1994-08-18 Cohen Development Site Wetland Issues
.r.~o~u~
TO: Greg Frank
~~
FROM: Kelly J. Bopray
DATE: August Z8, 1994
SUBJECT: Cohen Development Site - Albertville, Minnesota
MFRA »10821
This memo outlines the potential wetlands issues on the Cohen
Development Site in Albertville, MN which you and I visited on August
17, 1994. One wetland complex was identified which is in the
approximate location shooan on the attached NWI map. The southern part
of this basin is a seasonally flooded/partially drained {PEtiICd) Type 3
wetland. The northern edge of this basin and part of the drainageway
from the north, is a temporarily flooded/partially drained (PEMAd) Type
1 wetland. Much of this Type 1 area is farmed and of lom quality.
Although this wetland is partially drained, the area would still be
subject to wetland regulations by the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). If the impacts aze limited to
the PEMAd area and less than 0.5 aces, a Corps of Engineers nationwide
permit should be obtainable with few problems (Gary Elfman is the COE
contact}. Zf 0.5 to 3.0 acres of impacts are required, the Corp permit
could be obtained but it would be mere difficult due to review by other
regulatory agencies. More than 3 acres of impacts would probably not be
permitted by the COE because alternative sites may be available that
don't impact wetlands.
Under the WCA, a local unit of government (LGU) will have
jurisdiction over the wetlands on the site. Wright County has accepted
the LGU authority although it lists Wr-fight County Soil and Water
Conservation District (Sq+ICD) staff as the contact person. The City of
Albertville has. delegated its LGU authority to the SWCD.
tiro- i ~-139a i~ ~ << FrQr1 COHEN GEUELOF,"LENT CO
i.
r-'
Greg Frank
August 19, 2994
Page Two
TO 15I2a9731~i F.O~
Under the WCA, alternatives analysis is required for any wetland
impacts over 400 Sr'. However, if the impacts are limited to low quality
(drained, farmed, fertilized, pesticides, sediment deposition) wetlands
and mitigation is provided, the local unit of government may waive t2^.e
required alternatives analysis and sequencing. If the above conditions
are not met, the project would have to prove that the wetland impacts
are not avoidable before 2:1 mitigation would be acceptable. If the
sequencing is waived, there are a couple options for mitigation:
~.. Restore wetlands on site by raising the water level. This is
the preferred method of mitigation, but you only get 2/3
oredit for the area o~ PEMAd converted to PEMC and 0 credit
for the PEMCd converted to Pz..NiF. Another obstacle would be
the possible negative impact to adjacent upstream agricultural
draintile systems.
2. Create a wetland basin by excavation along side the existing
wetland.
MCCOMBS FRANFt ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
(612} 476-6010
FAX ( 61,2 } 476-8532
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - August 22, 1994
COHEN DEVEI,OPM£NT COMPANY _
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA: RETAIL OUTLET MALL ~.
CONCEPT COST ANALYSIS - 50 ACRE SITE, 350,000 SQUARE FOOT CENTER
SITE WORFC - GRADING S 3b0,000
- LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION S 300,000
UTILITIES S 500,000
PAVING AND PARKING LOT LIG'cITS 51,350,000
OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION , S 200,000
ENGINEERING DESIGN FEES S 160,000
MISCELLANEOUS FEES S 100,000
CONTINGENCY {10$) S 300 X000
TOTAL (WITH 10$ CONTINGENCY) S3,270,000