland Hydrology? Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels Yes Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression _ Assumed - Explain: ' Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drain& a Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612472-1040 0011 Aw runt RJ - r ' VEGETATION SAMPLE POINT- r VM swe Up swe WA Species tratum ° Cover Ind. Status V S T> o <20% F/�G W t V S T >20% /o 084— V S T >20% o r 4 ct ocl t t- H V S T >20% 00/o H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. / QcD SAMPLE POINT- wetswe ✓ upside WA Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status . V S T o <20% F40A- Qt. V S T /o <20% F/W. ^- V S T >20% o 421 V S T >20% LYri at. V S T >20% 0° Gl L V S T >20% <20% S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: %. Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. SAMPLE POINT- ✓w*tswe WETLAND DETERMINATION Up We WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? —Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? ✓Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge !L ft. WA SAMPLE POINT- Wttswe Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? Distance from Wetland Edqe Wetland Community ' Overall Dominant n Vegetation: Remarks: Up side WA Yes __j.._.-No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Yes .--�No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Yes ✓No Remarks: Z ft. WA MMUNITY SUMMARY f_M Upland Communii Overall Dominant Vegetation: Remarks: Page 2 AL KJOLl-IA G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Project/Site: - / Date: 2 J. -/- Investigator(s): . ©ved Basin/Area ID: 1- Sample Pt. ID: SOILS SAMPLE POINT- Z wet side upside wA Mapped Soil Type: Matrix Color. Motile Colo Mottle abundJcontrast _ Texture, Structure, etc. =Pth z.rY, 2•s o �yZ r y y 2. i Y�2 cd,..,k,.►. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A - aQ soils, s sandy soils. F a loamy i clayey soils) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. )-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix = . Thick Dark Surface _ AZ. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material ,6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Pew _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? Yes _No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- wat side rr up side wA Mapped Soil Type: De th 1n. Matrix ColoF Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. 0- 2.s z S , - - -Zo sY 311 /oY4 yjtp 601'"Wto% Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A ■ all soils, S = sandy soils, F a loamy & clayey soils) Al. Histosol _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ S6. Stripped Matrix _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material "-'F5. Thick Dark Surface 116. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions A5. Stratified Lay _ S5. Sandy Redox _ R. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? es _No Undetermined Remarks: e SAMPLE POINT- `' wet side HYDROLOGY Up side MIA Prima HXdrology indicators mmmSeconds H drolo Indicators 2 req. Wetland Hydrology? _ inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels des Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves No Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. ✓FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines opographic Position _ Undetermined - Explain: ',Wlment Deposits Flattened Vegetation ✓ DraigM Patterns Other - Ex lain. SAMPLE POINT. Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels Y Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves Water in borehole, Depth in. _ Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression + Assumed - Explain: Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test _ Drift Lines Topographic Position _ Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drains a Patterns Other - Ex lain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612472-1040 11 ' VEGETATION SAMPLE POINT- V ,* wet swe upside WA I Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status v1.to C14JV S T ° <20% *- H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. SAMPLE POINT- wetswe ✓ Upside WA S ies tratum % Cover Ind. Status Q� V S T 2 ° <20% r4L— V S T > o <20% /;*C4,(- V S T o °o J� S T >20% QbAb Mcq V S T >20% o /t4C Gt/f H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. a SAMPLE POINT- side WETLAND DETERMINATION upside WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation E)ist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Sacs Present? _„Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? _JLYes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge =Lk= ft. WA SAMPLE POINT- wet side ✓Up side WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? - Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ---Yes No goes an Atypical Situation East? Yes Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge /0 ft. WA COMMUNITY SUMMARY t r Wetland Community Type: 0960 j Upland Community Type: Overall Dominant V elation: Overall Dominant Vegetation: 6, %, Remarks: I V Remarks: ¢PK15 Page 2 KJOLIE4UG ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES COMPANY Project/Site: Investigator(s): ' Basin/Area ID: ' SAMPLE POINT. f� !Date.Sample PL ID: SOILS I/ wta "&I" uo.. wA MaDoed Soil TvDe: De , Matrix Color. Mottle colors Mottle abund.lcontrast TextureStructure, etc. z-5 Y. z. s D Yje y WIN eW �- tin. z 2 , 5Y.'>� / Yk y Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all sous, s = sandy sous, F = loamy a clayey sous) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 an Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix'5. Thick Dark Surface �6. Redox Dark Surface A2. Histic Epipedon _ SI. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky PeaL/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? •,-Yes No Undetermined Remarks: I' SAMPLE POINT- wetswe t/ upside wA Mapped Soil Type: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 thln. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle abund./contrast Texture, Structure, etc. - - fDe ;/2 L-2D z. s � G0o- 2• 5-y , G-ypeY4 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all sous, So sandy solls# = loamy 3 clayey soils) Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix = F5. Thick Dark Surface _ _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ S1. Sandy Mucky Material Fl. Loamy Mucky Material =-ft Redox Dark Surface A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ AS. Stratified Layers _ S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? es _No Undetermined Remarks: HYDROLOGY SAMPLE POINT-y wet side Upside WA Primag Hydrology Indicators Seconds HydroloV Indicators 2 req.) Wetland Hydrology? Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels _ Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves _ No Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. ✓C-Neutral Test Drift Lines Topographic Position _ Undetermined - Explain: -fitment Deposits Flattened Vegetation Drains a Patterns Other - Ex lain: SAMPLE POINT- wet side ✓up side NIA PrImag Hydrology Indicators Seconds Hydrology Indicators L2 reWetland H drol ? Inundated, Depth in. Oxidized Root Channels Yes _ Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves ✓No Water in borehole, Depth in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression _ Assumed - Explain: _ Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: Drains a Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612472-1040 • •��Qe /�.rn �. � Vh/j/��/ r •/ � � Vg1*/10� MIA IV ' VEGETATION SAMPLE POINT- wet swe up we WA S cies Stratum 0/9 Cover Ind. Status V S T> o <20% I e*CW �- H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <0% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: iyK4-" % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. 00 111, SAMPLE POINT- V, _ Wet side Up side WA Species Stratum % Cover Ind. -Status �—W V S T /s <20% lr Q — Gubv+�✓+�Vw V S T <20% C.¢G FO V S T <20% ICAW P 2 V S T > f00/o /o f4 H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20%. Remarks: % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. WETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE POINT- _jZwet We Upside WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ✓Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Welland Hydrology Present? __j,:::�Yes No Does an Atypical Situation East? Yes Hydric Soils Present? _Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? ""Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edae 9 ft. WA SAMPLE POINT- Wetswe ✓upside WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes o Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Yes //fVo J4es No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes =No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge /c ft. WA i COMMUNITY SUMMARY 1( Wetland Community Type: P6,Ml 14-d U land Communil Overall Dominant �_ Overall Dominant Vegetation: / u-eie AP Vegetation: Remarks: Remarks: Page 2 t ..� Tyr IIJOLMAUG EiwlRONMEI-rr-Al- SERVICES COMPANY PrgwVSite: !=- o Date: lZ- Investigator(s): Basin/Area ID: 9 Sample Pt. ID: 9- SOILS SAMPLE POINT- _t.,,�wst sw• up sw• WA Mapped Soil Type: De th in. Matrix Color Mottle Co ors Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. 0-12 2. sY 7, /o r✓ f� ) z.-24 Zr 2'r /DYRY w AaA ZAP., 24 -AV Z Y . � / l�Y '� m r7' F = a etaysy soils) Field indicators of Hydric Solis (Midwest RegionFL ISDA, Nar h 1998. (A= alllolls, s = sandy7.1 _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 c m Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon _ St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. Loamy Mucky Material ✓F6. Redox Dark Surface _ A3. Black Histic _ S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified La S5. Sandy Redox F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? ZYes _No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT Wet side ✓ Upside wA Mapped Soil Type: De th in. Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle abundJcontrast Texture, Structure, etc. 10-20 •S- YR V1 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (Midwest Region) USDA, March 1998. (A= all soils, s = sandy soils, F = loamy 3 clayey soils) _ Al. Histosol _ A9,10. 1-2 cm Muck _ S6. Stripped Matrix ✓ F�. Thick Dark Surface _ A2. Histic Epipedon St. Sandy Mucky Material _ Fl. loamy Mucky Material ✓F6. Redox Dark Surface ..__ A3. Black Histic _- S3. Mucky Peat/Peat _ F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix _ F7. Depleted Dark Surface _ A4. Hydrogen Sulfide _ S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix _ F3. Depleted Matrix _ F8. Redox Depressions _ A5. Stratified La _ S5. Sandy Redox _ F4. Depleted Below Dark Surface Hydric Soil? vVes No Undetermined Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- _ wet side Primary Hydrology Indicators _ inundated, Depth _ Saturated Soil, Depth _ Water in borehole, Depth Water Marks, Height _ Drift Lines _,,8ediment Deposits SAMPLE POINT. HYDROLOGY ✓upside WA Secondary Hydrology Indicators in. Oxidized Root Channels in. Water -Stained Leaves in. Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression in. _�AC-Neutral Test --j,e`fopographic Position Flattened Vegetation Other - Explain: ✓Tes No _ Assumed - Explain: _ Undetermined - Explain: Wet side Upside WA ttors Secondary Hydrology Indicators 2 req.) I Wetland Hydrology? Inundated, Depth in. _ Oxidized Root Channels Saturated Soil, Depth in. Water -Stained Leaves ✓ No Water in borehole, Depth in. _ Mapped Hydric Soil, Depression Assumed - Explain: Water Marks, Height in. FAC-Neutral Test _ Drift Lines Topographic Position Undetermined - Explain: Sediment Deposits Flattened Vegetation: �9 Drainage Patterns Other - Explain 4767 Richmond Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, Phone: 6124724875, Fax: 612.472-1040 1✓cn `�/ — (r . rv� a r PiciaMite SAMPLE POINT- P' wetswe r 4 } %a=fgw.v nw - VEGETATION Uow" WA Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status ' V S T 2 /o <200/a F4GWt H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20%. H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T . >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks: t'►2ono% % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or We=)00 SAMPLE POINT- wetswe Upside WA Species Stratum % Cover Ind. Status ' noon � H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% Q0% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% H V S T >20% <20% Remarks' plowzd % Dominants (>20% Cover) FAC or Wetter. WETLAND DETERMINATION C-AUM r C f ^§U'r ./_.-_ - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Does an Atypical Situation East? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Hydric Soils Present? _yes No Does an Atypical Situation East? Yes Is the area a wetland? ,/Yes No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edge _1 ft. WA ' SAMPLE POINT- wetside ,/Upswe WA Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -.--No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Does an Atypical Situation East? Yes Hydric Soils Present? ✓Yes ___kz::fNo No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes Is the area a wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Distance from Wetland Edoe ft. N/A )COMMUNITY SUMMARY Wetland Community Type: eEIVI IG F-41 i &d Upland Community Type: i10 t� Overall Dominant Overall Dominant /' Ve lion: C GPI � CA41LVY � Vegetation: IOWA t d M' Remarks: Remarks: Page 2 r IyullACJVtu rLdplu 11JJGJJL11Glll tY1t"1lyu- 1 U41%"Iw.� .. — -- IM �: Impacted Wetlands Mitigation Wetland Wetland Wetland Question Question Question Question ,estwn Rating Rating Rating Ratio 1. Community Type Type 1 Type 3 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 6B, SA, 8B, 10A, 13A, 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B,9B,16A,16B 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 6B,SA, 8B,10A,13X 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B, 9B, 16A, 16B 2. Community Quality Low Mod. H M L H M L 1p 3. Functional Level- 1. No No Y N Y N No No Y N Y N Low Med. Mi Wntenance of Hydrologic Regime- I. Mod Med H MH M L H MH M L Low Low H M L H M L Low High H M L H M L 4. High High H M L N/A H M L N/A "d A Smrmwater Store e/A!/enuadon- 1. Low Med H M L H M L Low Low H M L H M L Low Low H M L H M L High High H M L H M L 6. High High H M L H M L Mod Mod H M L H M L High High H M L H M L Mod Med H M L H M L Low High H M L H M L High High H M L H M L Local Watershed Mid Major Watershed Mid Local Watershed Mid Major Watershed Mid Local Watershed H M L Major Watershed H M L Local Watershed H M L Major Watershed H M L rter &a&y Protection-1. Yes Yes Y N Y N Yes Yes Y N Y N No Yes Y N Y N N/A N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Yes Yes Y N Y N Yes Yes Y N Y N No No Y N Y N No No Y N Y N 9. Yes Yes Y N U Y N U nreUne Protection- 1. No No Y N Y N YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN undwater Interaction- 1. Groundwater Med Mod H M L H M L Surface Water H M L H M L H M L H M L z ,Special/Unique No No Y N Y N W a Habitat-1. No No Y N Y N No No Y N Y N �. Yes Yes Y N Y N Much less Diverse Same MD S LD MLD MD S LID MLD Low Mod. EX H M L EX H M L Low Low H W L H W L up Med Med H W L H W L Low Low H W L H W L No No Y N Y N No No Y N Y N Wildlife evidence fth Habitat-1. No No Y N Y N YN YN YN YN YN YN YN YN Gish Evidence cience- 1. Yes Yes Y N Y N Yes Yes Y N Y N No No Y N Y N No Yes Y N Y N Structures Trash/pollution Filling/Dredging/Draining Invasive VeRetation Structures Structures Trash/pollution Filling/Dredging/Draining Invasive Vegetation Structures Trash/pollution Filling/Dredging/Draining Invasive Vegetation Buildings Roads Other Structures Altered LandUses Buildings Roads Other Structures Altered LandUses Buildings Roads Other Structures Altered LandUses Buildings Roads Other Structures Altered LandUses No Yes Y N Y N No WildlObs. Y N Y N mmercid Uses- 1. No No Y N Y N YN YN YN YN t Albertville Business Park Wetland Permit Application Appendix D — Wetland and Buffer Seeding Plan 11 I Wetland/Buffer Seeding Plan The following seeding plan utilizes elements and recommendations from the Seeding Manual of MnDOT Office of Environmental Services, Turf Establishment and Erosion Control Unit, Draft Year 2000. rPreparation and Seeding 1. The smooth -graded wetland and buffer areas designated for seeding should be prepared by loosening topsoil to a minimum depth of 3 inches. The designated upland buffer areas that have not been graded and contain existing vegetation should be prepared by mowing at a height of 4-6 inches in late April/early May or late August/early September. The grass should be allowed to re -grow before herbicide application (1-3 weeks). Recommended herbicide rates are 2 quarts/acre of glyphosate and 1-2 quartslacre of 2,4-D. The soil can then be loosened and seeded 7-10 days after herbicide treatment. 2. Seeding should be conducted either April 15-July 20 or Sept. 20-October 20. Seeding can be accomplished by broadcast or drilling. Broadcast seeding is particularly recommended for the wetland seed mixture unless the weather is hot and dry and/or the soil moisture content is low at the time of seeding. Broadcast seeding should by accomplished by use of any type of broadcast seeder capable of broadcasting the seed evenly over the entire area. Seed should be mixed thoroughly prior to seeding and should be mixed occasionally in the spreader to prevent separation and settling. If the drill seeding method is used, seed should be installed with a Truax -type seed drill containing a minimum of 2 seed boxes (fine seed box & box for large/fluffy seeds) and equipped with disc furrow openers and packer assembly to compact the soil directly over the drill rows. Maximum row spacing should be 8 inches. Small and fine seeds should be drop -seeded onto the surface from the fine seed box, and large/fluffy seed should be placed to obtain a final planting depth of Y4-Y2 inches. All drill seeding should be done at a right angle to surface drainage. Recommended seeding rates are given for the buffer and wetland seed mixtures at the end of this plan. 3. The seeded areas should be harrowed or raked following seeding. The areas should then be packed using a cultipacker or equivalent. Packing will be considered adequate when only a slight footprint is left in the soil after walking across the area. 4. Following packing, the areas should be mulched and disc -anchored at a rate of 2 tons/acre using MCIA certified weed free mulch, MnDOT Type 7 or 8 prairie hay/mulch, or MnDOT Type 1 clean straw mulch. Maintenance and Evaluation of Seeding Success Year 1 (spring seeding) • Prepare and seed site Aril 15-Jul 20 P P Y ' • Mow to a height of 6-10 inches July 20-August 20 • Optional mowing in early September • Spot spray weedy species such as thistles tYear 1 (fall seeding) • Prepare and seed site September 20-October 20 • Mow to a height of 6-10 inches June 15-August 15 • Spot spray weedy species such as thistles ' Year 1 Evaluation • Cover crop should be growing within 2 weeks of planting • Native grass seedlings may only be 4-6 inches tall • Seedlings should be spaced 1-6 inches apart in each drill row if drill seeded ' • Flush growth of foxtail and other annuals may indicate need for more frequent mowing Year 2 • Mow to a height of 6-10 inches June 1-August 15 • Spot spray weedy species as needed • Some sites may not require maintenance in year 2 depending on seedling success Year 2 Evaluation • Cover crop will be gone unless winter wheat was used in a fall planting • Grasses forming clumps 1-6 inches apart in drill rows, but still short • Some flowers should be blooming • Flush growth of foxtail and other annuals may indicate need for more frequent mowing Year 3 • Most sites do not require much maintenance • Mow only if necessary to control weedy annuals • Spot spray weedy species as needed • Plantings should look as intended with a diverse mixture of native grasses and forbs Long-term • Mowing not necessary or only occasionally • Spot spraying of weeds if needed • Optional burning in a 3-5 year rotation alternating spring and fall burns • Optional haying in a 3-5 year rotation late summer or early fall. Alternate with burning or substitute for burning 11 H I Seeding Rate: 30 Ibs/acre Seed Mixture for Wetland fringe area ' MnDOT Mixture 25B - Prairie Sedge Meadow Percent Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 5.0% Indian grass Sorgastrum nutans 6.0% Canada anemone Anemone canadensis 0.1% Fringed brome Bromus ciliata 5.0% Switch grass Panicum virgatum 1.0% Giant Manna grass Glyceria grandis 0.3% ' Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus 1.0% Dark green bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.3% River bulrush Scirpus fluviatilis 2.0% Blue joint grass Calamagrostis canadensis 0.1% Bottlebrush sedge Carex comosa 1.0% Tussock sedge Carex stricta 0.5% ' Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 0.4% Slender wheat grass Elymus trachycaulus 6.0% Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus 6.0% ' Fowl manna grass Glyceria striata 0.2% Common rush Juncus effuses 0.2% ' Boneset ReGreen Eupatorium perfoliatum N/A 0.3% 42.0% Blackeyed susan Rudbeckia hirta 0.6% Blue Vervain Culvers root Verbena hastata Veronicastrum virginicum 0.5% 0.2% Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa 0.6% ' Showy tick -trefoil New england aster Desmodium canadenses Aster novae-angilae 0.4% 0.6% Meadow blazing star Liatris ligulistylis 0.4% ' Fowl bluegrass Annual ryegrass Poa palustris Lolium italicum 5.0% 10.0% Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium maculatum 0.4% ' Ironweed Monkey flower Vemonia fasiculata Mimulus ringens 0.2% 0.1% Golden alexander Zizea aurea 0.4% False sunflower Grass -leaved goldenrod Heliopsis helianthoides Solidago graminifolia 0.7% 0.2% Prairie blazing star Liatris pycnostachya 0.4% Great Blue Lobelia Marsh milkweed Lobelia siphilitica Asclepias incamata 0.1% 0.5% Blue flag Iris Ins versicolor 0.5% Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 2.0% Swamp aster Aster puniceus 0.6% 100.00% 11 k Seeding Rate: 301bs/acre Seed Mixture for Buffer area MnDOT Mixture 15B — Mesic Tallgrass Prairie Big bluestem ' Indian grass Sideoats grama Canadian wild rye Switch grass Slender wheat grass Annual ryegrass ' ReGreen Forb Mixture 11 1 C 11 d Forb Mixture (SE Forbs) Butterfly milkweed Heath aster Smooth -blue aster Canada milkvetch Pea partridge White prairie clover Purple prairie clover Showy tick trefoil Common oxeye Rough blazingstar Tall blazingstar Wild bergamot Showy penstemon Grey -headed coneflower Black-eyed Susan Stiff goldenrod Ohio spiderwort Blue vervain Hoary vervain Golden alexanders Seeding Rate: Andropogon gerardii Sorgastrum nutans Bouteloua curtipendula Elymus canadensis Panicum virgatum Elymus trachycaulus Lolium italicum N/A N/A Asclepias tuberosa Aster ericoides Aster laevis Astragalus canadensis Chamaecrista fasiculata Dalea candidum Dalea purpureum Desmodium canadenses Heliopsis helianthoides Liatris aspera Liatris pycnostachya Monarda fistulosa Penstemon grandiflorum Ratibida pinnata Rudbeckia hirta Solidago rigida Tradescantia ohiensis Verbena hastata Verbena stricta Zizia aurea 30 Ibslacre Percent 5.0% 12.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 5.0% 10.0% 34.0% 5.0% 100% 100.00% i APPENDIX B Wetland Permit Application (Phase II) Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE For: PHASE II ALBERTVILLE BUSINESS PARK Prepared For: Darkenwald Real Estate 7535 N.E. River Road Elk River, MN 55330 Prepared By: Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. 101 Broadway Street West, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55369 May 5, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sections Section I Combined Wetland Permit Application Section 2 Combined Wetland Permit Narrative Section 3 Seeding and Planting Plan Section 4 Performance Standard List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Existing Site Conditions Figure 3 No Impact Alternative Figure 4 Alternative 1 Figure 5 Final Preferred Alternative Figure 6 Fixed Photograph Locations Appendices APPENDIX A Affidavits APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation SECTION 1 Combined Wetland Permit Application INA-02620-02 12.14.00 n PART 1: BASIC APPLICATION "See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, page 1. 1. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See HELP t): Name: Darkenwald Real Estate Complete mailing address: 7535 N.E. River Road, Elk River, MN 55330 Residential phone: ( ) Business phone: (763) 441-3700 Fax (f available): (763) 441-3751 email (f available): 2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (if applicable): Phase H-Albertville Business Park 3. NAME OR I.D. # OF IMPACTED WATER BODY Unnamed wetlands IA. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See HELP IA.) (only ifapplicable; an agent is not required) Name: Pinnacle Engineering, Scott Thelen Title: Project Manager Mailing address: 101 Broadway Street West, Suite 100 Osseo, Minnesota, 55369 Residential phone:( ) Business phone:(763) 315-4501 Fax (f available): (763) 315-4507 email (f available): sthelen(apineng.com I hereby authorize Pinnacle Engineering to act in my behalf as an agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. ' Applicant signature Date ' 4a. ANY WETLANDS IMPACTED? (circle one)(YES NO 4c. If YES, indicate size of entire wetland (check one): 4b. If YES, what type (if known; circle all that apply): ❑ Less than 10 acres (indicate size:) Cal 10 to 40 acres ' I i L O 3 4 5 6 7 8 R unknown El Greater than 40 acres 5. PROJECT LOCATION" (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance): ' 1/4 section: NW'/4 Section: 35 Township: 121N Range: 24W County: Wright Lot #: Block: Subdivision: ' 6. ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS" (rf applicable; if known): Parcel ID #/Geocode: UTM coordinates: easterly northerly ' Project street address: North of I-94, South of 701h Street, East of Kadler Avenue, Albertville, MN "For multiple water bodies or locations, attach additional sheets labeled ADDITIONAL WATER BODIES IMPACTED, ADDITIONAL PROJECT LOCATIONS, or ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. ' 1 7. HOW TO GET TO THE SITE: Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark. Include highway and street names and numbers. Also provide distances from known locations and any other information that would assist in locating the site. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. h n u fl 11 U From the Minneapolis area, take 1-94 west to the Albertville exit, go through Albertville to County Road 19. Take County Road 19 north to 70`h Street NE. Go left (west) on 701h Street to Kadler Avenue. The Site is in the southeast quadrant of Kadler Ave. and 70`h Street NE with 1-94 forming the southern boundary (see Figure 1-Site location map) 8. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: What do you propose to do, and why is it needed? Please be brief. (See HELP 8 before completing this section.) Phase II of the Albertville Business Park proposes to develop 85 +/- acres of agricultural land to a retail center comprised of approximately 610,000 square feet of retail space and its associated parking stalls, access -driveways and utilities. The project is needed to fulfill the City of Albertville's zoning requirements, which has the parcel slated for commercial development, as well as, provide necessary retail services for the growing population of Wright County. 9. PROPOSED TIMELINE: Approximate project start date: Spring 2003 Projected end date: Fall 2004 10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. This is the most important part of your application. See HELP 10 before completing this section; see also What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 2),If space below is not adequate, attach separate sheet labeled PROJECT DESCRIPTION See attached text -Project Description 11. FOOTPRINT OF IMPACT (rf applicable) Indicate total amount (in acres or square feet) of wetland(s)or water body area(s)to be filled, drained, inundated or excavated; and/or indicate length of stream or river affected (in linear feet). 1.35 acres or square feet and/or linear feet 12. TYPE AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MATERIAL(S) TO BE PLACED INTO OR EXCAVATED FROM THE WETLAND OR WATER BODY (f applicable) List each type of material (such'as rock, sand, clay, concrete) to be filled or excavated and estimate amount in cubic yards. HFILLING ❑ EXCAVATING Type(s) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards I Type(s) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards Clean fill 8600 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: NA -No DNR permits required (for determination of DNR fees only, which are based on total project cost) 2 n ' 14. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? List at least two alternatives (one of which may be "no build " or "do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. See attached text -Sequencing Considerations 15. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? Yes If yes, describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 15 before completing this section.) ' See attached text -Portion of Work Already Completed 16. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list below complete names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland or water body where the work is being proposed.(See HELP 16 If necessary, attach a separate sheet labeled ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS) ' Complete name(s) Complete mailing address (including street address, city, state, zip code) MNDOT ' 17. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that are either pending or have already been approved or denied. See HELP 17. ' if already applied for Agency Type of approval ID number Date applied for Date approved Date denied E 18. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 1 is true, complete and accurate. I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Signature of applicant Date OR Signature of agent Date This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (the applicant in Section 1) or by the applicant's duly authorized agent (if the boxed Section I A has been filled out and signed by the applicant). Federal authorization: Generally, in addition to state authorization, projects in wetland or water areas also require Federal authorization from the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To apply to the Corps using this application package, the applicantlagent must complete the modified one -page Federal application form on page 4 and mail it to the Corps (address on Instructions, page 4)with a copy of the state application. Applicants may, if they wish, apply only for Corps authorization by using the unmodified Federal application form that is available from Corps offices or via the Internet at www.mvp.usace.anny.mil 1 3 Rpr 29 03 10:080 Darkenauald Inc 763-441-3751 ' APR-29-2003 10:12 PINS CLE ENGINEERING, 763 315 4507 P.02/03 1 14. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? Lint at least two alternatives (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing'), and explain why you chose to pursue the option descnW in this application over these alternatives. 1 See attached text -Sequencing Considerations 15. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? Yes If yes, describe the completed work on a separate sheet of papet labeled WORK ALRU DY COMPLETED. (See RELP 15 before 1 completing this section.) 16. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list below complete names and trailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland or water body where the work is being proposed.(See HELP 16 If necessary, attach a separate sheer labeled ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ) _ ' Complete names) Complete mailing address (including street address, city, state, zip coda) MNDOT 17. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that are either pending or have already been approved or dented. Sec HELP 17, if already applied for Agency Type ofapptovaI ID number Date applied for Dote approver! Date denied 11 `71 LJ� 19.1 am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work dcscn'bed in this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application. To the hest of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 1 omplete and accurate. I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or I am acting as the duly authorize gent of applicant. � r Lt,rure of applicant ` Da OR Signature of agent Dote i block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (the applicant in Section l) or by the applicant 's duly authorized agent (if the boxed Section IA has been filled out and signed by the applicant). Federal authorization: Generally, in addition to state authorization, projects in wetland or water areas also require Federal authorization from the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To apply to the Corps using this application package, the applicantlagent must complete the modified are -page Federal application form on page 4 and mail it to the Corps (address on Instructions, page 4)with a copy of the state. application. Applicants may, if they wish, apply only for Corps authorization by atsing the unmodified Federal application form that is available from Corps offices or via the Internet at www.nivp.usacearmy.rnil p.3 n 11 1 n J 1 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR325) OMB APPROVAL NO. (RENEWAL PENDING) The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis4iighway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003),Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law ,no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivets and Harbors Act, Section 10,33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404,33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS. 2. FIELD 3. DATE RECEIVED 1 4. DATE APPLICATION YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE SHADED AREAS. All applicants need to complete non -shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is to be used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid for use only when included as a part of this entire state application packet. 5. APPLICANT 'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT 'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Darkenwald Real Estate PinnacleEngineering,ttt Thelen-Project Manager 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (ifapplicable; complete only ifauthor&ng an agent) ..m2 �`dw" w� �: f a,.�1��..�� 2. � nwiraG. , n.w�d �..,„dd� n ¢ « �` • � 1 �a"�� -c'�`� I hereby authorize Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Signature of applicant Date Signature of agent (if any) Date ' The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant),or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block l l has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ' ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR) ' 4 Apr 28 03 02:48p APR-28-2003 14-54 Darkenwald Inc PINNACLE ENGINEERING 763-441-3751 763 315 4507 P.03/03 p.3 1 1 11 1 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 Cf RI?S) OMB APPROVAL NO. (RENEWAL PENDING ) The public burdep for this colkelion of iniontattion is estiouted a average to hours per respone, Alluuglt die aojorily of applmUiOnS slauld m4i irrt S hats. Of ktS. This incluim the link for ti vicwica iashucRoas searching caiatalg data soma, Ealkling cold aminuirpng doe duo netted, and-CMlcd tr and Icvitwirig the colkclion of in formation Sad corrmrcou regarding this burden c5dinsto or any odor aspoct of din eollenion of funmit ition. including suggestions fat reducing this burden, to Depolunni, of Defense. Washington Nndquarten Service Oieecrotare of Ittfamtation Qpatatbna ud Reporet, 12i f 3dTertou Davit Highway. Suits: 1204. Arlingwo. VA 22202-1302; and to itic Office of Monatetnent and Budget, Papcnrork Reduetina Project (0710-0001).401ashiuston. DC 20"3. Respottdem sbotdd be swsre tAal notwithstanding any odltt provision of law ,ao person shall be subject many rimity far fulling to comply v ith aeahcenan of inforeunnn if it don not display a cuttemly valid OMB control number, Please DO NOT 1tE'TUl1N your finet Is eidter of these addrrates CAntipleled applicalimtc ttau be subraintd to the Oistlict ealottea IatvinR )ttrisdiclion ova lbt location of the omposrd activity FRIVACV ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Riven, and Harbors Act, Section 10,31 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404,33 t1SC 1344. Munne Protection. Rescatch and Sanctuarin Act, 33 USC 1413, Seclion 103. Principal pti pose: M(rlmialia► provided on this form will be used in evaluating rile applicatton for a Permit. Routine uses: This rnforinatian may be shared with the: Department ul'lustice and other Federal. state and local government ligtricieu Submission of requested infotmalion is voluntary. however. if infatuation is not provided, the permit application cannot be ew+luattw nor can a permit be issued, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS. 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECFIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE T13iE SHADED AREAS. All applicants need to conviete non-ahpded items 5 and 16. if on agent is to be used, also complete itcrns S and 11. This optional Federal form is valid for use only when included as a part of this entire state application packet. S. APPLICANT'S NAME Darkenwald Real Estate S. AUTHOWED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) PQi►�nnacle Eng,'TMden-Pro'cct Manager dScott l�t�tf •id�L• !br}; ij,.f•.�1if�:i.'f.�.: z.,. �i; ?�" ll'.. �G � , '� ;�1R);r�11. �Cst�I),;�•.- :;,�.•r.';x;;i=a:t?��;:`,_..;• - 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 6fopplicable; complete only ijaufhorizing on ogenfJ I heresy authorize Pinnacle EaEineer9ae, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental infor'motion in support of this permit application. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work de teribed in this application. ) cenify that the information in this application ig complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or tun acting as the duly authorised agent of the applicant. VI � - ll1 �.,w a� c� urc of applicant Date Signature of agent (if any) Date The application total be auntie by the person who desires to.arlwakc the pmposrdactivky lapphcs4oe it noy k. IatKd by a ditty authorized agent if doe salcuicnl'it Block I I pus btm filled art and signed. is U.$.C. Scedirp Jai provides that: whoever, in any Import withie the jt nubetion or any dgtaratvent or a vwy of ohc United Safer krwwuVN and willfully ratifies, concert, or coves an with ally trick. ¢hence or d sguitu a nusvriel Do w nukes any hire. riictieious or 0arulutew statements or tepresenuioin of uaka or o" "y false wriang or docmicre lunwlna PNx to caatain say take, fctiiiera or hu idenii arotcrocnis at ttdly. ". [ be filled a0l mare W e 1110.00001 amli.Ontd "I Mori lk]n five years at book ENC FORM 434S. Jul 97 EDIT1014 OF FEB 9419 OSSOLF,TF (ltuponcgt: CF..(: WAR) 4 TOTAL P.03 Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Proiects n H 1 L� 0 F 1� DO YOU NEED TO COMPLETE PART 2? Part 2: Replacement Plan Supplement must be completed by anyone who needs to develop a replacement plan for wetland mitigation. If you're not sure whether your project requires a replacement plan: • Call your LGU or SWCD office for guidance as to whether your project will require completing Part 2.If it is determined that your project will require wetland replacement, complete and submit Part 2 along with Part 1. • If you prefer, you may choose to send in Part I only. After reviewing your application, the responding agencies will let you know if you need to complete and return Part 2.Caution: If your project will require wetland replacement, completing and returning both parts immediately is advisable. Submitting Part 1 and Part 2 separately rather than at the same time may extend the application review process. PART 2: REPLACEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT For assistance in completing Part 2, contact your LGU or a professional consultant. 19. DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS: Complete the chart below:l)Use one row of boxes for each wetland impact. 2) If your project has more than one wetland impact, reference your overhead view (part of Section 10) to this chart by identifying and labeling "first impact " and "second impact "on your overhead view 3)If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area ,use the first dotted line and leave the others blank.4) If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. 5) If you do not have access to some of the information, call your LGU or S WCD office for assistance. (Photocopy chart for more impacts, if needed.) DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland Watershed Is Site within Wetland type Predominant Size of area Existing land use in project area (check all impact name or 1000 ft of a vegetation in impacted (in that apply) (as noted on overhead number (if known) lake or 300 If of a river? (Yes or No) impacted wetland area acres or square feet) view) First No Type 2 Reed Canary 0.55 ac. ❑ housing impact Grass 0 commercial Second No Type 2 Reed Canary 0.70 ac. ❑ industrial impact Grass ❑ parks/recreation areas Third No Type 2 Reed Canary 0.10 ac. 0 highways and impact Grass associated right-of-way ❑ forested 0 farmsteadstagricultural ❑ vacant lands ❑ public and semi-public (schools/gov't facilities) ❑ airports ❑ extractive (gravel pits/quarries) ❑ other: i it you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area ,use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that Impact area. TOTALS OF AREA(S) IMPACTED FOR EACH WETLAND TYPE ON CHART (indicate acres or square feet): Type 1: L: 2: 1.35 Ac. 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: R: 1 5 ' 20. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are you aware of any special considerations that apply to either the impact site(s) or the replacement site(s)? No (Examples: the presence of endangered species, special fish and ' wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, or waste disposal sites)If YES, list and describe briefly. t21. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCE DETERMINATIONS: Are you aware of any archaeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys completed concerning the project or replacement site by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) or others? No If yes, please explain below ' or attach a copy of any determinations or surveys. I 22. HOW PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED: Indicate how proposed replacement will be accomplished (check only one box below and continue as indicated): ' A. Wetland banking only • Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form and include with your application. ' Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us • Skip to Section 27, page 8.(You do not need to complete Sections 23-26.) ' El B. Project -specific replacement only • Continue with Section 23 below ' C. A combination of wetland banking and project -specific replacement • Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form and include with your application ' Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us • Continue with Section 23 below 23. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND(S) CONSTRUCTION (Complete this section only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 22 above): Describe in detail how replacement wetland(s)will be constructed. If several methods will be used, describe each method. Details should include the following:l)type of ' construction (such as excavated in upland, restored by tile break, restored by ditch block or re-vegetated);2)type, size and specifications of outlet structures;3)elevations relative to Mean Sea Level or established benchmarks of key features (such as sill, emergency over -flow or structure height);4)what best management practices will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; 5)proposed timetable for starting and ending the project; and 6)a vegetation management plan. Write this description on a separate sheet of paper labeled DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND CONSTRUCTION. ' See attached text -Description of Replacement Wetland Construction 24. SURPLUS WETLAND CREDITS: If using project -specific replacement (Box B or Box C in Section 22 ' above), will the replacement result in any surplus wetland credits that you wish to have deposited in the State Wetland Bank for future use? (indicate YES or NO) No Ifyes submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us 25. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Complete the chart below: 1) Use one row of boxes for each wetland replacement site.2) If your project has more than one wetland replacement site, reference ' your overhead view (part of Section 26) to this chart by identifying and labelling "first replacement site " and "second replacement site "on your overhead view. 3) If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given ' 6 replacement site, use the first dotted line(s)and leave the others blank. 4) If you have chosen to identify more than ' one wetland type in a given replacement site, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify type(s)of replacement credits and "restored or created "for each separate wetland type within that replacement site. 5) If you do not have access to some of the information, or if you do not know your replacement ratio, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (Photocopy chart for more wetland replacements, if needed.) DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND t Wetland Watershed County Topographic Wetland Type of replacement credits Restored replacement name or setting' type' (inacres or square feet) or site (as noted number (if New Wetland Credits I Public Value Credits I created? on overhead known) (NWC) (PVC) Indicate view) R or C 1 ac. ac. replacement site---------- ----------------------- Second replacement---------- ---------------------- -------------------- site ------------------------------------------- Total NWC 1.74 ac. Total PVC 0.97 ac. I Topographic setting types: Indicate S for Shoreland;R for Riverine;F for Flood- plain;FT for Flow-through;T for Tributary;and I for Isolated. 2 Circular 39 wetland types: Indicate I, I L,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,Ror U.If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area,use the first REQUIRED REPLACEMENT RATIO. 2.1 dotted line and leave the others blank.if you have chosen to identify more than (if known) one wetland type within a given wetland impact area use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type,and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. ' 26. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT (Required only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 22): For projects involving at least some project -specific replacement, include the following additional information: D Two drawings to scale of the replacement wetland. Include both overhead view and profile view (side view or cross - sectional view).See What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 2)for a detailed description of what should be included in these drawings. Without drawings, your application will be considered incomplete. For created replacement wetlands, include additional soils information (if available) that indicates the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics. • Note 1: For replacement wetlands located on pipeline easements, you need to receive endorsement of your project from both the easement holder and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety 's Office of Pipeline Safety. Before start of construction, the owner of any utilities involved must be notified. The landowner or contractor is responsible for giving this notice by calling "Gopher State One -Call " at (651) 454-0002 (Twin Cities Metro Area) or 1-800-252-1166 (all other locations). • Note 2: For extensive or complex projects, supplementary information may be requested at a later date from one or more of the responding agencies. Such information may include (but not be limited to) the following: topograhic map, water table map, soil borings, depth soundings, aerial photographs, environmental assessment and/or engineering reports. 27. SIGNED AFFIRMATIONS: Sign and date either Box 27a or Box 27b below. If your project involves replacement by wetland banking only, sign Box 27a.For all other projects, read Box 27b,check appropriate boxes in Part B, and sign. 27a. For projects involving replacement by wetland banking only: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 2 is true, complete and accurate; and I affirm that the wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. 1 7 Signature of applicant or agent Date I� k 27b. For projects involving either project -specific replacement only or a combination of wetland banking and project -specific replacement: Part A: The replacement wetland (affirm all statements): Q Was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; AND Q Was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND Q Was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; AND Q Was not restored using private funds, other than those of the landowner, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): Q The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. ❑ An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland replacement. ❑ The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C: For projects involving any project -specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s)will be located; and I will at the same time submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 2 is true, complete and accurate; and I affirm all statements in Parts A and C, as well as checked assurance(s)in Part B. Signature of applicant or agent Date 8 Rpr 30 03 04:06p Darkenwald Inc 763-441-3751 p.3 ' APR-30-2003 15:33 PINNACLE ENGINEERING 763 315 450^ P.02/02 1-1 G 27b. For projects Involving eitber project -specific replacement only or a combination of wetland banking and project -specific replacement: Part A: The replacement wetland (affirm all statements): 0 Was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; AND * Was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND 0 Was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; AND H Was not restored using private funds, other than those of the landowner, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): Q The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. * An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland replacement. ❑ The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C: For projects involving any project -specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the .Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wedand(s)will be located; and t will at the same time submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part 2 is e, complete and accurate; and I affirm al I statements in Parts A aril C. as well ec uradwspa P B. Si a o licant or ent ar� /4PP 8 4,1 i iC �.. .... - . ... ti.n,.... �Caunrywher6iccoFded a ;x�' Docvmenilassib%r+ed.6yttioa+'alen:' ii' TOTAL P.02 INSTRUCTIONS Instructions for Part 1 HELP 1: Every applicant needs to fill out Section 1 with the name of the responsible party.If the responsible party is an agency, company, corporation or other organization ,indicate the responsible officer and title in the Name line. If more than one party is associated with the application, attach a separate sheet labeled APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION. HELP IA: Fill out Section IA only if you have designated an authorized agent. An authorized agent is an individual or agency, designated by you, to represent you in this process. An agent can be an attorney, builder, consultant, contractor, engineer, or any other person or organization .An agent is not required. HELP 8: Purpose of project: Indicate briefly (in a sentence or two) what you propose to do and why it is needed. Include, if appropriate, a brief description of any related activities or benefits occurring as a result of the proposed project. HELP 10: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. Include in your written description any of the following elements that apply to your project. Do not write on this instruction sheet. Instead, include in your written description a discussion of applicable components below: • Whether your project will include such activities as construction, filling, draining, dewatering, removing, excavating, or repair. • Whether you will be constructing something, such as an access path, bridge, culvert, dam, ditch, dock, driveway, riprap, road, sandblanket, or tile line. • The proposed dimensions of any structures, such as wing walls or dikes, as well as what the structures would be made of and what method(s)would be used to do the work. ' • Whether you will be constructing any structures on fill, piles or a float -supported platform. If so, describe. • Whether you will be dredging or discharging (placing fill material) into a wetland or other water body (including the ' temporary placement of material),If so, explain the specific purpose of the placement of the material (such as erosion control)and indicate how it will be done (such as with a backhoe or dragline),If dredged material is to be discharged on an upland site, identify the site, and indicate the steps that will be taken (if necessary)to prevent runoff from the dredged material back into the wetland or water body. Describe the characteristics of the soil you are discharging, dredging or excavating. • Your description must also include a detailed overhead view that clearly depicts the work to be undertaken. See ' What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 2). HELP 15: If any part of the work has already been completed, describe the area already developed. Include ' a description of structures completed; any dredged or fill material already discharged (including type of material and volume in cubic yards);acres or square feet filled (if a wetland or other water body);and whether the work was done under an existing permit (if so, identify the authorization, if possible). ' HELP 16: For information regarding adjacent landowners, contact the city or county tax assessor where the project is to be developed. ' HELP 17: Other permits, reviews or approvals related to the project may include the following: conditional use permit; plat approval; zoning variance; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit; state disposal system permit (includes dredged material disposal);watershed district/watershed management organization permit (stormwater, erosion, floodplain);environmental assessment worksheet/environmental impact statement; hazardous waste site; feedlot permit; groundwater appropriation permit; or county/township driveway/road permit. Instructions 2 11 What To Include on Plans (Parts 1 and 2) Detailed overhead views of impact site(s)(Part 1)and replacement site(s)(Part 2),as well as profile view(s)of replacement site(s)(Part 2),may be either hand drawn, computer generated or professionally prepared, as long as they contain all necessary information clearly, accurately, and in adequate detail. Please include specific dimensions whenever possible. You may also include photos, if you wish. • Overhead views of Part 1 impact site(s)and Part 2 replacement site(s)should include the following items that pertain to your project: 1.Property boundaries and/or lot dimensions _ 2.Location and extent of shoreline, wetlands and water 3.Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include length, width, elevation and other measurements as appropriate. 4.Points of reference (such as existing homes, structures, docks or landscape features) 5.Location of inlet and outlet structures 6.Indication of north 7.Location of spoil and disposal sites (rf applicable) 8.Location of photo reference points for future monitoring Required for Part 2 replacement drawing —Optional for Part 1 impact drawing (provide only if photos are included) 9.Areas of wetland and upland plants established Required only for Part 2 replacement drawing Part 2 only: Profile view (side or cross -sectional view) should include the following items that pertain to your project: 1.Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include elevation, depth, soil profile, side slope, and other measurements as appropriate. 2.Proposed water level elevation Final Checklists Part 1: Basic Application ' Have you completed all of Part I (pages 1-3), plus the Federal application (page 4)? Did you (or your agent) sign Box 18 on page 3? Did you also sign Box lA on page 1 if you have authorized an agent? Have you signed the Application for Department of the Army Permit (page 4) to seek Federal authorization of your project? Have you included the necessary attachments for Part 1? r Attachments must include: Site Locator Map (Section 7) Overhead View of Project (Section 10 and HELP 10) Attachments may also include: Applicant Contact Information (HELP 1)(f additional space was needed) Additional Water Bodies Impacted (Section 3), Additional Project Locations (Section 5) and/or Additional Location Descriptions (Section 6)(if additional space was needed) Project Description (Section 10)(f additional space was needed) Photographs with reference points indicated (What To Include on Plans, Instructions, page 2)(rfavailable) Work Already Completed (Section 15)(rf you answered YES) Adjoining Property Owners (Section 16)(f additional space was needed) Instructions 3 F 1 1 fl F Part 2: Replacement Plan Supplement Have you completed all of Part 2 (pages 5-8)? Did you (or your agent) sign Box 27a or Box 27b on page 8? Have you included the necessary attachments for Part 2? Attachments must include: If the project includes any wetland banking (complete or partial), include Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form (Section 22) If the project includes any project -specific replacements (complete or partial), include: • Description of Replacement Wetland (s) Construction (Section 23) _ • Copy of vegetation management plan (Section 23) • Scale drawing of overhead view of replacement wetland (Section 26) • Scale drawing of profile view of replacement wetland (Section 26) Attachments may also include: Additional Description of Wetland Impacts charts (Section 19)(rf additional space was needed) Copy of any archaeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys (Section 21)(if you answered YES) Additional Description of Replacement Wetlands charts (Section 25)(zf additional space was needed) Additional soils information for created replacement wetland(s)(Section 26)(f available) Note: To deposit surplus wetland credits in the State Wetland Bank, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU (Section 24). Preparing Your Application for Mailing To apply for both state and Federal authorization, your application must include Part 1 (pages 1-3),the Federal application (page 4),and attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part I (Instructions, page 2). Your application may also include Part 2 (pages 5-8)and additional attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part 2 (above). Make three copies of the entire application and all attachments. Keep the original, and mail the three copies to the appropriate local, state and Federal agencies (see Instructions, page 4). Mailing Your Application Mail a complete copy of your application to each of the local, state and Federal entities listed below. Include Part 1, Part 2 if appropriate, and all attachments. LOCAL: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit (LGU). If you don 't know who your LGU is, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)office or the Board of Water and Soil Resources Instructions 4 n U (BWSR) website (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) for this information. SWCD offices are also listed on the BWSR website. STATE: Send to your regional Minnesota DNR Division of Waters office, attention Regional Hydrologist: Region 1: 2115 Birchmont Beach Road N.E Bemidji, MN 56601 Phone (218) 755-3973 Region 3: 1601 Minnesota Drive Brainerd, MN 56401 Phone:(218) 828-2605 Region 5: 2300 Silver Creek Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906 Phone:(507) 285-7430 Region 2: 1201 East Highway 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 Phone:(218) 327-4416 Region 4: 261 Highway 15 South New Ulm, MN 56073 Phone:(507) 359-6053 Region 6: 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone:(651) 772-7910 1 FEDERAL: Send to the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory field office: Brainerd U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Gull Lake Recreation Area 10867 E. Gull Lake Drive N.W. Brainerd, MN 56401-9051 Phone:(218) 829-8402 St. Paul U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Army Corps of Engineers Centre 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-163 8 Phone:(651) 290-5375 fi 1 0 u La Crescent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 1114 South Oak Street La Crescent, MN 55947-1338 Phone:(507) 895-8059 Two Harbors U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 1554 Highway 2,Suite 2 Two Harbors, MN 55616 Phone:(218) 834-6630 WEBSITES Corps St. Paul District: www.mvp.usace.army.mil MPCA: www.pca.state.mn.us BWSR: www.bwsr.state.mn.us DNR: wwwAmstate.mn.us 1 Instructions 5 SECTION 2 Combined Wetland Permit Narrative I Permit Narrative Combined Permit Application Phase II -Albertville Business Park Albertville, Minnesota Part 1 ' Section 8 Project Purpose: ' Darkenwald Real Estate is proposing to develop a 85 +/- acre parcel (Site) of agricultural land to a retail center, comprised of 18 buildings totaling approximately 610,000 square feet of retail space, parking stalls, storm water detention ponds, access roads, and utilities. This project is needed to meet the retail demands of the rising population of Wright County and will expand an existing outlet mall that is currently at maximum capacity. The City of Albertville has zoned this area in order to form a regional outlet shopping center. This project conforms with the approved land use plans. Section 10 ' Project Description: This project proposes developing the Site with heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, ' backhoes, and scrapers, and includes filling portions of Wetlands 1, 2 and 3. The proposed extension of 67thStreet, which traverses the Site from east to west, is anticipated to impact the majority of the 0.55 acre of impact to Wetland 1 and a small area in the eastern portion of Wetland 2. The impacts will stem from the construction and grading of the road, some of which will be built on fill material. An additional ' impact to the northeast portion of Wetland 1 will result from the grading and construction of a parking lot, which will be built on fill material. The remaining impacts to Wetland 2 will stem from the construction of a parking lot and a small access road that will pass between the two lobes of the wetland. The access road and a portion of the parking lot will be constructed on fill material. All 0.10 acre of Wetland 3 are anticipated to be impacted from the grading and construction of a parking lot, which will be built on fill material. On -Site, in -kind compensatory wetland mitigation will occur to replace the lost functions and values of the impacted wetlands. The mitigation is discussed in further detail in the sequencing portion of this permit application. r Section 14 Sequencing Considerations: ' When designing a project of this type, a balance must be struck be tween lot design, building sizes, building locations, roadways, safety issues, utility constraints and ' wetland impact, while still maintaining the viability of the project. The following criteria were used to evaluate and eventually rank potential land development sites: ' 1. 80 to 90 acres of contiguous land; 2. Willing sellers; 3. Immediate and easy access to city water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater facilities; 4. Land use regulations and zoning in place to allow for a retail/commercial development; 5. Immediate and easy access to the Site; 6. Minimal environmental impacts; ' 7. Freeway Frontage/High Visibility; and, 8. Adjacent to the existing outlet mall Since this is an expansion of an existing development, the Site was the only viable parcel of land that met all of the required criteria. ' Alternative analysis ' A. No Build Alternative Under the no build alternative, Phase II of the Albertville Business Park would not be constructed. The "no build" alternative is not consistent with the applicant's desire to ' expand the outlet mall, nor is it consistent with the City of Albertville's plans to develop the Site as a commercial/retail development, as evidenced by the commercial zoning of the Site. B. No Impact Alternative Since this is Phase II of the Albertville Business Park, i.e. an expansion of an existing development, no alternative Site locations were assessed; however, three alternative Site layouts were designed during the preliminary phases of the project, one of which was the No Impact Alternative. Under the No Impact Alternative, no wetland impacts would occur; however, this alternative was rejected because 67th Street could not be constructed as the City of Albertville desires. The building and parking lot densities ' would also need to be significantly reduced, which would make the critical mass of the project too small to be economically feasible. 2 1 F11 J C. Alternative 1 The layout of Alternative 1 is similar to that of the preferred layout except it has higher building and parking lot densities. This alternative was rejected due to the anticipated impacts to the higher quality portions of the on -Site wetlands and greater overall wetland impact. Alternative 1 proposed to impact 4.38 acres of wetland. D. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative shifted building and parking lot layouts and reduced parking lot densities, which significantly reduced the proposed wetland impacts from 4.38 acres to 1.35 acres. Parking lots associated with two proposed buildings in the southern portion of the Site, south of Wetland 1 and the proposed extension of 67th Street, were shifted to the sides of the buildings, rather than the more typical front, as depicted in the Alternative 1 layout. This shift pulled the parking lots out of Wetland 2, which greatly reduced the proposed wetland impact. A proposed building located south of Wetland 2 and the proposed extension of 67th Street, west of the Phase 1 boundary, was reduced from 56,000 sq. ft. in Alternative 1 to 29,400 sq. ft. in the Preferred Alternative. This building and its associated parking lot were also shifted to run parallel to Wetland 2 rather than perpendicular, as depicted in Alternative 1. These measures significantly reduced wetland impacts from the Alternative 1 layout. ISequencing u 0 �1 Avoidance: Efforts were made to avoid wetland impacts at the Site by designing 67th Street to curve between the basins, shifting building pads and parking lots out of the wetlands, designing some of the parking areas to be on the sides of the buildings, not in front, as most retail owners prefer, and significantly reducing building and parking lot densities. However, since 67t!► Street was stubbed out from Phase I of this development, the layout was pre -determined. For safety reasons, the road curve radius requirement made wetland impacts unavoidable from the construction, of 67+h Street. The layout of 67th Street extension has been discussed with the City of Albertville and, as a result of these discussions, impacts to portions of the south side of Wetland 1 and the east side of Wetland 2 are unavoidable. Minimization: Impacts to wetlands at the Site will be minimized by crossing the wetlands with access roads in the narrowest locations and in areas of the lowest quality. Reducing building and parking lot densities from the Alternative 1 layoixt will also minimize wetland impacts from 4.38 acres to 1.35 acres. Mitigation: Due to the wetland impacts that are projected to occur at the Site, on -Site, in -kind wetland replacement will occur at a 2:1 ratio. The proposed on -site mitigation will consist of constructing 1.74 acres of New Wetland Credit (NWC) adjacent to Wetland 1. An additional 0.97 acres of Public Value Credit (PVC) comprised of upland "I 3 buffer will also be utilized around the proposed NWC. - Mitigation areas have been selected to replace the lost functions and values of the impacted wetlands. Constructing ' the NWC adjacent to an existing basin will help ensure the success of the mitigation wetland. Mitigation will occur prior to or concurrent with the wetland impacts. Section 15 Portion of Work Already Completed Phase I of the Albertville Business Park is currently under construction and includes constructing 143,068 sq. ft. of retail space and its associated parking areas, access roads ' and utilities. Phase I impacted 0.95 acres of Wetlands 7 and 8, which was previously permitted. 1.22 acres of on -Site, in -kind NWC was created around Wetland 9, with the remaining 0.85 acres comprised of upland buffer PVC credit around the NWC. ' Part 2 Section 23 Description of Replacement Wetland Construction ' In order to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) goal of no -net -loss of wetlands in Minnesota, on -Site, in -kind wetland replacement will occur. The replacement of 1.35 acres of Type 2 wetland will be accomplished through the creation of 1.74 acres of NWC with an additional 0.97 acres of associated upland buffer, which will serve as PVC. ' The NWC will be constructed by excavating an irregular -shaped edge, three feet below the existing elevation of the upland area adjacent to Wetland 1. The excavated area will be backfilled with approximately 6-18 inches of organic topsoil, leaving a gently undulating bottom. The mitigation wetland will then be seeded with an appropriate wet meadow seed mix. In addition, hydrophytic vegetation from the existing wetland will most likely expand into the mitigation areas. Creation of the mitigated wetlands will involve excavation using bulldozers, backhoes, and other heavy and small equipment. Best management practices, such as silt fence and hay bales, will be in place around the existing wetlands until native ground cover establishes itself. Hydrology to the mitigation wetland will be supplied by overland flow from the surrounding watershed and interaction with the existing hydrology of Wetland 1. Soils in the mitigation area consist of Cordova and Webster silty clay loam and Hayden loam, moderately eroded, two of which are listed on the state and federal hydric soils list. Excavation and additional hydrology should allow hydrophytic vegetation to prosper in these soil types. ' In addition to the NWC, the preferred layout proposes to construct 0.97 acres of upland buffer adjacent to the NWC around Wetland 1. The buffer will be seeded with a native 4 C ' upland prairie mixture, which will be maintained for the first few years to ensure the establishment of the native vegetation. Construction of the NWC and PVC will occur prior to or concurrent with the ' anticipated wetland impacts. Best management practices, such as straw bales and silt fence, will be utilized around the mitigation areas and existing wetlands until permanent vegetation establishes itself. ' Mitigation Area Monitoring The mitigation area will be monitored for up to five years to ensure the success of the ' created wetlands. Monitoring will include: • Visiting the mitigation area during the spring, summer, and fall of the year. • Determining hydrology in the soils located at the fixed photograph locations ' during each site visit. • Documenting dominant vegetation that exceeds 20% layer coverage. ' • Preparing annual reports to the LGU describing the progress of the success of the mitigation area and, if necessary, any changes to the mitigation plan. • Discussing success of mitigation plan with LGU ' • Documenting the mitigation area with color photographs from the photograph locations ' Annual reports will be presented to the LGU by December 31St of each year, discussing the success of the mitigation areas. F r � SECTION 3 ' Seeding and Planting Plan 11 11 v 11 ' Seeding and Planting Plan Phase II -Albertville Business Park Albertville, Minnesota The Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for the project is the City of Albertville. The goal of the ' mitigation is to provide a high quality type 2 wetland. The most appropriate methods and seed mixtures for the proposed type 2 wetland can be found in the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual 2000. Below are excerpts from the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual 2000 pertaining to a type 2 wetland and ' the associated upland buffer. The applicant, by using the methods and recommendations of the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual 2000, is committed to assuring the success of a high quality type 2, PEMB wetland. - Additionally,Pinnacle recommends that the upland buffer be planted with shrubs such as p ' gray -stemmed dogwood (Cornus racemosa), meadow rose (Rosa blanda), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and steeplebush (Spiraea tomentosa) to aid in soil stabilization and erosion control. ' Basic Design Recommendations ' The following recommendations are intended to provide general guidance for where mixes listed in this manual should be used. Note that within each mixture tabulation there is a brief description of the mix and what is was developed for. Also listed is the recommended roadside ' seeding rate for the mixture. Roadside seeding rates (table 2575-1) are somewhat higher than rates used for seeding parkland and other non -roadside areas. In general Mn/ DOT recommends the use of native species wherever possible. However in some instances native species may not be appropriate (i.e, you want mowed turf) or they may not perform as well for some reason. Listed below are Mn/DOT's seed mixes by type, purpose and maintenance requirements (mowing). Type & Purpose Mix Maintenance ' Introduced/ native General Ditch 50A Modified (50B) Medium Introduced/native General Wet Ditch 80A Modified (80B) 1 Medium Introduced/native Stabilization 90A Modified (90B) Temporary Mixes 100A -110A "Urban" Prairie 120B -130B are new & will be used as 100A Modified 30A Modified (30B, 30B-WF) Native Wet/Dry Woodland Edges ' Low Native Tallgrass Prairie (general) 15A Modified (15B) Native Wetland Sedge Meadow 25A Modified (25B) ' Native Wetland Prairie Meadow 25A Modified (26B) Medium NA Low 5A Modified (513) Low Low Low 11 ii Native Western mixed -height Prairie 33A Modified (33B) ' Low Sedimentation Pond Basins use 25A Modified (25B or 26B) Low 1 Sedimentation Pond Upland buffer use appropriate native mix Low Note: The reference to seed mixes as "B" reflects what will be published in the year 2000 Specifications for Construction Book. These mixes are being called "Modified" now. For ' example, mixture 15A Modified is the same as 15B. Until the 2000 spec book is published all updated mixes should be referred to as "Modified". ' The Year 2000 Specifications for Construction book is expected to be published in the spring of 2000. ' Establishing Native Grasses and Forbs General Recommendations: Seeding native grasses and forbs (wildflowers) can be accomplished using a number of different methods. However, due to the complexity of seed sizes, textures and densities, a great deal of care needs to be taken to ensure that the site is well prepared and that seed is placed properly. A number of different types of drills may be used to place seed, but be aware that many "older style" drills will clog easily with fluffy seeds. ' Broadcast seeding and hydroseeding also work well, but remember that natives are not seeded exactly the same as turf grasses. There are several general "rules of thumb" to keep in mind when seeding natives: ' • Native seeds prefer a firm seed bed. • Large and/or fluffy seeds should be buried approximately 1/4 inch deep. • Small and/or fine seeds (most forbs) should be scattered over the soil surface. • Seed should be lightly covered with soil, harrowing or raking works well. ' Native Grass and Forb Mixes - This manual lists seed mixes developed by Mn/ DOT's Turf Establishment & Erosion Control Unit for use in roadside seeding. These mixes consist of ' warm -season native grasses, cool -season native grasses, native forbs (wildflowers) and annual or short term cover crops. A deliberate attempt has been made to have a large number of different grasses and fortis because it has been shown that diverse plantings are more resistant ' to drought, floods, and pathogens than monotypic or low diversity plantings. The inclusion of a diverse mixture of forbs is greatly beneficial to wildlife and the forbs occupy niches that would otherwise be occupied by weeds such as Canada thistle, musk thistle, bull thistle and tsow thistle. The native legumes also fix nitrogen which is made available to other plants in the system through fungal interactions between plants. Cool -season native grasses tend to establish quickly and will decrease over time on sites where warm -season species would normally dominate. Warm -season native grasses tend to be slower to establish, but are extremely hardy and long-lived. Warm -season grasses also tend to stay standing over the winter and provide I the best snow filtering capabilities and wildlife habitat. In addition to planting a large diversity of species, we recommend using local ecotype plant materials. The origin of local ecotypes can be guaranteed by purchasing "Yellow Tag" certified native seeds. The Minnesota Crop II IJ Improvement Association (MCIA) works with local seed producers to certify that the origin of ' their products is local (see below for specification). NOTE: Seed certified to be Zone 1 (northern Iowa ecotype) is acceptable for use in southern Minnesota, seed certified to be of eastern ND and SD origin is acceptable for use in Western MN, and seed certified to be of Western WI ' origin is acceptable for use in eastern MN. Generic Specification Example: MCIA Yellow Tag Certified Seed Requirements - All native seeds used on this project shall be certified to be of Minnesota (or as specified) origin by the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association (MCIA). This level of certification is at the MCIA "Yellow Tag" level. Documentation verifying the origin of this seed shall be provided to the Engineer/Project Manager at least 30 days prior to -the ' installation date. In the event that certain species may not be available as certified, those species may be supplied by a MCIA Certified Approved Collector/Producer along with documentation demonstrating the origin of those materials. All tsubstitutions are subject to the approval of the Engineer/Project Manager. ' Cover/nurse Crops - There are two different cover crops in Mn/DOT's older native mixes; oats/winter wheat and annual rye grass. Winter wheat is substituted for oats in fall seedings. The annual rye grass provides good cover in early spring but does not do well in late spring and summer. It also does well dormant seeded. ReGreen (a hybrid cross between slender wheat grass and winter wheat) is now being used instead of oats/winter wheat for temporary cover (ReGreen will persist for up to three years). ReGreen is the primary cover crop contained in the mixture tabulations included in this manual and it will be in the year 2000 mixes. Native species seeded in the fall perform very well, but it is critical that winter wheat (or ReGreen) and annual rye grass be used as specified in the mixes to ensure adequate vegetation establishment 1 on erodible sites. Temporary Erosion Control - It is usually a good idea to protect a new seeding by covering it with mulch or an erosion control blanket of some kind. In general, slopes that are 3:1 and gentler should be mulched with a clean grain straw or native grass mulch and disc anchored ' following seeding. Mulching should attempt to achieve 90% coverage of the exposed soil surface. This generally requires about 2 tons per acre of straw mulch. It is also recommended to use a high quality weed free mulch such as MCIA Certified Weed Free mulch (see below for specification) or a native grass (prairie) mulch. On slopes that are steeper than 3:1 it is recommended that the seeding be covered with an erosion control blanket. Generally, straw blankets containing double netting (Straw 2S) perform best with native seedings. If seeding is 1 being done in a ditch or swale that will receive moderate water flows for periods of time, it is recommended that a straw/coconut blanket be used to cover it. Other more severe situations such as very steep slopes and/or channels exposed to high water velocities will require more specialized treatments that are not covered in this manual. NOTE: Mulches derived from pasture hay containing reed canary grass, smooth brome and other introduced forage species may contain enough seed of those species to ruin your native grass and forb planting. They are not recommended for use with native seedings. Generic Specification Example: MCIA Certified Weed Free Mulch - This mulch shall be certified by the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association (MCIA) to be free of noxious weed seeds, seed bearing stalks, and/or other reproductive propagules as defined by rules and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Documentation verifying that the mulch has passed MCIA field inspection shall accompany the material upon delivery to the job site. At the time of delivery, the mulch shall be in an air dried condition. Fertilizer - Frequently, fertilizers are not needed for native grass and forb plantings. Most agricultural soils already contain a sufficient amount of NPK for the native grasses and forbs to establish. In the case of planting in infertile soils, it is recommended that a soil test be taken and that a slow release fertilizer be used based on deficiencies indicated by the soil fertility analysis. If you are going to use a generic fertilizer it is recommended to use a 22-5-10 NPK analysis fertilizer (see below for specification. A general rule of thumb is that native grasses and forbs require about half the rate of fertilizer as turf and forage species. Generic Specification Example: Fertilizer (Type Slow Release) - The fertilizer used for this project shall be a commercial grade of slow release complete fertilizer applied at a rate of 200 lbs/acre at the time of preparing the seed bed for seeding. The fertilizer shall contain 22-5-10 (NPK) analysis, and should include sulfur and iron as well (not less than 1% and not more than 8% added sulfur and iron). Seeding Into Agricultural Fields - Many fields that have been row cropped will have some amount of herbicide residue present, depending on what the crop was and what type of herbicide was used on the site to control weeds. Leaving the site fallow, or planting a temporary cover for a season before planting, will help reduce herbicide residue. Also be aware that herbicides used to control annual grasses may adversely affect native grasses being planted and broad-leaved herbicides may adversely affect forbs being planted. Inoculants - A number of inoculants are available in the marketplace. Native legumes form an association with nitrogen fixing bacteria of the genus Rhizobium. The Rhizobial bacteria occupy nodules on the plant roots. Most legume seed comes with bacterial inoculant in the form of a fine powder. Usually this inoculum is already dead or is not the right species for the native legume and the majority of the nodulation that actually occurs is from Rhizobia already present in the soil. Extremely disturbed soils may contain no Rhizobia at all. More information on Rhizobium is available at the University of Minnesota website: http://www.rhizobium.unm.edu/. Another form of inoculum that is available are various mycorrhizal fungi. Most mycorrhizal inoculants that are available are ecto-mycorrhizae, which are for woody species. The type of mycorrhizae that associate with prairie species are endo- mycorrhizae, specifically vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae (VA mycorrhizae). To our knowledge, no good commercial sources for VA mycorrhizae are available at this time for prairie species. Seed Treatments - Be aware that seeds of many native species require specialized treatments such as cold/moist stratification, scarification, etc. Many of these species go through such treatments naturally if seeded in the fall. Season of Planting - The season of planting for native grass and forb mixtures runs from spring ' to early summer and from fall until the ground freezes (see table 2575-2). Seeding Methods Drill Seeding Tilled Sites - This is the "standard" method for seeding native species on prepared sites such as those on construction projects. ' A) Site Preparation - The site should be prepared by loosening topsoil to a minimum depth of 3 inches. B) Fertilizer - If used, the fertilizer used should be a commercial grade of slow -release ' complete fertilizer applied at a rate of 200 lbs/acre at the time of preparing the seed bed for seeding. The fertilizer should contain 22-5-10 (NPK) analysis, and should include sulfur and iron as well (not less than 1% and not more than 8% added sulfur and iron). ' C) Seed Installation - Seed should be installed with a seed drill that will accurately meter the types of seed to be planted and keep all seeds uniformly mixed during the drilling (Truax -type). The drill should contain a minimum of two seed boxes; a fine seed box and a box for large/fluffy seeds, and it should be equipped with disc furrow openers and packer assembly to compact the soil directly over the drill rows. Maximum row spacing should be 8 inches. Small and fine seeds should be drop -seeded onto the ground surface from the fine seed box. Large/fluffy seed should be placed to obtain a final planting depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. All drill seeding should be done at a right angle to surface drainage. D) Seeding Rates - Rates are specified in the mixture tabulation for the specified mix. E) Harrowing - The site should be lightly harrowed or raked following seeding. 1 F) Packing - Packing the site following harrowing is recommended to ensure a firm seed bed. G) Mulch - The site should be mulched and disc -anchored following packing using one of ' the following types of mulch (as per plans or special provisions): • MCIA certified weed free mulch at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. • Prairie hay/mulch (Mn/DOT Type 7 or 8) at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. ' • Mn/DOT Type 1(clean straw) mulch at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. ' Broadcast Seeding - Broadcast seeding is performed either with mechanical "cyclone" seeders, by hand seeding or by any other method that scatters seed over the soil surface. The most desirable aspect of broadcast seeding is that there is no row effect such as that which results from drill seeding. This lends a more natural appearance to the planting. However, broadcast seeding may not desirable if the weather is hot and dry and/or the soil moisture is content is low. It is essential that steps be taken to ensure good seed to soil contact when broadcast ' seeding is used. ' A) Site Preparation - The site should be prepared by loosening topsoil to a minimum depth of 3 inches. It is critical that the seed bed be loosened to a point that there are spaces for seed to filter into cracks etc., otherwise it may end up on the surface and wash away with ' the first heavy rain. B) Fertilizer - If used, the fertilizer used should be a commercial grade of slow release complete fertilizer applied at a rate of 200 lbs/ acre at the time of preparing the seed bed for seeding. The fertilizer should contain 22-5-10 (NPK) analysis, and should include sulfur and iron as well (not less than 1% and not more than 8% added sulfur and iron). C) Seed Installation - Seed should be installed by broadcasting it evenly over the entire site. Several types and sizes of broadcast seeders are available for use, ranging from fertilizer - type spreaders to power spreaders mounted on all terrain vehicles. Seed should be mixed thoroughly prior to seeding and should be mixed occasionally in the spreader to prevent separation and settling. ' D) Seeding Rates - Rates are specified in the mixture tabulation for the specified mix. E) Harrowing - The site should be harrowed or raked following seeding. ' F) Packing - The site should be packed using a culti-packer or equivalent following harrowing. G) Mulch - The site should be mulched and disc -anchored following packing using one of ' the following types of mulch (as per plans or special provisions): - MCIA certified weed free mulch at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. - Prairie hay/mulch (Mn/DOT Type 7 or 8) at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. ' - Mn/DOT Type 1(clean straw) mulch at a rate of 2.0 tons per acre. [I rn II L I] H Early Maintenance & Evaluation of Native Grass /Forb Plantings Year 1 Establishment (spring seeding): 1) Prepare site - Late April - May. 2) Seed - May 1- July 1. Maintenance: 1) Mow (6-10 inches) - July 15 - August 15. 2) Mow - September 1 (optional). 3) Weed Control - mowing should keep annual weeds down. Establishment (fall seeding): Spot spray thistles etc. 1) Prepare site - Late August - early September. 2) Seed - late September to freeze-up. Maintenance (following season): 1) Mow (6-10 inches) - June 15 - August 15. ' 2) Mow - September 1 (optional). 3) Weed Control - mowing should keep annual weeds down. Spot spray thistles etc. ' Evaluation: 1) Cover crop growing within 2 weeks of planting (except dormant seedings). 2) Seedlings spaced 1-6 inches apart in drill rows. 3) Native grass seedlings may only be 4-6 inches tall. 4) If there is a flush of growth from foxtail etc., mow more often. ' Year 2 Maintenance: 1) Mow (6-10 inches) - June 1- August 15. 2) Mow - September 1 (optional). 3) Weed Control - mowing should keep annual weeds down. Spot spray thistles etc. 4) Some sites may not require much maintenance the second year. Evaluation: 1) Cover crop will be gone unless winter wheat was used in a fall planting. 2) Grasses forming clumps 1-6 inches apart in drill rows, but still short. ' 3) Some flowers should be blooming (black-eyed susans, bergamot etc.). 4) If there is a flush of growth from foxtail etc., mow site. Year 3 Maintenance: 1) Mow only if necessary. 3) Weed Control - Spot spray thistles, etc. 4) Sites usually do not require much maintenance the third year. Evaluation: ' 1) Planting should begin looking like a prairie - tall grasses, flowers etc. Long-term (Year 4+) ' Maintenance: 1) Mowing - Not necessary or only occasionally. 2) Weed Control - Spot spray thistles etc. ' 3) Burning (3-5 year rotation) alternate spring and fall if possible. 4) Haying (3-5 year rotation) late summer or early fall. Alternate with burning (may substitute for burning). 5) Burning two years in a row will really "clean up" rough -looking sites. Origin Requirements: All native grasses and forbs shall be "certified" to be of MN origin and of wild ecotype, except for fowl bluegrass, slender wheat grass, and fringed brome, which may be of MN, ND, MT or Canadian origin. These species should be available as Minnesota origin in a few years. Many native species are available as "origin certified". Origin certified seed is preferred over seed that has not been certified. The origin certification program is administered ' by the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association (MCIA). Origin certified seed falls under the "yellow tag" category of certification of the MCIA. 1 1 I] r, 1 TABLE 2575-1 SEED MIXTURE APPLICATION RATES Seed Mixture Number Application Rate (pounds per acre Application Rate k a 120B,125B 25 #/acre 27.5 kg/ha 5B,10B,15B, 20B, 25B, 26B, 33B, 38B 30 #/acre 33 kg/ha 28B 40 # acre 44 kg/ha 50B, 80B, 90B 50 #/acre 55 kg/ha 30B, 30B-WF 60 # acre 66 kg/ha 60B,100B,11013,130B 100 #/acre 110 kg/ha TABLE 2575-2 SEASON OF PLANTING Seed Mixture Number Spring Fall Dormant Seeding Dormant Seeding Max. Soil Temp. of 515,10B,15B, 20B, 25B, 26B, 28B, 30B, 30B-WF, 33B, 38B April 15 to July 20 Sept. 20 to Oct. 20 Oct.. 20 to Nov.15 50 5013, 60B Aril 1 to June 1 July 20 to Sept. 20 Oct. 20 to Nov.15 40 80B, 90B Aril 1 to Sept. 1 — Oct. 20 to Nov.15 40 100B Aug. 1 to Oct.1 --- - 110B May 1 to Aug,1 — — -- 120B,125B,130B Aril 1 to Jul 20 July 20 to Oct. 20 1 Oct. 20 to Nov.15 35 11 U 11 U Seed Mixes For the newly created wetland area Mixture 25A Modified 25B - Prairie Sedge Meadow Common Name Botanical Name % of Mix Bluestem, big Andropogon gerardi 5.0 Canada anemone Anemone canadensis 0.1 Marsh milkweed Asclepias incarnata 0.5 New England aster Aster novae-angliae 0.6 Swamp aster Aster pitniceus 0.6 Fringed brome Bromits ciliata 5.0 Blue -joint grass Calamagrostis canadensis 0.1 Bottlebrush sedge Carex comosa 1.0 Tussock sedge Carex stricta 0.5 Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 0.4 Showy tic -trefoil Desmodium canadense 0.4 Wheat grass, slender Elymtis trachycaulus 6.0 Virginia wild -rye Elymus virginicus 6.0 Joe-pye weed Eupatorium maculatum 0.4 Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.3 Reed manna grass Glyceria grandis 0.3 Fowl manna grass Glyceria striata 0.2 Early sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 0.7 Blue -flag iris Iris virginica-shrevii 0.5 Common rush' Juncus effusus 0.2 Meadow blazingstar Liatris ligulistylis 0.4 Tall blazingstar Liatris pycnostachya 0.4 Great blue lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.1 Rye grass, annual Lolium italicum 10.0 Monkey flower Mimulus ringens 0.1 Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 0.6 ReGreen NA 42.0 Switch grass Panicum virgatum 1.0 Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 5.0 Black-eyed Susan's Rudbeckia hirta 0.6 Green bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.3 Wool grass Scirpus cyperinus 0.3 Soft -stem bulrush Scirpus vallidus 1.0 Grass -leaved goldenrod Solidago graminifolia 0.2 Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans 6.0 Prairie cord grass Spartina pectinata 2.0 Blue vervain Verbena hastata 0.5 Ironweed Veronia fasciculata 0.2 Culver's root Veronicastrum virginianum 0.1 Golden Alexander's Zizea aurea 0.4 Total: 100.0 Rate: 30 lbs/acre (33 kg/ha). Description: Native sedge/ prairie meadow mix. Reaches a height of 36 to 48 inches. Developed for use on hydric soils and for wetland restoration. Installation Note: Sedges, meadow grasses, and meadow forbs are best installed by broadcast method, separate from main grass mix, in early spring or fall if possible. Many of theses species require pre - germination treatments. Mixture 25A Modified (26B) - Prairie Meadow & Streambanks Common Name Botanical Name - % of Mix Bluestem, big Andropogon gerardi 5.0 Canada anemone Anemone canadensis 0.1 Marsh milkweed Asclepias incarnata 0.5 New England aster Aster novae-angliae 0.6 Swamp aster Aster puniceus 0.6 Brome, fringed Bromus ciliata 8.0 Bluejoint grass Calamagrostis canadensis 0.2 Showy tic -trefoil Desmodium canadense 0.4 Wheat grass, slender Elymus trachycaulus 8.0 Wild rye, Virginia Elymus virginicus 6.0 Joe-pye weed Eupatorium maculatum 0.4 Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.3 Manna grass, reed Glyceria grandis 0.2 Manna grass, fowl Glyceria striata 0.3 Early sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 0.7 Blue -flag iris Iris virginica-shrevii 0.5 Meadow blazingstar Liatris ligulistylis 0.4 Tall blazingstar Liatris pycnostachya 0.4 Great blue lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.1 Rye grass, annual Lolium italicum 10.0 Monkey flower Mimulus ringens 0.1 Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 0.6 ReGreen NA 35.0 Switch grass Panicum virgatum 1.0 Bluegrass, fowl Poa palustris 10.0 Black-eyed Susan's Rudbeckia hirta 0.6 Green bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.3 Wool grass Scirpus cyperinus 0.3 Grass -leaved goldenrod Solidago graminifolia 0.2 Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans 5.0 Cordgrass, prairie Spartina pectinata 3.0 Blue vervain Verbena hastata 0.5 Ironweed Veronia fasciculata 0.2 Culver's root Veronicastrum virginianum 0.1 Golden Alexander's iE Zizea aurea 0.4 Total: 100.0 Rate: 30 lbs/acre (33 kg/ha). Description: Native sedge/prairie meadow mix. Reaches a height of 36 to 48 inches. Developed for use on hydric soils and for wetland restoration. Installation Note: Sedges, meadow grasses, and meadow forbs are best installed by broadcast method, separate from main grass mix, in early spring or fall if possible. Also note many of theses species require pre -germination treatments. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mixture 15A Modified (15B) - Mesic Tall Grass Prairie - Common Name Botanical Name % of Mix Bluestem, big Andropogon Berardi 5.0 Grama, sideoats Bouteloua curtipendula 10.0 Wild rye, Canadian Elymtts canadensis 5.0 Wheat grass, slender Elymus trachycaulus 5.0 Rye grass, annual Lolium italicum 10.0 ReGreen NA 34.0 Forbs (Table F-1, F-2, or F-3) NA 5.0 Switch grass Panicuni virgatum 2.0 Bluestem, little Schizachyrium scoparium 12.0 Indian grass Sor hastrttm nutans 12.0 Total: 100.0 Rate: 301bs/acre (33 kg/ha). Description: Native mix. Reaches a height of 36 to 48 inches. Excellent for use on all soil types. For use in oak savanna and prairie regions of the state.. Temporary Mixes Mixture Plant Species % of Total Rate lbs/acre ISTI 100A Winter wheat 100.0 100.0 110A Oats 100.0 100.0 100A Mod ReGreen 100.0 25.0 120B . 100A Mod ReGreen 92.0 23.0 (125B) Partridge pea 8.0 2.0 Totals: 100.0 25.0 A 100A Mod Oats 40.0 40.0 (130B) Winter wheat 40.0 40.0 Rye grass, 10.0 10.0 annual Alfalfa, annual 10.0 10.0 Totals: 100.0 100.0 11 1 1 Table F-1(NW Forbs) Common Name Botanical Name " Onion, prairie Allium stellatum Aster, heath Aster ericoides Aster, smooth -blue Aster laevis Milkvetch, Canada Astragalus canadensis Prairie clover, white Dalea candidum Prairie clover, purple Dalea purpureum Tick -trefoil. showy Desmodium canadense Coneflower, narrow -leaved Echinacea angustifolia Ox-eye, common Heliopsis helianthoides Bushclover, round -headed Lespedeza capitata Blazingstar, rough Liatris aspera Blazingstar, tall Liatris pycnostachya Bergamot, wild Monarda fistulosa Penstemon, showy Penstemon grandiflorum Coneflower, columnar Ratibida columnifera Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Goldenrod, stiff Solidago rigida Vervain, blue Verbena hastata Vervain, hoary Verbena stricta Alexanders, golden Zizia aurea Rate: As specified in the seed mix tabulation. All species shall be provided in equal weights. Substitutions should not be allowed. Description: Native forbs to be added to native grass mixtures in NW Minnesota. 1 1 F 11 E � I 0 F Table F-2 (SW Forbs) Common Name Botanical Name - Milkweed, butterfly Asclepias tuberosa Aster, smooth -blue Aster laevis Milkvetch, Canada Astragalus canadensis Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasiculata Prairie clover, white Dalea candidum Prairie clover, purple Dalea ptirpureum Tick -trefoil. showy Desmodium canadense Coneflower, narrow -leaved Echinacea angustifolia Ox-eye, common Heliopsis helianthoides Blazingstar, rough Liatris aspera Blazingstar, tall Liatris pycnostachya Bergamot, wild Monarda fistulosa Penstemon, showy Penstemon grandiflorum Coneflower, columnar Ratibida columnifera Coneflower, grey -headed Ratibida pinnata Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Goldenrod, stiff Solidago rigida Vervain, blue Verbena hastata Vervain, hoary Verbena stricta Alexanders, golden Zizia aurea Rate: As specified in the seed mix tabulation. All species shall be provided in equal weights. Substitutions should not be allowed. Description: Native forbs to be added to native grass mixtures in SW Minnesota. 1 1 I I n Table F-3 (SE Forbs) Common Name Botanical Name Milkweed, butterfly Asclepias tuberosa Aster, heath Aster ericoides Aster, smooth -blue Aster laevis Milkvetch, Canada Astragalus canadensis Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasiculata Prairie clover, white Dalea candidum Prairie clover, purple Dalea purpureum Tick -trefoil. showy Desmodium canadense Ox-eye, common Heliopsis helianthoides Blazingstar, rough Liatris aspera Blazingstar, tall Liatris pycnostachya Bergamot, wild Monarda fistulosa Penstemon, showy Penstemon grandiflorum Coneflower, grey -headed Ratibida pinnata Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Goldenrod, stiff Solidago rigida Spiderwort, Ohio Tradescantia ohiensis Vervain, blue Verbena has tata Vervain, hoary Verbena stricta Alexanders, golden Zizia aurea Rate: As specified in the seed mix tabulation. All species shall be provided in equal weights. Substitutions should not be allowed. Description: Native forbs to be added to native grass mixtures in SE Minnesota. n L SECTION 4 Performance Standard F E L C ' Phase II -Albertville Business Park ' Wetland Mitigation Area Performance Standard As part of the mitigation, a performance standard has been established between the applicant and the Local Governmental Unit (LGU), the City of Albertville. The performance standard identifies invasive species that may be located at the mitigation site and defines the expectations of the high quality wetland that is anticipated at the ' mitigation site. ' When developing the performance standard for the mitigation area, several issues needed to be addressed. The first issue addresses what species of vegetation are considered invasive species and what attempts are required to control these species ' from establishing themselves within the mitigation area. The invasive wetland species that were identified are: Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea 1 Possible species that may e present resent but were not identified at the time of the wetland delineation are: Common Buckthorn Rhamnus carthartica Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula ' Leafy Spurge Euohorbia esula Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata ' Possible upland species that may be present in the buffer area but were not identified at the time of the wetland delineation are: Common Buckthorn Rhamnus carthartica 1 Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula Quack Grass Agropyron repens Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Initial herbicide treatment of the mitigation area, with Roundups,, Rodeos or similar ' herbicide, after final grading of the new wetland credit (NWC) mitigation area and upland buffer area is recommended for initial control of the invasive species. Seeding and planting should occur after a two -week period to allow for the breakdown of the ' herbicide. After seeding and planting have occurred, spot herbicide treatment of the identified invasive species, as needed, is recommended. Spot herbicide treatment with Rodeo® or a similar herbicide should be conducted as necessary where the invasive ' species are identified. The removal of invasive vegetation and maintenance of the mitigation area will aid in ensuring a high quality mitigation prol''ect. ' The second issue addresses the expectations of the anticipated high quality wetland. For this issue the applicant refers to the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method v2.0 11 MNRAM as a reference for helping define the high quality wet meadow proposed at ( ) P g g q ty P P the mitigation site. The applicant and the LGU propose the following performance standards for the mitigation area: The NWC mitigation area shall have less than 30% cover from reed canary grass ' (Phalaris arundicea), less than 5% cover from purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and less than 5% cover from all other non-native invasive species. The NWC mitigation area shall also have at least 50% cover from native grasses, sedges, ' rushes and forbs identified in the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual 2000 seed mixture (see Seeding and Planting Plan). This seed mixture should also be applied to the NURP pond that is to be used for Public Value Credit (PVC). The upland buffer shall also strive to have less than 10% cover from reed canary ' grass (Phalaris arundicea) and less than 10% cover from all additional non-native and invasive species identified. The upland buffer area shall also have at least 50% cover from native grasses, sedges and forbs identified in the seeding and ' planting plan species (see Seeding and Planting Plan). The NWC, PVC and adjacent upland buffer shall establish vegetative cover of ' over 70% of the area to a depth of one foot below the ordinary high water level (930 feet mean sea level) within the NWC and PVC area and extend to the edge of the upland buffer area. The third issue defines how the mitigation area will be evaluated. The upland buffer ' areas will be evaluated by identifying any of the listed invasive species, assessing the percent cover of the invasive species, identifying the seeded and planted species, assessing the percent cover of the seeded and planted species, while evaluating the ' viability of the mitigation area. Evaluation of the NWC consists of identifying and assessing the percent cover of any of the listed invasive species, identifying and assessing the percent cover of the seeded and planted species, and evaluating the viability of the mitigation area. Evaluation of the mitigation areas will occur every month of the growing season for the first five years to assess the timing of maintenance that is needed to ensure the success of the wetland mitigation. Maintenance for the first three growing seasons is essential -to the success of the In' g mitigation area and should follow the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual 2000. Mowing one to ' two times per growing season, depending upon the growth of the vegetation, and spot herbicide treatment will most likely be necessary. FIGURE 1 I Site Location 0 Il } o (n C) a r �r— No 't CV d� w id II w d' +— Q U (3- C V) U � 0 r- N^ J._1_ C) W 0 n N C:I(w 0 _IT_ LL- _0 C) O 3 L W Q C) C) O J 1 y. FIGURE 2 Existing Site Conditions 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD04 Up —00 tJ% } O- f _ ♦. r O O N i •O 1 ----- � i `� \ � ♦�`-----.i-�'r" •..�---� �. `tom / �, ♦� s k Ir ' /^i ``� i/-`vim f �! ♦' Z , / t♦.,. / y..�^� ( 1 3( 2- . ; � f�'i'""""`�.�-•'`�' ` � � � • : ,� � ice, � /' v'"� `rt , `j lb IN Gg I t � �i � j �., � �1•' / ,...�' �i ,; \\ �y� i i j *Jp i �{ \ `�\, (cam- � � 1 : Ilk It I jr i1 t FIGURE 3 1 No Impact Alternative fl [l H Otto xx'Yl�q Mll 'aYOY tlMW 3w tt=L tp/Lt/, l b 3 2i xn, Loam ,arena ox plemue>laep I I c 35vlKING �iv3N�� FIGURE 4 Alternative 1 [.tR N '•t+•I..M . Or:1 .+Nt •'K �i••V ••s Out :tN•YYr �� YMy 4�+-- �J OMS raw ISAW Jna bvoa UWU WN SM t%�V> 3 1 t/ i S 3 � `d 3 6Hna US ia�noa plennue)laep Y�JrWJAGW z asv 3�laa3 Nlsne Cli 1 � 1 } 1r_..•� /J `.\ t V"„liS lli,l��...: 1..'hl•.,. ``i I I f / i 1 i j s i+ •\ i- • �S �•i llf� �� p 4J Ltt t � � J � l € 1 � t `•t (�i'lr {y� ��j7 � � Q � � t ' 1i �' � It } ; ,S P i i ✓�� IIItPn��tilt�/ � �,� t wco enk Lj w x a 0; r. t i �•' \ ; r z LJ 1 3 a a i I: j i \ J i j . , �\ G' / '�i �»i:_'='� ;w'"E �l�lt•l��"„Qrlu`t4k ' •� .�� =` .- ;;.' bt Zi • o' .a �� . \ t_. �) `\ *\e�• � � �g� � �l�'" � t 1.,1 �' : `� :.%' .i' j'• J1 /i �'• � Il..`,�•'� t J .� � :3 G\ i 'Os y. '�' I ! • J e$ Q+ " t` r ,> /V — � \ r� i 'J �, /: -r: • \ / +,1 � �� O o• - r� �,�1/Js ..� ��.`, ! i1 � . I \ �'�, ll�i r (V�� 'A '� + ; ��i. � \ t �`V � i �%� ;r� �•, \ r%f1;17�JgJ�(/�r �' J: ic'.�L J' IV J'� < ,^J ,`,• � �'/ !i �' / t`/ it i i n i Jl' �%� , ;; LU , y1i1 "' f' '`• Wit, `^ _.• .� r/ i, /h� :/1 _ J A !+ 4 'r'•' � r �;' /r cl •:• 3 , _.... ' ; '��•` Y._.r .• � r /�/r!;>,� J�' fey% Q � m m m m m m m m m m m= m m m m r r sir FIGURE 5 Final Preferred Alternative • mss ,m aa,,n au eroa aava -aw ssu ' ••—'w••.-«..•..�".._ir�Y�l «. „n• �� J �ma awrmrxxia / savma ouvvrn r1nAA lfn%t Ir.r f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 6 Fixed Photograph Locations ezalm now plemue3liep 1 (it UJ OL ul: 0 -1, ui -C 0 0- -1 0 CY) 0 Ld I x Appendix A Affidavits F Affidavits concerning the evidence of replacement wetland ownership and the replacement wetland not previously restored or created under a prior replacement plan are forthcoming from Darkenwald Real Estate. p g _ 1 11 [I L n 11 0 11 u 0 Appendix B Wetland Delineation WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION For: Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN Prepared for: RLK-KUUSISTO 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. 101 Broadway Street West Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55369 1500 First Avenue NE Rochester, MN 55906 WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FOR: DARKENWALD RETAIL CENTER ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA l;�C �4 ; 1 RItIQ R RLK-KUUSISTO 6110 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343 49 M".1 IIV PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. 101 BROADWAY STREET WEST, SUITE 100 OSSEO, MN 55369 PINNACLE PROJECT NUMBER: MN02190.00 Prepared By: Scott Thelen Environmental Scientist September 26, 2002 Reviewed By: Mike Hultgren Manager -Environmental Engineering 1 1 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Site Location Map FIGURE 2: Wright County Soil Survey Map FIGURE 3: National Wetland Inventory Map FIGURE 4: Protected Wetland Inventory Map FIGURE 5: Wetland Locations APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Data Forms APPENDIX B: Wright County Precipitation Chart PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION ll 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Introduction Ms. Michelle Caron of RLK-Kuusisto retained Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. (Pinnacle) to ' conduct a wetland delineation on the approximate 100-acre parcel of land located north of Interstate 94, south of 70th Street (Kadler Avenue) in Albertville, Wright County, ' Minnesota. (Site). Kjolhaug Environmental Services (Kjolhaug) completed a wetland determination and delineation on the site in January 2000. The City of Albertville's consultants, Short, Elliot, and Hendrickson (SEH), who serve as the local governmental ' unit (LGU), requested that wetlands 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Kjolhaug delineation report be re -delineated after an August 9, 2002 field visit indicated the possibility of additional wetland areas located on the site. Pinnacle's delineation determined that three of the ' previously delineated wetlands had a hydrologic and/or vegetative connection and were considered one wetland complex. This complex is discussed in further detail in this report as Wetland 2 (Wetlands 4-6 in the Kjolhaug report). Wetland 4 (Kjolhaug Wetland 2) was not re -delineated since the LGU determined the previous delineation was accurate. ' The LGU also requested that suspect areas A-E, of the Kjolhaug wetland delineation be evaluated for accuracy. Pinnacle acquired the Farm Service Agency aerial photographs for the Site from 1979 to 2000 to aid in determining the presence of wetlands. Pinnacle then reviewed them to determine if the suspect areas exhibited wetland signatures over those years. 1.2 Scope ' Pinnacle conducted the Wetland Determination and Delineation in accordance with the criteria established in the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland delineation manual, updated in 1997, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Circular 39. The work included the following items: ' An initial site reconnaissance. • Review of Farm Service Agency aerial photographs. • Review of the Site utilizing County Soil Surveys, USGS topographic maps, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) maps, and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. • Assessment and delineation of the potential wetlands identified in the ' background review. • Preparation and submittal of this report summarizing the findings of our work. PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION ' 1 i 2.0- BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Site Location and Use ' The Site is situated just north of Interstate 94, south of 70th Street (Kadler Avenue) in Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. The Site is within the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 121 North, Range 24 West, as reviewed on the St. Michael and Big Lake, Minnesota quadrangle maps (Figure 1). The Site consists of approximately 100 acres of undulating, undeveloped land, which is ' comprised of wetlands, agricultural fields, and a farmstead. The Site is situated in a developing area of Albertville and is bound by agricultural fields on the north and northeast, an outlet mall to the east, Interstate 94 to the south and southwest, and agricultural fields to the west. 2.2 Surveys and Maps Pinnacle conducted a review of soil survey, topographic, PWI and NWI maps for the vicinity of the Site. The following sections summarize the information available at the time of this review. ' 2.2.1 Soil Survey The Wright County Soil Survey was reviewed for soils information pertaining to the Site. The Soil Survey indicated that the Site soils are comprised of Angus -Cordova complex, 2 to 6% slopes (1094B), Cordova loam, (1156), Glencoe clay loam (114), Klossner muck (539), and Glencoe soils, ponded (1080) (Figure 2). Of the five identified 1 soil types, all are listed on the state and federal hydric soils lists and the soils within the identified wetland areas exhibited hydric soil indicators, such as low chroma color, mottling, oxidized root channels, and gleying. Soil samples collected during the ' wetland delineation were characterized and recorded on the data forms, which are included in Appendix A. ' 2.2.2 USGS Topographic Maps The topography of the Site is undulating with a range in elevation from 950 to 960 feet above mean sea level (MSL), as reviewed on the St. Michael and Big Lake, Minnesota Quadrangle maps. Based on contour intervals on the quadrangle map, and our Site ' observations, surficial drainage appears to flow to the east and northeast, following the private drainage ditches and wetlands. PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION 1 2 2.2.3 National Wetland Inventory Maps ' The St. Michael and BigLake, Minnesota NWI maps depicted eight wetland basins P P g present on the Site (Figure 3). The northern basin (Wetlandl) was depicted just south of ' 70th Street (Kadler Avenue). The western portion of Wetland 1 is mapped as a Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded drained (PEMCd) basin with the eastern portion of the complex mapped as a Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded drained t (PEMAd) basin. Three small basins are located in the central portion of the Site (suspect areas A,B,D). These central basins are mapped as Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded drained (PEMAd). Three additional basins are located south of the three central basins, in the south central portion of the Site. These three basins are mapped as Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded drained (PEMCd) and were identified in the Kjolhaug delineation as wetlands 4, 5, and 6. Pinnacle determined that these separate basins are vegetatively connected but do not share the same hydrologic regime and make up the Wetland 2 complex. One additional basin along the southern border was mapped as Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded basin (PEMA) (Wetland 3). 2.2.4 Protected Waters Inventory Maps The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has designated protected waters in Minnesota and identifies them on Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) maps. The PWI map for Wright County, Minnesota indicated no protected waters are present at the Site (Figure 4). ' 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION ' 3.1 Methodology The wetland determinations were made utilizing the techniques of the Routine Method, as suggested in the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997. The conclusions derived in this report are consistent with and respect the wetland criteria recorded in the manual. Determination of hydric soils, Site hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation were made according to the procedures and guidelines described in the manual. Sampling locations were selected to be representative of wetland/upland transition areas. ' Mr. Scott Thelen of Pinnacle conducted an assessment of the wetlands at the Site on August 30 and September 3, 2002. The assessment included probing the soils and observing the color and moisture, as well as other available indicators of hydric soil PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION 1 conditions, such as mottling, gleying, and oxidized root channels. The characteristics noted for each sampling location are documented in the wetland determination data forms, which are included as Appendix A. Survey markers were placed along the approximate edge of the wetlands. A wetland determination was conducted for all potential wetland areas. Four wetlands were determined to meet all three wetland criteria and their boundaries were flagged and surveyed: The general wetland descriptions are discussed below with wetland locations shown in Figure 5. ' 3.2 Wetland Descriptions Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a flow through wetland complex featuring a Type 3 - shallow marsh wetland or, under the Cowardin classification system, a Palustrine Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded that is drained (PEM1Cd) with a Type 1 - seasonally flooded or Palustrine Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded that is drained (PEM1Ad) wetland along the fringe of the Type 3 wetland. The Wetland 1 complex is located in the northwestern portion of the Site. Water enters the wetland through a culvert under the road in the northwest and runs to the southeast through an excavated ditch to an existing wetland along the eastern border of the Site. This provides much of the hydration for the Type 3 wetland adjacent to the excavated ditch. The surrounding wetland areas gently slope into the excavated ditch, forming much of the Type 1 twetland basin, which receives the majority of hydration from surficial runoff from the adjacent fields. Soils were saturated to the surface in the wetland and open water was visible along the excavated ditch at the time of the site visit. The western portion was vegetated with cattails (Typhina spp.) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Other hydrophytic plants observed included smartweed (Polygonum spp.) and willow (Salix spp.). The vegetation in this wetland changed from hydrophytic to upland vegetation comprised ' of Kentucky blue grass (Poa prantensis), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and soybeans (Glycine max) at the wetland/upland transition area. The change in vegetation was consistent with the area topography. The clay -loam soils within the Wetland 1 sampling point had a matrix color of 5Y 4/ 1 in Y p g the B-horizon with 10YR 4/ 6 mottles being abundant and distinct. These soils exhibited hydric soil indicators such as oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches, reducing conditions, and low chroma colors. This area was mapped as Angus -Cordova complex ' in the Wright County Soil Survey, which was consistent with our field observations. PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION ' 4 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is an area located south of Wetland 1 in the central portion of the Site. Wetland 2 was formerly listed as wetlands 4, 5, and 6 in the Kjolhaug delineation; however, the LGU and Pinnacle determined that reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) connects the three separate wetland basins into one wetland complex. The three wetland types in this wetland complex are hydrated by different processes. The central basins of Wetland 2 are flow -through wetlands featuring a Type 3 - shallow marsh wetland or Palustrine Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded that is drained (PEM1Cd) by an excavated ditch that connects the basins. Water enters the wetland from a culvert under Interstate 94 and flows through the basins via the excavated ditch to the recent construction at the eastern edge of the site. The drainage ditch provides the Type 3 wetlands with the hydrology from an area south of the site. Open water was ' present throughout the ponded areas at the time of the Site visit. The western basin of Wetland 2 (Kjolhaug Wetland 5) was vegetated with cattails (Typha spp.) - OBL while the eastern basin (Kjolhaug wetland 6) was dominated with cattails (Typha spp.) - OBL, with arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) - OBL, wool grass (Scripus cyperinus) - OBL, water plantain (Alisma subcordatum) - OBL, and lesser duck weed (Lemma minor) - OBL also present. The entire Type 3 wetland was surrounded by a monotypic stand of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - FACW+. ' A Type 2 - wet meadow or Palustrine Emergent Persistent Saturated that is drained (PEM113d) wetland surrounds the Type 3 wetland. The topography of this Type 2 wetland dictates that it is hydrologically supported by surficial flow from the Isurrounding fields. Soils were saturated within 12 inches of the surface at the time of the Site visit. The wetland vegetation consisted of nearly 100% reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - FACW. The vegetation in this wetland changed from hydrophytic to upland vegetation comprised of Kentucky blue grass (Poa prantensis) - FAC-, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) - FACU, and Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) - FACU-. An arm associated with this complex is yet a third type of wetland. This arm features a Type 1 - seasonally flooded or Palustrine Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded (PEM1A) wetland. The topography of this Type 1 wetland dictates that it is hydrologically supported by surficial flow from the surrounding fields. Soils were ' saturated within 12 inches of the surface at the time of the site visit. As this wetland fills with water in very wet years, such as this year, a swale connects this wetland to the Type 3 western basin. The wetland vegetation consisted of a monotypic stand of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - FACW, with Kentucky blue grass (Poa prantensis) - PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. 1 5 WETLAND DELINEATION FAC-, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) - FACU, Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) - FACU- and Brome grass (Bromus inermis) - UPL observed in the upland area. The change in vegetation was consistent with the area topography. The clay -loam soils within the Wetland 2 sampling points had a matrix color of 5Y 4/1 ' in the B-horizon with 10YR 4/6 mottles being abundant and distinct. These soils exhibited hydric soil indicators such as oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches, reducing conditions, and low chroma colors. This area was mapped as Cordova clay loam in the Wright County Soil Survey, which was consistent with our field observations. ' For the purpose of clarification in this report, Pinnacle has identified the Type 3 wetland as 2A, the Type 2 wetland surrounding the Type 3 as 2B, and the lone Type 1 basin as ' 2C. Wetland 3 1 1 - Wet and 3 is a depressional Type 1 seasonally flooded or Palustrine Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded (PEM1A) basin located in the southern portion of the Site. Surficial water runoff enters the wetland from the adjacent Interstate 94 along the south boundary and from the surrounding topography. The surrounding areas gently ' slope into the wetland basin. The vegetation within Wetland 3 was dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - FACW, with smartweed (Polygonum spp.) - OBL also present. The vegetation in this wetland changed from hydrophytic to upland vegetation dominated by soybeans (Glycine max) - UPL with lesser amounts of common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) - FACU- present. The edge of the plowed field was at the wetland/upland transition area. Soils were saturated in the wetland area at the time of the Site visit. The clay -loam soils within the Wetland 3 sampling point had a matrix color of 5Y 4/ 1 in the B-horizon with 10YR 4/6 mottles being abundant and distinct. These soils exhibited hydric soil indicators such as oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches, reducing conditions, and low chroma colors. This area was mapped as Angus -Cordova complex in the Wright County Soil Survey, which was consistent with our field observations. Wetland 4 As previously mentioned above, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company previously delineated Wetland 4 on January 21, 2000 and was named Wetland 2 in their report. The LGU determined that the delineation was accurate for this basin; therefore, Pinnacle did not re -delineate Wetland 4. During the August 9, 2002 field visit, Wetland PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION 6 4 was dominated by a near monotypic stand of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundenacea). Since Pinnacle did not delineate this basin, no hydrologic or soils information was ' collected. Suspect Areas A-E Pinnacle acquired the Farm Service Agency aerial photographs for the Site from 1979 to 2000 and the University of Minnesota climatological data for rainfall from 1979 to the present for Wright County. Pinnacle reviewed the photographs to determine if the suspect areas exhibited wetland signatures. None of the suspect areas exhibited wetland signatures for the majority of the years. However, a portion of Wetland 1 along the northern edge of the excavated ditch near the drive way did appear in a majority of the photographs and was flagged for survey. 4.0 CONCLUSION Pinnacle has performed a Wetland Determination and Delineation of the approximate ' 100-acre parcel of land located north of Interstate 94, south of 70th Street (Kadler Avenue) in Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota. The delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, ' updated February 25,1997. Three wetland areas were determined to have met the wetland criteria of hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. The estimated wetland boundaries were flagged and surveyed and were confirmed by Mr. Todd Udvig of SEH, representing the ' City of Albertville, and Ms. Colleen Allen from the Wright County Conservation district. The City of Albertville serves as the LGU administering the Wetland Conservation Act. 5.0 STANDARD OF CARE Environmental services performed by Pinnacle for the project have been conducted in a manner consistent with the degree of care and technical skill appropriately exercised by ' environmental professionals currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time constraints. Recommendations or opinions contained in this report represent our ' professional judgment and are generally based upon available information and currently accepted practices for environmental professionals. Other than this, no other warranty is implied nor is it expressed. PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION 7 6.0 REFERENCES ' USGS. 1967, Revised 1993 St. Michael, Minnesota Quadrangle, le, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. USGS. 1967, Revised 1993 Big Lake, Minnesota Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series ' (Topographic); U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), 1991 St. Michael, Minnesota Quadrangle, 7.5 ' Minute Series (Topographic) , U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. ' National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), 1991 Big Lake, Minnesota Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) , U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Protected Wetlands Inventory Map (PWI), 1996 Wright County Protected Water, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Eggers, Steve D. and Reed, Donald M., Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin,1997, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Lyon, John Grimson, Practical Handbook for Wetland Identification and Delineation, 1993, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation ' Manual,1987, updated on February 25,1997, Washington, D. C. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota,1983 Farm Service Agency 1979 through 2000 aerial photographs for Section 35, Township ' i ht Co , Minnesota 121 North,Range 24 West Wr PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Scope...............................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................ ..................2 2.1 Site Location and Use...................................................................................................2 2.2 Surveys and Maps.........................................................................................................2 2.2.1 Soil Survey.............................................................................................................2 2.2.2 USGS Topographic Maps.....................................................................................2 2.2.3 NWI Maps..............................................................................................................3 2.2.4 PWI Maps...............................................................................................................3 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION...................................................................................3 3.1 Methodology.................................................................................................................3 3.2 Wetland Descriptions................................................................................I...................4 Wetland1...............................................................................................................................4 Wetland2...............................................................................................................................5 Wetland3...............................................................................................................................6 Wetland4...............................................................................................................................6 SuspectAreas.........................................................................................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................7 5.0 STANDARD OF CARE..................................................................................................7 6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................8 DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................Last Page of Document PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. i WETLAND DELINEATION FIGURE I SITE LOCATION MAP WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN I W'A Z - 1 r - r r r r FIGURE 2 ' WRIGHT COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP r_ 1 1 r 1 .1 ' WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION ' Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN r 1 r . r 11 n I 11 1] 11 CD m o o cl, t% w cr o Q d w N .. w a_NZ ufJ o o � Ln d N O ' Z 04- � � I �°QZ:i N M p o ,-. ° 0 3 0 cO Q n__ 'IV'Il v n p J v m Q O go Z u u C io 1 C FIGURE 3 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN G' FIGURE 4 PROTECTED WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP I u ' WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN I1 K«: <\\. <�\2�: . .� .�wn I �§° <>1 \ FIGURE 5 1 1 WETLAND LOCATIONS MAP 1 1 j WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION ' Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN ft N p n D 'D W o �m N N m u APPENDIX A DATA FORMS Ul ' WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN - I DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 8/30/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? tlqzh � Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: WI -Wetland Plot ID: W I A Flags: 85 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Glycine Willd. Soybeans Herb UPI, 2. Polygonumn spp. Smartweed Herb FACW 3. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 70% Remarks: The soybeans were distressed and newly emergent smartweed was present. HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs Inundated Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks _Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Transect ID: W 1-Wetland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 85 Map Unit Name Cordova Drainage Class: Very poorly drained (Series and Phase): Field Observations Taxonomy (Subp-rouD): Tynic Areiaauolls Confirm Mapped Tvpe? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 10YR4/6 few faint Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 511 10YR4/6 many /distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime XXX Reducing Conditions XXX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks: Mottles increase with depth WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils XXX Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain: in Remarks) No (Circle) No No Distinct boundary between wetland and plowed field. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetlando No (Circle) 3/92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 8/30/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? VsNo Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (1QCIN Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes �v( (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W1 -Upland Plot ID: W1A Flags: 85 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Glycine Willd. Soybeans Herb FAC 2. Taraxacum officinile Common Dandelion Herb FACU 3. Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Herb FAC- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 0% Remarks: agricultural field planted with soybeans. Residual corn stalks were abundant in the field. Wetland boundary at edge of field. HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge XXX Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: > 18 (in.) upward from the wetland edge Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _Inundated _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Water Marks _Drift Lines _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOILS Transect ID: W1-Upland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 85 Map Unit Name 1094B-Angus-Cordova complex, 0 to 5 % slopes Drainage Class: Moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mollic Hapludalfs- Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 10-16 A SY 2/1 Clay loam 16-24 B 5Y 511 1 OYR 4/6 Few, faint Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: No hydric soil indicators within upper 12 inches WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes (go-) I Corn stubble from previous year had large stalks - not flooded this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (D(Circle) Approved by 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 8/30/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ZsNo Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yesv( (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W 1 -Wetland Plot ID: W 1 B Flags: 85 I Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 'LTT1 !•_L'T A T1[nN Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 2. Polygonumn spp. Smartweed Herb FACW 3. 4. 5. b. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100% Remarks: mostly Reed canary grass with smartweed in the plowed area HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs Inundated Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks X Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 11 This areas appears to have flooded some time this growing season. SOILS Transect ID: WI -Wetland Map Unit Name Cordova (Series and Phase): Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 85 Drainage Class: Very Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon • (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 10YR4/6 few faint Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 5/1 10YR4/6 many /distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime XXX Reducing Conditions XXX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks: Mottles increase with depth WETLAND DETERMINATION Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils' XXX Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain: in Remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? As No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland es No (Circle) Hydric Soils Present? No H wetland extends into plowed field. Approved by 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 8/30/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? KIWN Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 8 (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W 1 -Upland Plot ID: W1B Flags: 85 I Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VF.f_FT A TInN Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Glycine Willd. Soybeans Herb FAC 2. Taraxacum officinile Common Dandelion Herb FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 0% Remarks: agricultural field planted with soybeans. . HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks _Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Topography slopes 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOILS Transect ID: W 1-Upland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 85 Map Unit Name 1094B-Angus-Cordova complex, 0 to 5 % slopes Drainage Class: Moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mollic Hapludalfs- Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 511 IOYR 4/6 Few, faint Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks: No hydric soil indicators within upper 12 inches WETLAND DETERMINATION Concretions .High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List .Other (Explain: in Remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes II sample point above drift mark area. this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (5(Circle) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes & (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W2 -Wetland Plot ID: W2 Flags: 85 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VF:f F.TATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100% Remarks: Reed canary grass in the type 2 wetland, type 3 wetland contains cattails, arrowhead, wool grass, lesser duck weed, smartweed, and water plantain in the pond area HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks X Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) U wetland area is saturated just below surface. SOILS Transect ID: W1-Wetland Plot ID: Type 2/3 Map Unit Name Cordova (Series and Phase): # of Flags: 55 Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 10YR4/6 common /distinct Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 5/1 10YR4/6 many /distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime XXX Reducing Conditions XXX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Concretions XXX High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils XXX Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: Mottle frequency and contrast increase with depth, WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Hydric Soils Present? s No 1 Variable but distinct wetland boundary. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland No (Circle) DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? VsNo Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? K1qZN Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W2 -Upland Plot ID: W2 Flags. 55 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VF.CF.TATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Poa prantesis Kentucky Blue grass Herb FAC- 2. Taraxacum officinile Common Dandelion Herb FACU 3. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 4. Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Herb FACU- 5. 6. ?. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 20% Remarks: Distinct wetland boundary where vegetation change is present. HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) edge SOILS Transect ID: W1-Upland Plot ID: Type 2/3 ' Map Unit Name Cordova (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Argiaquolls Profile Description: # of Flags: 55 Field Observations Confirm Mapped Tvpe? Yes Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, ' inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 Clay loam 18-24 B 2.5Y 4/1 10YR 4/6 common, distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: No hydric soil indicators within upper 12 inches WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (Circle) Hydric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: Distinct vegetation change at wetland boundary Approvea ny tiyu�iAuL siyL t i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION - (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? UsNo the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Klqzh Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain gn reverse.) Transect ID: W2 -WetlandIs Plot ID: W213 Flags: 55 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2/3 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100% Remarks: Reed canary grass in the type 2 wetland IL — HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks X Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I wetland area is saturated just below surface. SOILS Transect ID: WI -Wetland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 55 Map Unit Name Cordova Drainage Class: poorly drained (Series and Phase): Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? es No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 10YR4/6 common /distinct Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 511 10YR4/6 many /distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon XXX High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime XXX Listed on Local Hydric Soils List XXX Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List XXX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: Mottle frequency and contrast increase with depth, WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Hydric Soils Present? s No Variable but distinct wetland boundary. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland -es No (Circle) Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOILS Transect ID: WI -Upland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 55 Map Unit Name Cordova Dra (Series and Phase): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 Clay loam 18-24 B 2.5Y 4/1 10YR 4/6 common, distinct Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks: No hydric soil indicators within upper 12 inches WETLAND DETERMINATION Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain: in Remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes (No-) I Distinct vegetation change at wetland boundary this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (5(Circle) Annroved by HOUSACE DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? VsNo Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W2 -Upland Plot ID: W2B Flags: 55 Wetland Type- Circular 39 Type 2/3 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Poa prantesis Kentucky Blue grass Herb FAC- 2. Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Herb FACU- 3. Achillea millefolium Yarrow Herb FACU 4. Bromus inermis Smooth Brome Herb UPL 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 20% Remarks: Distinct wetland boundary where vegetation change is present. HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks _Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey. Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) s 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? USNo Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? @ Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse.) Transect ID: W3 -Wetland Plot ID: W3 Flags: 7 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Phalaris arundacea Reed canary grass Herb FACW+ 2. Polygonumn spp. Smartweed Herb FACW 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100% Remarks: Reed canary starts were plowed field ends HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs Inundated Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks _Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: SOILS Transect ID: W3-Wetland Plot ID: Type 2/3 Map Unit Name 1094B-Angus-Cordova complex, 0 to 5 % slopes (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mollic Hapludalfs- Typic Argiaquolls # of Flags: 7 Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? es No ' Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, ' inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-18 A 5Y 2/1 10YR4/6 few faint Clay loam 18-24 B 5Y 511 10YR4/6 many /distinct Clay I I- - Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime XXX Listed on Local Hydric Soils List XXX Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List XXX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: Mottles increase with depth WETLAND DETERMINATION No (Circle) No No I Distinct boundary between wetland and plowed field. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland No (Circle) by DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Roden Property - Darkenwald Date: 9/3/02 Applicant/Owner: RLK-Kuusisto, LTD County: Wright Investigator. Pinnacle Engineering State: MN Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? KivaN Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain qn reverse.) Transect ID: W3 -Upland Plot ID: W3 Flags: 7 Wetland Type: Circular 39 Type 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Wetland Common name Stratum Indicator 1. Glycine Willd. Soybeans Herb UPL 2. Taraxacum ofcinde Common Dandelion Herb FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of Dominant Species in wetland sampling point that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 0% Remarks: agricultural field planted with soybeans. Wetland boundary at edge of field. HYDROLOGY XXX Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: XXX Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks _Drift Lines Field Observations: _Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) —Water-Stained Leaves _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOILS Transect ID: W1-Upland Plot ID: Type 2/3 # of Flags: 85 Map Unit Name 1094B-Angus-Cordova complex, 0 to 5 % slopes Drainage Class: Moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mollic Hapludalfs- Typic Argiaquolls Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon . (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-16 A 5Y 2/1 Clay loam 16-24 B 5Y 511 10YR 4/6 Few, faint Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain: in Remarks) Remarks: No hydric soil indicators within upper 12 inches WETLAND DETERMINATION r phytic Vegetation Present? Yes (Circle) d Hydrology Present? Yes c Soils Present? Yes Soybeans were healthy to edge of field. this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (Circle) 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B Wright County Precipitation Chart WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Darkenwald Retail Center Albertville, MN 2�2 8os z s �U• 19e 9 9� Fz. 9�S t 0 9a0 l2 -,9k E sly �O� Y A� I� NI 8� l C� l 9b- I S � I S� I I O� I � N l a C� GI. 9 SS6I a� 21 V I c'd,6I I`Q6l O� 6l 6� cM C> N N Ln O o tO I (sagpui) uopejidpajj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a DISTRIBUTION Wetland Determination and Delineation Darkenwald Retail Development Albertville, MN Copy # Number of Copies 3 Michelle Caron RLK-Kuusisto 6110 Blue Circle Dr., Suite 100 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER Mike Hultgren Manager -Environmental Engineering Copy Number Original Copy 1, Copy 2 APPENDIX C Agency Letter comments on AUAR Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN ' APR°.,02'2003 0e:15 3202036089 MNDOT ST CLOUD #2927 P.002/002 �"4"Fsc"q Minnesota Department of Transportation 1 Transportation District 3 r 3725 12'h Street North office Tel: 3201654-5134 or. Ta St. Cloud, MN 56303-2130 Fax: 320/203-6089 April 2, 2003 Mr. Peter J. Carlson Engineer, City of Albertville S.E.H., inc, ' 1220 26"' Avenge South P.O. Box 1717 St. Cloud, MN 66302-1717 I Re: Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) Albertville Business Park ' Dear Mr. Carlson: The Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 3 has reviewed the Albertville AUAR for impacts to the state to ink highway system. In Section 17. Water Quality: The document states "runoff Impacting the site includes a significant amount of salt from i-94, which greatly reduces the watar quality". We find the use of the term ' "significant" to by an exaggeration in the absence of +quantitative data to the contrary. The application of chemicals to Minnesota roads rarely causes acute or chronic impacts to aquatic life. At the same time, the use of delcing chemicals does provide a major contribution to human safety. In Section 21. Traffic: €xlstinq Conditions: Please.note that a traffic signal will be installed at the ramp terminal Intersection of WS 1-94 at CSAH 37 during 2003. Planned and Proar_a_rnmed Roadway Improvements. Interchange access modifications at I- 94/CSAH 19 have not been planned for or programmed by Mn/DOT. Additional access to or from 1-94 at this location will be the responsibility of the local government units and is subject to federal ' interstate access guidelines. Regional System Impacts: The interchanges on 1-94 at Albertville are under the jurisdiction of ' Mn/DOT District 3, and would not be added to the Metro Ramp Metering System. This letter represents a review by the Baxter & St. Cloud Mn/QOT offices, Other concerns raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you under separate letter. Thank you for the 1 opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, ' ll 4e Claudia Dumont Transportation Planner Cc: Jason Alcoit - Mn/QOT Offioe of Environmental Services ' John Darkenwald — project proposer An equal opportunity employer ' 04/02/03 WED 09:19 [TX/RX NO 61911 VY'v,i— A-1 a'nn —V �&V YUV.L OGrl WJ007/008 1 ' April 1, 2003 0 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Peter J. Carlson, PE, City Engineer SEH, Inc. 1220 — 25t1i Avenue South P.O. Box 1717 St. Cloud, MN 55302-1717 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40L0 [FACSIMILE] 10riginal to follow by U.S. Mail] RE: Albertville Business Park Project, Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Dear Mr. Carlson: ' The Department of Natural Resources. (DNR) has reviewed the Draft AUAR for the Albertville Business Park Project. The project is a proposed mixed -use development on approximately 111 acres in Albertville, which will involve approximately 750,000 square feet ofbuilding including light ' industrial, office/warehouse and commercial use. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Fj Items 6 & 10. Description & Cover Types The AUAR states that buildings will occupy 25% of the buildable land, or about 19 acres (page 3), but when parking areas are factored in, the total amount of impervious surface is projected to be about 60 acres. The DNR recommends that the Local Government Unit require parking lots (which by subtraction, would amount to about 40 acres) be constructed of pervious asphalt. This would reduce the amount of runoff and pollutants going into wetlands and allow them to recharge from underneath. Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources As proposed, the project does not meet the sequencing requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The wetlands on site are degraded, but not without some natural vegetation and wildlife value. In particular, fragmenting Wetland 2 would substantially degrade it further and reduce its value for wildlife (see exhibit 7 of the wetland delineation report). The DNR recommends maintaining the connective-ness of wetland 2, and if possible, enhancing its value through vegetation manipulation and improved water quality and quantity. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity Printed on Recycled Paper Minimum of 100% Post -Con p R cr \VIE � -657 AFR9 0 7 2003 ainin a rh Al", ELLIO-R HENDRICKSON SAINT CLOUD, MN-- -- VY/ V I / VU 1U. V 1 1•t" UGV 410 YUVy aL•n 1911 Peter J. Carlson, PE, City Engineer ' April 1, 2003 Page 2 ' The fragmentation of Wetland 2 can be avoided by either,1) combining Lot 5 with Lot 3, and/or, 2) accessing Lot 5 through Lot 3, instead of through Lot 6 (see exhibit 7 of the wetland delineation report). This approach would minimize wetland impacts and must be accomplished according to ' WCA, if at all practicable. The DNR does not see a justification for filling wetland 3, regardless of its size or condition. ' Item 13. Water Use The DNR is not aware of any current water supply issues in Albertville, however, the AUAR should address what would happen if any tenants of the park are large water users and what impacts that ' might have on Albertville's water supply system. Item 17. Water Quality: stormwater and surface water runoff ' The project site currently drains toward School Lake (86-25p) through the Albertville outlet mall site. The AUAR should have a greater emphasis on stormwater quantity and quality. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review this AUAR. We look forward to receiving the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a later date. Please contact me at 651-296-1548 with any questions about this letter. ' Sincerely, ' Diane K. Anderson, Environmental Planner Environmental Policy & Review Section ' Office of Management & Budget Services (651) 296-1548 ' c: Kathleen Wallace Wayne Barstad Mike North ' Dale Homuth Rebecca Wooden John Darkenwald, Darkenwald Real Estate ' Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB (#20020932) Albertville DraftAUAR_dka:doc 11 7 I�] VY/ V 1 / VIA 1J. JY 1"M JLV 16002/008 Hakanson Anderson 3641 Thurston Avenue, Suite 141, Anoka, MN 55303 ASSOC., Inc. Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520 April 2, 2003 Pete Carlson SEH Engineering Services 605 Franklin Avenue NE PO Box 51 St. Cloud, MN 56302-0051 Re: AUAR Comments for the Albertville Business Park Project Dear Mr. Carlson: The City of Otsego has reviewed the AUAR for the Albertville Business Park and has the following comments. The stormwater calculations of the peak runoff out of Otsego into Albertville appear appropriate as they are very similar to the peak flows shown in the City of Otsego Study of the Otsego Creek completed in February of 2003. The overall location of the project is in the vicinity of the proposed Kadler Avenue Interchange ' with I-94 being reviewed as part of the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study. If the interchange is to be located in this area, some additional right-of-way will be necessary for ramps. It was indicated at the last Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study meeting, a moratorium on the adjacent parcels should be considered until location and a proposed design for the interchange can be more closely determined. ' We request that appropriate portions of this development be reserved for future right-of-way at least until after the Northeast Wright County I-94 Corridor Study is completed. Evaluation of the need for right-of-way preservation can be better determined then. ' 67`i' Street is proposed to intersect with Kadler Avenue. This intersection may cause conflicts with close proximity with the above -mentioned interchange. If the development does proceed as ' shown in the AUAR, we request that Kadler Avenue from 67`i' Street to 701h Street be upgraded from a gravel road to a paved section at the Developer's expense. Although the road is '/2 in Otsego, it serves no benefit to Otsego as MN Road facility borders the entire west side of this ' section of road. Therefore, the City of Otsego should not be required to pay for any of the upgrade. ICivil &Municipal L.� 1! API 0 7 2003 L Engineering 25 �....�-^- G:\Municipal\AOTSEG02000\2500\2003\ot2500pc.d6andSurveyingfor 5lIQ€dT,ELLIOTT, fi NDRICKSON r..._.-... SAINT rLOUD, MN VY/ V 1 / VJ 1J. JJ Pt1A JLV GGU %avi JbK R 003/008 Attached is the transportation comments. If you have any questions or comments you may contact me at 763-427-5860. Sincerely, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. Ron d J. ner, P RJW:dlc Enclosures cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk 4 G:\Municipal\AOTSE002000\2500\2003\ot2500po.doe Hakanson Anderson ®® Assoc., Inc. C 10004/008 Hakanson 1 Anderson Assoc., Inc. IMEMORANDUM 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303 Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520 I To: Ron Wagner, PE, Otsego City Engineer From: Jim Johnson, PE, Transportation Engineer IDate: March 27, 2003 Re: Albertville Business Park Alternative Urban Area Wide Review HAA Project No.: OT2500 ' Per your request, I have reviewed Item #21 (Traffic) of the Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) for the Albertville Business Park project as prepared by RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd, dated February 20, 2003, and I would offer the following comments: ' l . In general, I found the detailed traffic analysis performed by SEH, Inc. to be technically sound and well-done. However, I felt that it was too narrowly focused in ' evaluating the traffic impacts of the new developments on the adjacent streets and intersections. The concept plan for the Albertville Business Park (Exhibit 3) shows 67th Street being extended westward to Kadler Avenue and Keystone Avenue being extended northward from 67t1' Street to 70th Street. Yet, no traffic projections and analysis are performed on Kadler Avenue, 70t1i Street or the intersections of Kadler Avenue/671h Street, Kadler Avenue/70th Street, and 70"' Street/Keystone Avenue. ' Likewise, the future development of the "Western Sanitary Sewer District of Otsego' (identified as background growth in this report), particularly to the east of CSAH # 19, is likely to use 70th Street, Maciver Avenue and the I-94/CSAH 437 interchange ' rather than using the CSAH #19 — CSAH #37 routing as promoted in this study. The traffic analysis needs to be expanded to include more than just CSAH #19 from 70th Street to 50th Street and CSAH #37 from Kadler Avenue to the 1-94 interchange. 2. As mentioned in this AUAR, a detailed I-94 Corridor Study is currently underway for Eastern Wright County involving the Cities of Albertville, Otsego and St. Michael as well as Wright County. A major transportation system alternative being evaluated in that Corridor Study is an interchange with 1-94 at or near the Kadler Avenue alignment. If that interchange is deemed to be needed and desirable, right-of-way ' may be needed and should be dedicated or purchased in the southwest corner of the Albertville Business Park development. Such an interchange would make a 67"' Street/Kadler Avenue intersection undesirable due to its close proximity to the I-94 ramps and the 70th Street/Kadler Avenue intersection. Civil trMunicipal "� Engineering G:\Municipal\AursEG02000\2500\2003\ot250OAlb do%i *66991,fff.doc ' `-�::°'';. ; L9J 0U5/008 3. The trip generation section of the traffic analysis reduces the number of daily trips on t the area's major roadway system due to internal -internal trips and such a reduction is appropriate. Yet, in reviewing the Albertville Business Park Concept Plan (Exhibit 3),1 find no direct transportation link between it and the Albertville Outlet Mall to the east-southeast. All vehicular traffic between the two (2) developments must access CSAH #19. And, in the interest of public safety, I find it unconscionable that the Outlet Mall has only a single point of ingress -egress. A secondary means of access to ' and from the Outlet Mall should be incorporated into this development proposal such as the extension of Keystone Avenue to the southeast and east. ' Specific comments regarding the AUAR text for "Traffic" include: 4. Near the bottom of Page 16 of 22, it states "70t1' Street runs east/west from the site to CSAH #19". In fact, 70th Street continues eastward to Maciver Avenue as a 2-lane, ' rural section, gravel road. Maciver Avenue then runs north -south from 80th Street to CSAH #37 and provides an alternative means of access to both proposed developments. As such, the 70"' Street-Maciver Avenue — CSAH #37 routing should also be analyzed. 5. On Page 17 of 22, Bullet #1 and Bullet #6 under Planned and Programmed Roadway ' Improvements appear to be a duRlication of roadway widening along CSAH #19 from Outlet Mall Road to north of 67t Street. 6. Table 21.1 or 22.1 (per paragraph above it) on Page 18 of 22 provides Level -of - Service for seven (7) area intersections but does not indicate the year. The second paragraph on Page 18 of 22 states that it is the "Build Year PM Peak Hour Levels -of - Service", but the "Build Year" is not stated. The detailed traffic analysis by SEH, Inc. in Appendix G identifies that the background growth (other developments in Albertville & Otsego) will occur by Year 2010 while these two (2) proposed developments will have a minimum 10-year build -out (to Year 2013 or beyond). Are the background traffic volumes, development traffic volumes and follow-up intersection capacity analysis for Year 2010, 2013 or some other year? 7. The lower half of Page 18 of 22 identifies modifications to the surrounding roadway infrastructure which is limited to CSAH #19 and CSAH #37 improvements. ' Alternative access options or routing, such as an I-94/Kadler interchange with Kadler Avenue improvements between 1-94 and 70th Street or the 70`h Street/Maciver Avenue/CSAH #37 routing, should, at least, be mentioned if not analyzed. 8. The addition of a legend to Figure 1 in Appendix G would help in identifying the two (2) proposed developments as well as the background growth areas mentioned in the ' first two paragraphs on Page 1 of Appendix G. 9. The "Planned Developments" heading in the middle of Page 2 of Appendix G should be modified to "proposed developments" to be consistent with text above and below it on the same page. Hakanson Anderson G:\Municipal\AOISE-GO2000\2500\2003\ot2500Aibertville Business Park.doe Assoc., Inc. U4/ U! / U3 10; 00 CAA .3ZU ZZU 4.iU1 bhu IA006/008 1 ' 10. Line 3 of the final bullet at the bottom of Page 2 of Appendix G states "There is over 2600 housing units and an industrial park platted for this area. The word "platted" should be changed to "planned" or "anticipated". "almost 11. The blanket statement found at the top of Page 3 of Appendix G that all of the regional traffic from Otsego will pass through the City of Albertville on County Road (or CSAH) #19" is probably true for the existing conditions of the existing ' roadways. However, it may be dramatically altered in the future depending on the interchange locations along I-94. In addition, the paving of 70t" Street and Maciver Avenue to CSAH #37 will make that a desirable travel route, particularly for those ' living and/or working to the east of CSAH #19 in Otsego or Albertville. 7 L 77 �7 n u E H 12. Table 1 on Page 4 of Appendix G provides the "direction of approach for traffic in and out of Albertville". What is the basis for arriving at the percentages shown? I would have expected a higher percentage for I-94 to/from the east (metro area) than for I-94 to/from the west (Monticello/St. Cloud). 13. As with Item #6 above, Table 5 and Table 6 on Pages 6 & 7 of Appendix G respectively do not indicate the year of analysis (2010, 2013 or some other year). 14. The last sentence on Page 7 of Appendix G states, "If this traffic were to be relocated to a full access interchange at County Road (or CSAH) #19, overall congestion would be reduced". Would it indeed be reduced or simply relocated to the I-94 on/off ramp intersections with CSAH #19? The traffic analysis has considered only improvements along CSAH #19 and CSAH #37 and has not evaluated alternatives for mitigating the anticipated congestion. Again, the traffic analysis used for evaluating this single routing alternative of CSAH #19 — CSAH #37 is very satisfactory, but additional routing alternatives need to be analyzed and evaluated to arrive at the best possible "area wide transportation system" in terms of operations and safety. G:\Municipal\AO'fSEGO2000\2500\2003\ot2500Albertville Business Park.doc Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. EXHIBITS Albertville Business Park Albertville, MN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Ulm. Ile11 W � �K Yin Maeito�nke, ® PAPeone:x01.sa—a N : 00$ 050-1 ' enn.rlk-kewistoa 6110 Mae Cireke Dr.- Suits j100• Minnetonka, MM M ALBERTVILLE BUSINESS PARK SITE LOCATION MAP SHEET EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT i 2001239M LkC9 N11�Yiq��Pavl,l . 00„ �l,ne .."U alvp anlG U„Y B°�'--a�`°a i:del :•tea. `y�. 1 OfBSS NW 'a3Ala Ala 'dVOa aanla '3'N SESL zo/az/u NVId 1N3PIdol3A3o 3AISN3N38MW �f t 3 1 `d 1 S 3 d 3 2j inn u a p vHyFVIOS3IN1 VdEnS 3N Z 3SVH S33��3NiSf18 Y++o w i L+ 1 I � . 1 1 �Wi s. ; OWL } s: L LU 6go I1 Ii jCD/ o �� ^ J/ NJ a �O NLL r '1.\ // J f' 0� r, l Z m a w w CL LU cn t� uj / < a a E...._..... I I f , Y . J J ° $, � H Ol S I C �J f .. . _ J w m m OVCSS NW '93AIU N13 'OVOU USAIV 'B'N SCSL 1 V i S 3 V 3 NYlcf iN3VMtMdU / LOYd"I ONVI13%% 3 � Viommin -dTWLam plemue)pep Z 3SVHd-)IHVd SS3Nisne cl I 3-nuus3e1v ......... ... ...... ... ... .. ..... < 0 .. .. ...... . (D . ............ <! . ............ .. o " 0 04 CIA Q of CM < 0 < 'v %<' 0 ob .... . ....... 0 Cl N r4) t LI) ......... ....... ... ....... .. C) 0 LU 77;F777" co z 00 U) LU Lli < < ..... ..... . - (L LU 5 7- z U- w (L m = = m = W 09999 NW 'UMIN X13 'OVOW V3AIV IN SCOL M IIWIM 3 1 V i S 3 1 V 3 6 W1053NNO mumew plemue)ijep z 3S"IdANtsne )MSY3 64 W I J.- MTFU < ra LLJ .............. n _ 02, LJ L'i u I I I I 11`11111111111 v < LLJ w z < Li V) M U-i < 0 Ln V) 1 O I = I N ) , I it , :1V :J4 X, 4 AL 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... , 7 V ur VV 0 7ff C) I C40 PM? U. .4 0 Go ji CL 0 cl I Mm LL .. ..... .... . co IN, fol, kv 04 co VW MITT 3nN3AY :URW A Co>- ui LL 0 3: H If LU W LU < co 0 o 0W F- CL