Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
4a. Rosemount, Negative Declaration on EAW
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner 612 DATE: November 18, 1988 ISUBJ: Evaluation of Rosemount Environmental Assessment Worksheet BACKGROUD ' The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) stipulates specific rules and procedures for conducting an environmental review program for specific types of construction projects. ' Different types of projects may mandate an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) (Attachment #1) . The Rosemount facility was required to I prepare an EAW because it resulted in construction of a new industrial facility over 200, 000 square feet (Attachment #2) . The local government usually implements the review process and makes all the necessary decisions . The term applied to the ' reviewing agency by the EQB is the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) . The City of Chanhassen is acting as the RGU in this case and has arranged for the preparation of the EAW by the developer, ' a notice of the comment period in the EQB Monitor (their newsletter) , and has distributed the EAW document to all required referral agencies. The comment period expired on November 16 , 1988 . The City has reviewed comments from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transporation, the Minnesota Pollution Control ' Agency and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The comments from the Metropolitan Council required additional infor- mation to be provided concerning water quality impact to Lake ' Riley. The applicant has provided an addendum to the EAW which addresses this concern. The RGU (City Council) now has to decide whether an Environmental ' Impact Statement needs to be prepared. If an EIS (a positive declaration) is necessary, a "scoping period" is necessary for the preparation of the EIS document. The scoping period will ' identify what issues will be addressed in the EIS. The scoping period requires an additional 45 days and the EIS process requires an additional 3 to 4 months for review. I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18 , 1988 Page 4 B. Physical Effects on Water and Water I Quality The DNR commented on the physical effects on water and water � I quality. The DNR stated that their major concerns for the propo- sal � ! were the protection of water quality of Lake Susan and poten- tial effects on wetlands . The DNR stated that Lake Susan must be protected from low quality stormwater runoff and that the shore- land rules should be strictly adhered to with comprehensive ero- sion control measures being implemented. The DNR recommended that the developer use terracing and back sloping during construction to divert all runoff away from the lake. The DNR suggested that temporary sedimentation basins be used to control runoff during construction instead of using the ponding area ( the small Class B wetland proposed in the EAW) . The storm sewer inlets or outfalls should not be used without adequate filters until all construction and development, including the establish- ment of turf, is complete. The Metropolitan Council commented on the effects of the develop- ment on the water and water quality (Attachment #4) . The Metropolitan Council stated that the major issue of the proposal is runoff and the effect on water quality of Lake Riley. The concern of the Met Council for this project is similar to others that the Council has reviewed in the past three years in this watershed (Hidden Valley PUD, Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Hills) . The Met Council' s concern with the project is that it increases the flow of stormwater through Rice Marsh Lake which leads to direct increases in phosphorus delivery to Lake Riley. Lake Riley is an important lake in the region and is sensitive to phosphorus pollution. The Council recommends that the increased flow of water to Rice Marsh Lake be reduced to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the Met Council commented that the City of Chanhassen must assess the cumulative impacts of future developments in its watershed to prevent any long term damage to the water quality of Lake Riley. Staff met with a representatives from the Met Council and Barr Engineering ( representing the applicant) . Barr Engineering was asked to provide additional information in the form of an addendum to the EAW which comments on the impact of the Rosemount proposal to the water quality of Lake Riley and also reviews any means to mitigate immediate impacts to Lake Riley. The applicant, through Barr Engineering, provided an addendum to staff and the Metropolitan Council (Attachment #5 ) . The Met Council felt that the addendum adequately described the impact of the project to Lake Riley and that the City must still assess the impacts of this and other proposals within the watershed district to Lake Riley. The Met Council reviewed the EAW on November 17 , 1988 and made the following recommendations : 1 I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18, 1988 Page 5 1 . The amended EAW fully assesses the impacts on Lake Riley. The project is inconsistent with Council Water Resources Guide chapter policies because of the likely degradation of the lake. The proposed development alone has no great impact, however, the cumulative impacts of this type of ' development in this watershed have led to the degradation of the lake. The proposed restoration project may ultimately address the long term degradation of Lake Riley' s water ' quality, but this depends on the project being implemented as well as a planned feasibilty study for the control of phosphorus from Rice Marsh Lake' s sediments . 2 . This is the fourth major project to occur in this watershed since the Council studied Lake Riley in 1982 . Each time the Council recommended that the City of Chanhassen consider the ' cumulative impacts of future developments on the lake' s quality in order to provide long term protection of the lake. Sampling data now demonstrates a degradation in the lake' s ' water quality and we feel more strongly that the city must address these concerns immediately. This is further necessi- tated because the city has made a commitment to improving the lake' s water quality. 3 . The City of Chanhassen, in coordination with the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, should evaluate the long term impacts of development in the city on Lake Riley, then implement measures that will prevent any further degra- dation of the lake and, hopefully, restore its water quality. 4 . The EAW should clarify whether intersections at Hwy. 5 and Market Boulevard and Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 101 will be operating at level of service D before or after Hwy. 5 is reconstructed. ' 5 . That these comments be forwarded to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The city is pursuing, with the watershed district and the City of Eden Prairie, receipt of a grant from the Pollution Control ' Agency which will be used for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Water Project. Part of this project would be to mitigate the phosphorus runoff from Rice Marsh Lake into Lake Riley. The city has made a commitment to pursue the Clean Water Project and to make improvements to the Chain of Lakes which would include Lake Riley. The Met Council understands that the city is pursuing this project and feels that this would be a proper measure to help improve the water quality of Lake Riley. It was not recom- mended or required by Met Council for the Rosemount facility to provide additional ponding on sites . 1 I r Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18, 1988 Page 6 C. Air Quality and Noise , Air pollution, dust and noise impacts will be experienced during construction phases . Construction of the site will occur during winter months where natural climatic conditions will keep dust amounts to a minimum. In addition, watering trucks will be used if dust levels reach unacceptable levels. I A minimum amount of noise from construction equipment will be generated during construction of the site. The nearest receptors from the noise level will be the Lutheran Church approximately 800 feet north of the site and single residences approximately 900 feet to the south across Lake Susan. It is expected that noise levels will be within the acceptable PCA 65dba range so as not to have an adverse impact on occupants of those housing or users of the church facilities. Equipment will only be operated during the hours of 7: 30 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. during a five day work week and will not operate on weekends . D. Solid and Hazardous Wastes The solid waste generated from the Rosemount facility will be of a composition and quality acceptable to designated solid waste depository and depository transfer facilities in the areas receiving the waste. Solid waste will be picked up and trans- ferred to these depositories by standard refuse trucks on a contract basis . Suspended iron and other chemicals that are by products of Rosemount' s chemical laboratory that will operate from the building will be treated, neutralized and either discharged into the municipal sanitary sewer system or carried to a designated off site disposal facility by a credited waste disposal organization under contract with Rosemount. The quan- tities of this neutralized chemical waste will be small and well within EPA, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and PCA stan- dards . The EPA, MWCC and PCA will receive reports on a quarterly basis to assure compliance with their standards . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commented that an ' industrial waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the MPCA for the discharge of industrial chemical waste water for the sanitary sewer. The MPCA stated that if an Army Corps of ' Engineers 404 permit is required for the project, that a401 cer- tification by the MPCA is also required. E. Fish, Wildlife and Plants ' The proposed Rosemount facility will result in dredging and complete alteration of the small Class B wetland. The alteration of the small Class B wetland will cause displacement of natural wildlife such as birds and small animals using that wetland for habitat. The larger Class A wetland is being preserved which 1 I I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18 , 1988 Page 7 will remain as an existing habitat for wildlife on that site. DNR commented that they did not agree that wildlife displaced from the modified wetland would relocate in the other basin . ' The DNR felt that wildlife impacts can be partially mitigated by proper landscaping and recommended that landscaping for wildlife be provided around the smaller altered Class B wetland. ' F. Archeological and Historical Resources The applicant provided an archeological report performed by an archeological consultant to determine whether there were impor- tant historical sites within the property that should not be disturbed (Attachment #6) . The archeological report discovered potential archeological or historical site along the slope north of Lake Susan. These areas are located where the property will not be disturbed by the proposed facility. There were other possible sites located within the cultivated areas where the site will be improved. The archeological report did not feel that these sites would be of significant impacts since they were located where the land has been farmed and disturbed. Therefore, ' any potential significant historical sites on the property would be located in areas where they will not be disturbed by the deve- lopment of the site. The Minnesota Historical Society did not comment on the EAW. G. Transportation ' TH 5 and Carver County Road 17 will receive the majority of traf- fic from the Rosemount facility. The 1986 ADT of Co. Rd. 17 is 4 ,000 trips between TH 5 and Park Road and 2 , 800 trips from Park Road to Lyman Boulevard. For TH 5 volumes were 15 ,500 east of Co. Rd. 17 and 13 ,800 trips west of Co. Rd. 17 . Lyman Boulevard which ties into Co. Rd. 17 on the south recorded volumes of 150 east of Co. Rd. 17. and 2 ,300 trips west. Annual increases of ADT volumes since 1986 are estimated to be 6 .5% . The Rosemount project is expected to add 1, 400 to 1 ,600 trips to these ADT volumes . Forty percent of those trips will be from the east, 25% from the west, 15% from the north and 20% south. In addition, a traffic study done for the city by Benshoof and Associates eval- uated the impacts on the intersections of Market Boulevard and TH 5 as well as Hwy. 101 at TH 5 . The traffic study assumed full development of the Rosemount site by a facility of its size and the successful redevelopment of downtown Chanhassen which is to ' the northeast of the subject site across TH 5 . The conclusion was that after the described full development occurs that both intersections will operate at a D-Level of service during peak hours . ' The Department of Transportation commented on the Traffic Section of the EAW and stated that MnDOT has been working with the City of Chanhassen to coordinate future improvements to TH 5 in the Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18 , 1988 Page 8 vicinity of the proposed development ( Attachment #7) . The improve- I ments are tentatively scheduled for construction in 1989 and 1990 . The proposed improvements by MnDOT and the City must be in place to provide adequate access to the development. MnDOT also stated that drainage of the site should be coordinated with District 5 Hydrolics Engineer . MnDOT is concerned that the rate of runoff not increase as the Lake Susan outlet under TH 101 will be unable to handle any increase . Met Council requested that the EAW clarify whether intersections at Hwy. 5 and Market Boulevard and Hwy. 5 and 101 will be operating at level of service D before or after Hwy. 5 is reconstructed. Carver County did not comment on the EAW. , H. Waste Water Treatment Since the EAW was distributed, the site plan has been amended to provide details on the stormwater management of the site. The faci- lity is proposing to use the smaller Class B wetland as a stormwater retention basin to control runoff volumes from the facility to main- tain the predevelopment rate. There will be an average of 180 , 000 GPT of water required by the facility of the 180 ,000 GPT, 38 ,000 will be discharged into the sanitary sewer system as waste water and 119 ,000 GPT will be used as- a non-contact machinery process water. None of the machinery pro- cess water or other waste water discharged from the facility will be directed into either of the two wetland areas . The applicant has recently advised the city that Rosemount intends to recycle the 119, 000 gallons of water through the use of cooling towers. They have verbally stated that they will not discharge ANY of this non-contact cooling water into the wetlands or storm sewer system at any time. In the event that they need to discharge any water from the cooling towers, they would discard this into the sanitary sewer system. In this scenario, they would need to obtain a discharge permit from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) . In the site plan review, staff has requested that Rosemount sypply the city with details regarding the cooling tower. The applicant should also advise the city what volume of non-contact cooling water they would discharge into the sanitary sewer if this scenario was to occur. The Project Manager, Dave Gassner, also stated that the EAW was the critical "time element" and that they decided to revise the plans to recycle water after the EAW had been filed. Rosemount is more than willing to provide the information to staff to meet the necessary requirements. Any industrial chemical waste water discharged into the sanitary sewer system will be pretreated and neutralized in accordance with 11 I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18 , 1988 Page 9 ' state PCA and federal EPA requirements and procedures . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commented that an industrial waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the MPCA for the discharge of industrial chemical waste water for the sanitary sewer (Attachment #8) . The MPCA stated that if an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is required for the project, a 401 certification by the ' MPCA is also required. EXTENT TO WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION ' BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY The developer will have to obtain the following local, state and federal permits/approvals before construction. ' Level of Government Type of Application Status ' Federal: Army Corps of Engineers Grading permit Pending 1 State: Local : ' Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed Grading & Excavation Pending District City Final Plat Approval Approved ISite and Building Plan Pending - Street Vacation Approved HRA approval of Approved Redevelopment Plan and Modification of TIF ' Agreement Wetland Alteration Permit Pending ' Grading Permit Pending EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND ICONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES A major issue concerning the EAW is the stormwater runoff and downstream effects on Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. As noted ' earlier, the applicant has provided an addendum discussing the increased impact to Lake Riley due to the development of the property. The city will be participating in the future, with the Riley Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District and the City of Eden Prairie in a grant program to address the Lake Riley chain I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18 , 1988 Page 10 of lakes water quality issues . A result of this study will pro- ' vide a means to remove the concentration of phosphorus located in Rice Marsh Lake which impacts the water quality of Lake Riley. Should the grant be approved, the city will proceed to provide mitigative measures against the decreased water quality to Lake Riley due to increased stormwater from upland development. TYPE, EXTENT AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ' The EAW identified several concerns. First, the major concern was the down stream impacts from stormwater runoff to Lake Riley. The Met Council as in the past has stated that any increased stormwater from development within the watershed area will result in con- centration of phosphorus entering Lake Riley. The Met Council does , not have any answers to resolve this problem other than not continue to provide for development within the watershed. The Met Council continues to make these comments so that the City of Chanhassen is aware of the resulting degradation of Lake Riley as a result of development within the watershed. Again, the city is participating and receiving grant money for Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Water Project which will result in removing the phosphorus concentration from Rice Marsh Lake which is negatively impacting Lake Riley. The Met Council is satisfied with the city making this effort to miti- gate the existing problem. I Another concern as a result of the review of the EAW was the impact to the Class B wetland. The DNR stated that they would prefer that separate ponding be provided to store stormwater rather than using the wetlands existing on site. They also recommended that mitiga- tive measures be proposed after the alteration of the Class B wetland that would allow it to still be used as a wildlife habitat, 1 i .e. landscaping for wildlife. The Department of Natural Resources also recommended that the developer use terracing and backsloping during construction to divert runoff away from the lake and to use temporary sedimentation basins to control runoff during construction instead of using the ponding area proposed in the EAW. It was commented by the Met Council that it should be clarified whether intersections of Hwy. 5 and Market Boulevard and Hwy. 5 and 101 will be operating at a level of D service before or after Hwy. 5 reconstruction. MnDOT stated that proposed improvements by , Chanhassen and MnDOT to Hwy. 5 must be in place to provide adequate access to this development and the drainage plan for the site should be coordinated with the District 5 Hydrolics Engineer so that the rate of runoff not increase as the Lake Susan outlet on the TH 101 will not be able to handle any increase. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commented that an industrial , waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the MPCA for the discharge of industrial chemical waste water for the sanitary sewer. The MPCA stated that if an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is required for the project, a 401 certification by the MPCA is also required. I Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW November 18, 1988 Page 11 ' CONCLUSIONS Based on the proposed and pending mitigative measures in the EAW, the following conclusions related to the environmental impacts are listed below: 1 . There will be no substantial adverse change in existing air quality or noise levels . 2 . There will be no substantial increase in solid or hazardous waste production. 3 . The steep slope areas of the site will be maintained in their natural state and the proposed mitigative measures required by the City, Watershed District and DNR will prevent any adverse impacts to the existing slopes on the site and Lake Susan. 4 . Concerns have been raised regarding the effect of the Rosemount facility on the water quality on Lake Susan and Lake ' Riley. The applicant has provided an addendum addressing that there is a possibility of water quality impact but the city will be participating in the Lake Riley Clean Water Project which should provide mitigative measures to prevent the increase of phosphorus entering Lake Riley. Implementation of the conditions by the DNR as far as providing terracing and back sloping during construction to divert all runoff away from the lake and the use of temporary sedimentation basins rather than the proposed ponding areas proposed in the EAW will also help mitigate any substantial adverse effects on water quality of Lake Susan and Lake Riley. 5 . There will be no substantial impact on fish but there will be ' an impact to wildlife species as a result of the complete alteration of the Class B wetland. It is not felt that habi- tat using the Class B wetland will transfer to the large Class A wetland. It is recommended that landscaping for wildlife be ' provided around the altered Class B wetland to provide some form of habitat after the alteration of the Class B wetland to mitigate the impacts to the existing wildlife on site. 6 . There is no creation of a hazard to human health or safety. ' 7 . The possible impact on important historical or archeological or other aesthetical resources to the site are mitigated due to the fact that potential sites are located on the slope area of Lake Susan where the site will not be disturbed. 8 . There will be no impairment or destruction of unique geographic areas such as parklands , prime or unique farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers . The proposal is pre- serving the land along Lake Susan. I 11 Mr. Don Ashworth Rosemount EAW 11 November 18, 1988 Page 12 RECOMMENDATION I Based on the findings of facts and conclusions, the City Council should adopt the following motion: I "The City of Chanhassen as the responsible government unit (RGU) establishes a negative declaration for the Rosemount facility EAW II subject to the following conditions : 1 . The developer use terracing and backsloping during construc- tion of the site to divert all runoff away from Lake Susan. II 2 . The developer use temporary sedimentation basins to control runoff during construction of the site instead of using the Class B ponding area proposed in the EAW. II 3 . The storm sewer inlets or outfalls shall not be used without II adequate filters until all construction and development, including the establishment of turf is complete. 4 . The Class A wetland be maintained in its natural state and II maintain a 75 foot buffer and the Class B wetland which is being altered shall be landscaped for wildlife after grading is complete. I 5 . An addendum should be provided to clarify whether intersec- tions at Hwy. 5 and Market Boulevard and Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 101 will be operating at level of service D before or after Hwy. II 5 is reconstructed. 6 . The proposed improvements by the City and MnDOT to TH 5 must II be in place prior to development of the site to provide ade- quate access to this development. 7 . The drainage plan for the site should be coordinated with I MnDOT District 5 Hydrolics Engineer to ensure that the rate of runoff not increase to the Lake Susan outlet under TH 101 as it will be unable to handle any increase. I 8 . An industrial waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the I discharge of industrial chemical waste water to the sanitary sewer and if an Army Corps of Engineers 44 permit is required for the project, a 401 certification by the MPCA is also II required. ATTACHMENTS 1 . EAW Program. I 2 . EAW Program. 3 . Letter from DNR dated November 16 , 1988 . II 4 . Letter from Metropolitan Council dated November 14, 1988 . II I Mr. Don Ashworth ' Rosemount EAW November 18, 1988 Page 13 ' Attachments (continued) 5 . Letter from Barr Engineering dated November 4 , 1988 . 6 . Archeological report dated October 19 , 1988 . 7 . Letter from MnDOT dated November 4 , 1988 . 8 . Letter from MN Pollution Control Agency dated November 10 , 1988 . 9 . EAW. I I I I 1 • 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM 1 1982 EDITION 1 MANDATORY EAW, MANDATORY EIS, AND EXEMPTION CATEGORIES ITo properly apply the categories in the table, the following considerations must be kept in mind: 1. The standard exemptions listed on page 8 supersede the mandatory EAW and EIS categories. RGUs must make sure the standard exemptions do not apply before using the table. I 2. Mandatory EAW and EIS categories supersede exemption categories (but not the standard exemptions). If some part of a project fits an exemption category but another part fits a mandatory category, Environmental Review is necessary. 3. A project may be in more than one category. Notes are provided in the table to cross-reference likely cases of such ' overlaps, but to be sure, the RGU should scan all the category types in the table index to check for any overlaps. If a project is in more than one category, there may be a question about who is the proper RGU. If this should occur, refer to section 3.024 concerning RGU selection. 4. If a project exceeds the EAW threshold by very much it could be in a mandatory EIS category. The RGU should check this out. I 5. Projects which are a part of, or the initial phases of, a larger project which may be undertaken later may be "phased actions." If a project is part of a phased action, the whole project must be compared to the categories for purposes of determining if Environmental Review is needed. ' 6. If several projects will or are anticipated to occur at the same time in the same geographical area - even if there are two or more separate proposers - the projects may be "related actions." If the cumulative environmental effects of separate projects is of significance, then together they are subject to environmental review even if they would not be individually subject to environmental review. I 7. If a project is not in a mandatory category, a prospective RGU may order an EAW anyway if it is concerned about possible environmental effects. This can be done whether or not there is a petition filed. An EAW is simple and relatively quick to do and does not cost much. Therefore, if an RGU is in doubt about whether an EAW is required but is concerned about what the project could do to the environment, EQB recommends that an EAW be prepared under the RGU's discretionary EAW authority. In fact, in some situations it is probably easier to complete an EAW than to resolve a dispute about whether an EAW is Imandatory. IINDEX TO TABLE The following alphabetical listing of project type names may make it easier to find categories which may apply in the table. I Agriculture and Forestry,including conversion of land use- 7 Sewage Systems,including sewer extensions- 5 Air Pollution,including parking facilities- 4 Solid Waste- 5 Airport Projects- 6 Storage Facilities- 3 I Animal Feedlots- 7 Stream Diversion- 7 Barge Fleeting- 6 Transfer Facilities- 3 Commercial-see under Industrial Transmission Lines- 2 • Electric Generating Facilities- 2 Underground Storage- 3 Forestry-See under Agriculture and Forestry • Water Appropriation and Impoundments- 6 I Fuel Conversion Facilities-12 Wetlands and Protected Waters- 7 Hazardous Waste- 4 Highway Projects- 6 ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION CATEGORIES: P a e 8 Historic Places- 7 g I Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Facilities- 4 Construction Projects Land Use Conversion-see Agriculture and Forestry Financial Transactions Marinas- 6 Governmental Activities Metallic Mineral Mining and Processing - 3 Land use Natural Areas- 7 Licenses I Nonmetallic Mineral Mining- 3 Research and Data Collection Nuclear Fuels- 2 Standard Exemptions Paper and/or Pulp Processing Mills-4 Utilities Parking Facilities-see Air Pollution I Petroleum Refineries- 2 Pipelines 2 Recreational Development 5 Residential Development- 5 1 1 . -1 '''' -le i e.).______, I Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption NUCLEAR FUELS AND NUCLEAR WASTE I 3.038A. 3.039A. None 1. Construction or expansion of a facility for the 1. The construction or expansion of a nuclear fuel or storage of high level nuclear waste.(EQB) nuclear ggwaste processing facility,including fuel fa- bricating Construction or expansion of a facility for the niumtmil Is.a(DNR for uranium mill plants or PCA) ura- storage of low level nuclear waste for one year or longer (MDH) 2. Construction of a high level nuclear waste disposal Site (EQB) • 3. Expansion of a high level nuclear waste disposal site.If(38) 3. Construction of any away-from-reactor facility for 4. Expansion of a low level nuclear waste disposal site. temporary storage of spend nuclear fuel.(EQB) (MDH) 4. Construction of a low level nuclear waste disposal site.(MDH) 5. Expansion of an away-from-reactor facility for tem- porary storage of spent nuclear fuel.(EQB) 6. Construction or expansion of an on-site pool for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel.(EQB) I ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES 3.0388. 3.0396. 3.0416. Construction of an electric power generating plant and Construction of a large electric power generating plant Construction of an electric generating plant orcombina- associated facilities designed for or capable of operating pursuant to6MCAR3.055.(EQB) lion of plants at a single site with a combined ca aci of at a capacity of 25 megawatts or more.(EQB) less than five megawatts. p ry i PETROLEUM REFINERIES I3.038C. 3.039C. None Expansion of an existing petroleum facility which in- Construction of a new petroleum refining facility.(PCA) creases its capacity by 10,000 or more barrels per day. (PCA) I FUEL CONVERSION FACILITIES 3.038D. 3.039D. 3.041C. I 1. Construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, 1. Construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, Expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels peat or biomass sources to gaseous,liquid,or solid peat or biomass sources to gaseous,liquid or solid which would have or would increase its capacity by less fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 25,000 fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 250,000 than 500,000 gallons per year of alcohol produced. dry tons or more per year of input.(PCA) dry tons or more per year of input.(PCA) I 2. Construction or expansion of a facility for the pro- 2. Construction or expansion of a facility for the pro- duction of alcohol fuels which would have or would duction of alcohol fuels which would have or would increase its capacity by 5,000.000 or more gallons per increase its capacity by 50,000,000 or more gallons year of alcohol produced.(PCA) per year of alcohol produced.(PCA) I TRANSMISSION LINES . 3.038E. 3.039E. 3.041D. I Construction of a transmission line at a new location Construction of a high voltage transmission line pursu• Construction of a transmission line with a nominal ca- with a nominal capacity of 70 kilovolts ormorewith200r ant to 6 MCAR 3.056.(EQB) pacity of 69 kilovolts or less. more miles of its length in Minnesota.(MB) I PIPELINES 3.038F. None None I 1 Construction of a pipeline,greater than six inches in diameter and having more than 50 miles of its length in Minnesota,used for the transportation of coal, crude petroleum fuels or oil or their derivatives. (EQB) - 2. Constructionofapipelinefortransportationofnatu- rat or synthetic gas at pressures in excess of 200 pounds per square inch with 50 miles or more of its length in Minnesota.(EQO) 2 1 I Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption I I TRANSFER FACILITIES 1 3.038G. None 3.041 E. 1.Construction of a facility designed for or capable of Construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring 300 tons or more of coal per hour or with transferring less than 30 tons of coal per hour or with an an annual throughput of 500,000 tons of coal from annual throughput of less than 50,000 tons of coal from one mode of transportation to a similar or different one mode of transportation to a similar or different mode of transportation;or the expansion of an exist- mode of transportation;or the expansion of an existing I ing facility by these respective amounts.(PCA) 2.Construction of a new facility or the expansion by 50% or more of an existing facility, for the bulk facility by these respective amounts. transfer of hazardous materials with the capacity of 10,000 or more gallons per transfer,if the facility is located in a shoreland area,delineated flood plain,a I state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district,Minnesota River Project Riverbend area,or the Mississippi headwaters area.(PCA) IUNDERGROUND STORAGE 3.038H. 3.039F. None i 1. Expansion of an underground storage facility for 1. Construction of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids that require a permit,pursuant to gases or liquids that require a permit pursuant to Minn.Stat.84.57.(DNR) Minn.Stat.84.57.IDNR) 2. Expansion of an underground storage facility for 2. Construction of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids,using naturally occurring rock mate- gases or liquids,using naturally occu ring rock materi- nals that require a permit pursuant to Minn.Stat. als,that require a permit pursuant to Minn.Stat. I84.621. 84.621.(DNR) I 3.0381. STORAGE FACILITIES None 3.041F. • 1. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of 1. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing more than 7,500 tons o coal or with an annual storing less than 750 tons of coal or more,with an 1 throughput of more than 125,000 tons of coal;or the annual throughput of less than 12,500 tons of coal;or expansion of an existing facility by these respective the expansion of an existing facility by these respec- amounts.(PCA) tive amounts. 2. Construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials.(PCA) 3. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing on a single site 100,000 gallons or more of liq- uidifed natural gas or synthetic gas.(PCA) METALLIC MINERAL MINING AND PROCESSING 3.038J. 3.039G. 3.041G. 1. Mineral deposit evaluation of metallic mineral depos- 1. Mineral deposit evaluation involving the extraction of 1.Generalminesiteevaluationactivities,thatdonotre- its other than natural iron ore and taconite.(DNR) 1,000 tons or more of material that is of interest to the sult in the permanent alteration of the environment, proposer principally due to its radioactive charac- including mapping,aerial surveying,visual.inspec. 2. Expansion of a stockpile,tailings basin,or mine by teristics.(DNR) tion,geologic tieldreconnaisance,geophysicalstud 320 or more acres.(DNR) ies,and surveying,but excluding exploratory bor- 2. Construction of a new facility for mining metallic min- ings. I 3. Expansion of metallic mineral plant processing facility erals or for the disposal of tailings from a metallic that iscapable of increasing production by25 percent mineral mine.(DNR) 2. Expansionofinetallicmineralplantprocessingfacility per year or more,provided that increase is in excess that is capable of increasing production by less than of 1,000,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for 3. Construction of a new metallic mineral processing fa- ten percent per year,provided that increase is less processing natural iron ore or taconite.(DNR) cility (DNR) than 100,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for processing natural iron ore or taconite, I3. Scram mining operations. • NONMETALLIC MINERAL MINING 3.038K. 3.039H. None 1. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining 1. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of peat which will result in the excavation of 160 or of peat which will utilize 320 acres of land or more I more acres of land during its existence.(DNR) durrng ns existence.IDNR) 2. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining 2. Development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand,gravel,stone,or other nonmetallic minerals, of sand,gr.vel,stone or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat,which will excavate 40 or more acres other than peat,which will excavate 160 acres of land of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its or more to a mean depth of ten feet or more during existence.(local) its existence.(Local) 1 3 1 Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption I PAPER AND/OR PULP PROCESSING MILLS 3.038L, 3.0391. 3.041H. 1 Expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facil- Construction of a new paper or pulp processing mill. Expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facil- ity that will increase its production capacity by 50 per- (PCA) ity that will increase its production capacity by less than cent or more IPCAI 10%. •. �Th` 1 INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAUINSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 3.038M. 3.039J. 3.0411. I 1 Construction of a new or expansion of an existing in- 1. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing in- 1. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing in- dustrial.commercial-or Institutional facility equal to dustrial,commercial,or institutional facility equal to dustrial,commercial,or institutional facility of less 7 or in excess of the following thresholds,expressed as or in excess of the following thresholds,expressed as than the following thresholds expressed as gross gross floor space; gross floor space: floor space if no part of the development is within a a. Unincorporated area•100,()(10 sq.ft. a. Unincorporated area-250,000 sq.ft. shoreland area,delineated floodplain,state or fe• I Min- b. Third(Sr fourth class city•200,000 sq.ft. b. Third or fourth class city-500,000 sq.ft. nesota Project Riverbend e b nd scenic rivers Missis,ippi C. Second class city.300.000 sq.ft. C. Second class city-750,000 sq.It. headwaters Project Riverbend area or the Mississippi d. First class city•400,000 sq.ft. d. First class city-1,000,000 sq.ft. headwaters area: (Local) (Local) a.Third or fourth class city or unincorporated area- 2. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing in- 2. Construction of a new orex expansion in- 50,Oon class P g c.First scat city•,00000. ft. I or stone,commercial t.of ror d area,if the facility 20,000 dustrial,more commercial or institutional reaif the local l o ern- c. First class city•10(1,000 sq.ft. or more sq.ft.of ground area,if the local govern- or more sq.ft.of ground area,if the local govern- ment unit has not adopted approved shoreland, mental unit has not adopted state approved shore- 2.The construction of an industrial,commercial,or in- floodplam,or wild and scenic rivers land use district land,floodplain,or wild and scenic rivers Land use stitutional facility with less than 4,000 sq.ft.of gross ordinances,the Mississippi headwaters plan or the district ordinances,the Mississippi headwaters plan floor space,and with associated parking facilities de- Project Riverbend plan,as applicable,and either: or the Project Riverbend plan,as applicable and ei- signed for 20 vehicles or less. a. The project involves riparian frontage,or Cher; b. 20.()()0 or more sq.ft.of ground area to be Bevel• a. The project involves riparian frontage,or 3. Construction of a new parking facility for less than oped is within a shoreland area.delineated flood- b. 100,000 or more sq.ft.of ground area to be deed- area,d ineitthefacilityinotatedrfinaallyreland • plain,state or federally designated wild and scenic aped lswitbina shoreland,delineated floodplain, area,delineated floodplain,state federallydesip- rivers district,Minnesota River Project Riverbend or state or federally designated wild and scenic ect Riverbend andare of therMi district,.had nn headwaters River a. area or the Miss.headwaters area.(Local) rivers district,Minnesota River Project Riverbend elf Riverbend area of the Miss.headwaters area. area or the Miss.headwaters area.(Local) NOTE: Projects of this type could alsobe in several other categories including:air pollution,water appropriation,wetlands and protected waters,and agriculture and forestry(especially AA.4). / • AIR POLLUTION I 3.038N. None None 1 Construction of a stationary facility that generates 100 tons or more per year of any single air pollutant after installation of air pollution control equipment.(PCA) 2. Construction of a new parking facility for 1,000 or I more vehicles.(PCA) I HAZARDOUS WASTE I 3.0380. 3.039K. None 1. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste dis- 1. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste dis- posal facility (PCA) posal facility for 1,000 or more kilograms per month. (PCA) _ I 2. Construction of a hazardous waste processing facility which sells processing services to generators,other 2. The construction or expansion of a hazardous waste than the owner and operator of the facility,of 1.000 disposal facility in a shoreland area,delineated flood- or more kilograms per month capacity,or expansion plain,state or federally designated wild and scenic of such facility by 1,000 or more kilograms per month rivers district,the Minnesota River Project Riverbend capacity.(PCA( area,the Mississippi River headwaters area,or in an 3. Construction of a hazardous waste processing facility area characterized by soluble bedrock.(PCA) I of 1.01)0 or more kilograms per month .Spacity ores' 3. Construction or expansion of a hazardous waste pro. pansion of a facility by 1,000 or more kilograms per cessing facility which sells processing services togen- month capacity if the fac lily is located in a shoreland erators other than the owners and operator of the la- area,delineated floodplain area,state or federally cility if the facility is located in a shoreland area designated wild and sc eon rivers district,Minnesota delineated floodpl am.slate or federally designated River Project Riverbend area.the Mississippi head- wild and scenic rivers district,the Minnesota River I waters area.or man area i tiara(tc'rVed by soluble Project Riverbend area,the Mississippi headwaters bedrock.1PCAt area,or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock. 4. Construction or expansion of a facility which setts (PCA) hazardous waste storage services to generators other than the owner and operator of the facility or con- struction of a facility at who h a generator's own haz- ardous wastes will be stored for a time period in ex- cess of 90 das• it the facility is located in a shoreland area.delineated floodplain area.state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district,Minnesota River Project Riverbend area,the Mississippi head- waters are or in an area characterized by soluble be- drock.(PCA) 4 I 1 Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption I SOLID WASTE 1 .038P. 3.0391. None I. Construction of a mixed municipal solid waste dis- posal 1. Construction of a mixed municipal solid waste dis- posalfacility(or up to 100,000 cu.yds.of waste fill per posal facility for 100,000 cubic yds.or more of waste year (PCA or Met Council) fill per year.(PCA or Met Council) 2. Expansion by 25%or more of previous capacity of a 2. Construction or ex ansion of a mixed municipal solid mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for u to waste disposal facilityin a shoreland area,delineated 100,000 cu.yds.of waste fill per year IPCA or Met floodplain scenic rivers district,the Minnesota River Project Ri- verbend area,the Mississippi headwaters area or in r 3.Construction or expansion oia mixed municipal solid an area characterized by soluble bedrock.(PCA or waste transfer station for 300,000 or more cu.yds.per Met Council) 1 year.IPCA or Met Council) 3. Construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid 4. Construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste resource recovery facility for 500 or more tons waste resource recovery facility for 100 or more tons per day of input.(PG or Met Council) per day of input.(PCA or Met Council) pp 5. Expansion by at least 10%but less than 25%of pre- 4 mixedslmunic pal solid waste disposal capacity 1 vious capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste dis- posal 100,000 cu.yards or more of waste fill per year.(PG facility for 100,000Cu.yds.or more of waste per year fP or Met Council) year G or Met Council) 1 SEWAGE SYSTEMS 3.038Q. None 3,041). I 1. Construction of a new municipal or domestic waste Construction of a new waste water treatment facility or icy of 30,000 gals pelityorsewersystemwithacapac• sewer system with a capacity of less than 3,000 gallons capac- ity of 30,000 gals per day or more.(PG) per day or the expansion of an existing facility by less 2. Expansion of an existing municipal or domestic waste than that amount. water treatment facility or sewer system by an in- crease in capacity of 50%or more over existing ca- 1 pacity or by 50,000 gals.per day or more.(PCA) I •• RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I 3.038R. 3.039M. 3.041 K. 1 Construction of a permanent or potentially perma- nent 1. Construction of a permanent or potentially perma- nent 1. Construction of a sewered residential development, residential development of• residential development of: no pan of which is within a shoreland area,delineated a. 50 or more unattached or 75 or more attached a. lormore unattached or l500r more unattached floodplain,state or federally designated wild and sce- nit river district,Minn.River Protect Riverbend area, units in an unsewered area. units in an unsewered area. 1 b 100 or mnrtunattached or 150 or more att;ts b. 400 or more unattached or 600 or more attached or Mississippi headwaters area,o(: units in a 3rd or 4th class a or sewered unincor- units in a 3rd or 4th class city or sewered unincor- porated a. less than 10 units in an unincorporated area, �ppoorateUrea . porated area. b. less than 20 units in a 3rd or 4th class city, c.�150 or le unattached or 225 or more attached c. 600 or more unattached or 900 or more attached c. less than 40 units in a 2nd class city;or units in a 2nd class city units in a 2nd class city d. less than 80 units in a 1st class city. d. 200 or more unattached or 300 or more attached d. 800 or more unattached or 1200 or more attached units in a 1st class city.(Local) units in a 1st class city (Local) 2. Construction of a single residence or multiple resi- 1 2. Construction of a permanent or potentially perma• 2. Construction of a permanent or potentially perma• purtenant structures dwellin and utilBess and accessory al) nent residential development of 20 or more unat- tached Went residential development of 40 or more unat- tachedunitsorot30ormoreattachedutsifthelocal tached or of 60 or more attached units if the local pu government unit has not adopted state approved government unit has not adopted state approved shoreland,floodplain,or wild and scenic rivers land shoreland,floodplain,or wild and scenic rivers land use district ordinances,the Mississippi headwasters use district ordinances,the Mississippi headwaters plan,orthe protect Riverbend plan,as applicable,and plan,or the Project Riverbend plan,as applicable,and either: either: a. The project involves riparian frontage,or a. The project involves riparian frontage,or b. 5 or more acres of the development is within a b. 10 or more acres of the development is within a shoreland,delineated floodplam,state or federally shoreland,or delineated floodplain,or state or fe- designated wild and scenic rivers district,the Proj- derally designated wild and scenic rivers district, ect Riverbend plan,or the Mississippi headwaters the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area or the plan.(Local) Miss.headwaters area.(Local) NOTE: Projects of this type could also be in several other categories including:sewage systems,wetlands and protected waters,and agricul- ture and forestry(especially AA.) — 1 1 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3.038$. None None Construction of a seasonal or permanent recreational development,accessible by vehicle,consisting of 50 or more sites.(Local) NOTE: Projects of this type could also be in several other ca:egories including:wetlands and protected waters,sewage systems,and agricul- ture and forestry(especially AA.2,3,and 4.) 1 5 I Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption i AIRPORT PROJECTS 3.038T. 3.039N. 3.041L. I Construction of a runway extension that would upgrade Construction of a paved and lighted airport runway of 1. Runway,taxiway,apron,or loading ramp construc- an existing airport runway to permit usage by aircraft 5,000 feet of length or greater.(DOT or Local) tion or repair work including reconstruction,resur- over 12,500 pounds that are at least 3 decibels louder facing,marking,grooving,fillets and jet blast facili- than aircraft currently using the runway.(DOT or Local) ties, except where the project will create environmental impacts off airport property. 2. Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting systems, including beacons and electrical distribution sys- tems. 3. Construction or expansion of passenger handling or parking facilities including pedestrian walkway facili- ties. 4. Grading or removal of obstructions and erosion con- trol projects on airport property except where such projects will create environmental impacts off airport property. I HIGHWAY PROJECTS 3.038U. 3.0390. 3.041M. 1. Construction of a road on a new location over 1 mile Construction of a road on a new location which is 4 or 1. Highway safety improvement projects. in length that will function as a collector roadway. more lanes in width and 2 or more miles in length.(DOT (DOT or Local) or Local) 2. Installation of traffic control devices,individual noise 2. Construction of additional travel lanes on an existing barriers,bus shelters and bays,loading zones,and i road for a length of 1 or more miles.(DOT or Local) access and egress lanes for transit and paratransitve- hides. 3. The addition of 1 or more new interchanges to a com- pleted limited access highway.(DOT or Local) 3. Modernization of an existing roadway or bridge by resurfacing,restoration,or rehabilitation which may involve the acquisition of minimal amounts of right- I of-way 4.Roadway landscaping,construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes,paths,and facilities within existing right of way. 5.Any stream diversion or chanelization,within the i right-of-way of an existing public roadway,associated with bridge or culvert replacements. 6. Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge' structure on essentially the same alignment or loca- tion which may involve the acquisition of minimal amounts of right-of-way. BARGE FLEETING FACILITIES 3.038V. 3.039P. Construction of a new or None fleeting facility.(DOT or Port Authority)existing barge cchoannel location that involvesithe dredging of 1,000 or more cubic yards.(DOT or Port Authority) WATER APPROPRIATION AND IMPOUNDMENTS 1 3.038W. 3.039Q. 3.041N. 1.A new appropriation for commercial or industrial Construction of a class 1 dam.(DNR) purposes of either surface water or ground water A new or additional permanent impoundment of water averaging 30,000,000 gallons per month,or exceed- creating a water surface of less than ten acres. ing 2,000,000 gallons in any day during the period of use;or a new appropriation of either ground water or surface water for irrigation of 540 acres or more in one continuous parcel from one source of water. (DNR) 2.A new or additional permanent impoundment of II water creating a water surface of 160 or more acres. (DNR) • 3. Construction of a class II dam.(DNR) NOTE: Projects of this type could also be in categories:wetlands and protected waters,and stream diversion. I • MARINAS I 3.038X. 3.039R. 3.0410. Construction or cumulative expansion of a marina or Construction of a new or expansion of an existing project which results in a total of 20,000 or more marina,harbor,or mooring project on a state or fe less boats and utilizing ng less than 1500 sq.ft of water sur- sq.ft.of temporary or permanent water surface area derally designated wild and scenic river.(Local) I used for docks,docking,or maneuvering of water craft. face area. (Local) 8 1 Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory EIS Category Exemption STREAM DIVERSION 3.038Y. None 3.041P. The diversion or lwaterlizahon of a designated trout Routine maintenance or repairofa drainage ddchwithin stream or a natural watercourse with a total watershed or 10 or more so miles,unless exempted by 6 MCAR 20 the limits of original al construction flow capacity,per 3.04tP or 6 MCAR 3.041 M.S.(Local) formed within 20 years of construction or major repair: 1 WETLANDS AND PROTECTED WATERS 1 3.038Z. 3.039S. N•:•u 1. Projects that will change or diminish the course,cur. Projects that will eliminate a protected water or pro- rent or cross section of 1 acre or more of any pro- tected wetland except for those to be drained without a tected water or protected wetland except for those to permit pursuant toMinn.Stat.§105.391,subd.3.(Local) be drained without a permit pursuant to Minn.Stat.§ I 105.391,subd.3.(Local) 2. Projects that will change or diminish the course,cur- rent or cross section of 40%or more or 5 or more acres of a Type 3 thru 8 wetland of 2.5 acres or more, excluding protected wetlands,if any part of the wet- lannd is within a shoreland area,delineated flood- I plain,a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district,the Minnesota Rivers Projects River- bend area,or Mississippi headwaters area.(Local) NOTE: Projects of this type could also be in category:water appropriation. I IAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 3.038AA. None 3.041Q. 1. Harvesting of timber for commercial purposes on public lands within a state park,historical area,wit- 1. Harvesting of timber for maintenance purposes. I derness area,Scientific and Natural area,wild and scenic rivers district,the MN River ProjectRiverbend 2. Publiclearcuttingor the application other area,the Miss.headwaters area or critical area that than clear cutting or the app of tan of pesticides, does not have an approved plan under Minn.Stats. that involve less than 20 acres of land. 86A.09 or 116G.07 (DNR) 2. A clear cutting of 80 or more contiguous acres of I forest,any part of which is Incited within a shoreland area or within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the lake or river (DNR) 3. Projects resulting in the conversion of 610 or more acres of forest or naturally vegetated land to a differ- ing open space land use.(Local) 4. Projects resulting in a permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural,forest or naturally vege- tated land to a more intensive,developed land use. • (Local) I ANIMAL FEEDLOTS I 3.03866. None 3.041 R. The construction of an animal feedlot facility with a ca• Theconstruction of an animal feedlot facilityof less than paciry of 1,000 animal units or more or the expansion of 100 animal units or the expansion of an existing facility an existing facility by 1 animal units or more.(PCA if by less than 100 animal units no part of which is located in a shoreland or delineated floodplain or karst area, within a shoreland area,delineated floodplain,state or otherwise local) federally designated wild and scenic rivers district,the • Minnesota River Project Riverbend area,the Mississippi headwaters area. NATURAL AREAS 3.038CC. None None Projects resulting in a permanent physical encroach. I . meet on lands within a national park,slate park,wilder• ness area,state lands arid waters within the boundaries of the OWCA,Scientific and Natural Area,or state trail corridor when such encroachment is inconsistent with laws applicable to or the management plan prepared for the recreational unit.(DNR or Local) HISTORIC PLACES 3.038DD. None Destruction of a property that is listed on the National None Register of Historic Places.(permitting state agency or 7 local) I From our perspective, an environmental impact statement is not necessary 1 for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call Don Buckhout of my staff at (612) 296-8212. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor NR Planning and Review Section I attachment #89063-1 1 c: Kathleen Wallace Ron Lawrenz Laurel Reeves Gregg Downing - EQB Robert Welford - USFWS 1 I 1 t I I 1 I 1 1 � _:‘ ' METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359 :a November 14, 1988 Joann Olsen, City Planner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Rosemount Manufacturing Facility Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14670-1 Dear Ms . Olsen: At its meeting on November 10, 1988, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee considered the EAW for the Rosemount Manufacturing Facility. The Committee recommended that the full Metropolitan Council adopt the attached comments on the EAW at its meeting on November 17, 1988. ' Sincerely, i 5 Steve Keefe I Chair SK:pb ( cc: Marcy J. Waritz, Metropolitan Council District 14 Paul Baltzersen, Metropolitan Council Staff NOV 18 1988 CITY,OF CHANhASSEN FIGURE 2. MINNESOTA '= 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) I SE/4 LAKE MINNETONKA 15'QUADRANGLE NAYZA7. 7 MI 4S6 r57 32'30" ;2 120 000 FEET R 23 r7. }3 MI To MINN f R.22 w 93°j C . .,. -...,- \;..---- ,$) %/ 11 f O ) I r* [ZF' Cx.' P° \• J / °• •• ♦-fri be 1 .\•. • ' �_ti\,� 7 -/. (�•�.tM� I ) r-.1. 1 l • • ,000 _ - C.1 0 . _.mac �• ••T _ ,. i■ 0 .._ ../ • . . ) ,z,0 ...,..01VS•::7r....7. -I.,,..: c ■.../ 0 . ,oi . .,Q.52 , .4.,...„74 4 Afi. .1:)-.? • 1' ..�� , 926 ' j $.7e '� t • i T 937 <�::;. . ,, .... 9 a1F� ..) '0 11 1 IJLake`\ o •r,,r -e tc � Sr, .�_ .c,' Z N�,S I TE , f j'. • 1 I !.,2 Or...,,,,,,, ,., ,.. t.:..,...c.i. : ,I ,-.-L7, . I I - .2)Z:::;5. 1,4) : 1:::s..=m-.., ar Luket.Susa» .111a rah ) O r r� (_,90u 1, I t... - . B %v 4C LQ,�e �.-900 1 rj.-i yoo �} 1 ` e \.i 1' �.r 'q 0.--— s-,,'. ..--' .--118_,....., ('- A I''' i 'v , - `i •• C 1 ° —' „ j .. l ►... •des G 4 I f , :j \ _ ly"J .i- ,'" . ,. .1 - . -' ' v - - r r 1 i ao.j- 'S. '%:.-4/tr,,--'--) 'y ' r5 ) � � ! Y. W t I�/��v tFFt� tom ' • I P. .9t .�� - ,' i t.. a ♦. 0 BOO . , t - y Yoo 'r� •�: , : , Lake Riley .' •• Joe, a • ,...vv.. ... 77 ''.r:;*(di s 1 •..-: :■...s- -;4'1'.74:",.. —.. :1".A -Z.'- ( 40 i I • 6 4044e., s. .. O ; J .300 , t Vin' �V:.r a ^ M fa C., i Gott Cour„♦ .�`� / r A-A,, '� 0 0 ,,y r �*..._ . i-1 R rir I )-/ I Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area Mears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th Street (:- St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 DATE: November 3, 1988 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Paul Baltzersen, Research and Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Rosemount Manufacturing Facility EAW City of Chanhassen ' District 14 Referral File No. 14670-1 ' INTRODUCTION The proposed project is a 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility for Rosemount Inc. The company will produce precision instruments for measurement and control of temperature, flow, level and pressure for sale to businesses using process control. The facility will employ 700. It will also have 950 parking spaces as well as loading dock areas to receive and distribute materials and products from the facility. The site is 58 acres in size and is located along the north shore of Lake Susan in Chanhassen. Total impervious surface (parking, loading areas, driveways and building) will be 30 percent of I the site. The property is zoned and shown in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for industrial use. ' AUTHORITY TO REVIEW EAWs prepared under the Minnesota Environmental Review Program must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and other agencies. Any recipient of an EAW or member of the public may make comments and recommendations to the responsible agency. The responsible agency for this project is the City of Chanhassen. ANALYSIS The EAW adequately addresses areas of regional concern with the exception of ' storm water runoff and the affect on water quality. Comments are also offered on transportation. Storm Water Runoff/Water Quality (Dick Osgood) Background 1 The concerns with this project are identical to others that the Council has reviewed in the past three years in this watershed (Hidden Valley PUD, MC File No. 12798-1; Chanhassen Hills, MC File No. 13674-1 ; and Lake Susan Hills, MC I File No. 14314-1 ). Council concerns with these projects included the increase flow of stormwater through Rice Marsh Lake which would lead to direct increases in phosphorus delivery to Lake Riley. Since Lake Riley is an ' important lake in the region and since it is sensitive to phosphorus pollution, the Council recommended that the increased flows from these projects I 2 i be reduced to the greatest possible extent. Furthermore, the Council 1 recommended that the City of Chanhassen, prior to considering other projects upstream from Rice Marsh Lake, assess the cumulative impacts of future developments in this watershed in order to prevent any long-term damage to the water quality of Lake Riley. In addition to repeating those same concerns, staff is now able to demonstrate a measurable water quality degradation in Lake _, ,. Riley. �. ; EAW Review II The EAW assesses the possible water quality impacts to Lake Susan. Those II assessments are accurate and complete. However, there is no further assessment on other downstream impacts, particularly Lake Riley. The Metropolitan Council studied Lake Riley and its watershed in 1982* and found . that surface water runoff coming through Rice Marsh Lake contributed the Al majority of phosphorus �_' y p p pollution to Lake Riley each year. Further, since the °'; phosphorus concentration in Rice Marsh Lake was relatively high and independent „ F.'ill ; of external influences, that the input of phosphorus to Lake Riley was directly IIproportional to flow through Rice Marsh Lake. As a result of these findings, the Council adopted the following recommendation: "The Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the Cities of Chanhassen ` - I and Eden Prairie should manage land use in Riley Creek's watershed particularly to retain snowmelt and spring runoff...” IIThe mitigating measures proposed for this project will not reduce the volume of stormwater that will increase as a result of developing this site. Since Lake Riley is sensitive to increases of flow through Rice Marsh Lake, its water - ( II quality will probably be further degraded. The impacts from a single project may be difficult to measure, but the II cumulative impacts are of greater concern. The other three projects upon which the Council has commented have totaled 339 acres or 11% of the watershed upstream form Rice Marsh Lake. This project adds another 58 acres (about 2% of the watershed). It appears that these projects have already caused a II degradation of Lake Riley's water quality. Comparing lake water quality indices from the period prior to these developments (1980-1982) to the period through last year (1985-1987) shows that the lake's quality has been degraded. I WATER QUALITY INDEX 1980-1982 AVERAGE 1985-1987 AVERAGE . s-_:4 - Phosphorus (ppb) 36 52 _ - A; :Y.Chlorophyll (ppb) 26 -- 115 - :.,.' Transparency (m) 1.9 1.8 :,._}w#,afar. - .;.f-:, These data are summertime averages form the Council's sampling of the lake. There was a marked increase in phosphorus (44%), a nutrient that causes algae ', . to grow; a similar increase in chlorophyll (73%), a green pigment found in algae; and a decrease in the lake's transparency (-5%). This is a significant : degradation. '"� * Diagnostic-feasibility study of seven Metropolitan Area Lakes. Part Two: Lake Riley. MC Pubi. No. 10-83-093E. .1 '4941 1 , 3 Lake Riley is a priority water body. Any degradation in its quality is inconsistent with the following policies of the Water Resources Management (:- Guide chapter: 55. Water quality in the Metropolitan Area lakes and streams should be maintained at least at 1980-81 levels. 56. Metropolitan Area lakes and streams used for drinking water and/or recreation should receive priority consideration for cleanup. ' 3-3. Lake quality should be protected or improved. Improvement projects should address not just the symptoms of problems but the causes as identified after obtaining watershed and lake data. 3-4. The Council, through its numerous review and approval authorities, will preserve all protected and unprotected natural watercourses-- including associated wetlands, channels, floodplains and shorelands-- ' to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ecological functions. 3-6. The Metropolitan Council, in conducting its project approvals and ' reviews, will protect the utility of the region's water and related - land resources and seek their restoration, where needed. Any action that threatens the viability of the water and related resource will ' be negatively reviewed. Finally, the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has received a I ( federal grant to restore Lake Riley. The City of Chanhassen, as a local contributor to this effort, has made a commitment to the preservation of Lake Riley's water quality. It appears to be inconsistent that the city has committed resources toward the preservation and management of Lake Riley while ' continuing to allow the development of the watershed in a way that continues to degrade that lake. ' Transportation Although Highway 5 is not on the metropolitan highway system, it is an important minor arterial which carries regional traffic in the southwest metropolitan area. Highway 5 is undergoing upgrading from a 2-lane, undivided roadway to a 4-lane, divided roadway with construction between CSAH 17 and CSAH 4 expected i:o be completed in late 1990. The Rosemount EAW states the intersections at Highway 5 and Market Blvd. (not constructed yet) and Highway 5 and Highway 101 will be at Level of Service D following development of the site. It is not clear whether Highway 5 reconstruction is assumed to be in place by that time. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' That the Council adopt this report and the following conclusions as its comments on the Rosemount Manufacturing Facility EAW. 1. The EAW is incomplete because it does not assess the likelihood of impacts to Lake Riley. The degradation of the lake's water quality is likely, thus the project is inconsistent with several Council Water Resources Guide chapter policies as well as previously adopted Council recommendation. 1 4 2. This is the fourth major project to occur in this watershed since the Council studied Lake Riley in 1982. Each time the Council recommended that the city of Chanhassen consider the cumulative impacts of future developments on the lake's quality in order to provide long-term protection of the lake. Sampling data now demonstrates a degradation in the lake's water quality and we feel more strongly that the city must address II these concerns immediately. This is further necessitated because the city <' has made a commitment to improving the lake's water quality. 3. The EAW should fully assess the impacts of this project on Lake Riley's water quality. If the impacts are found to be substantial, the project should be altered to include appropriate mitigating measures. 4. The city of Chanhassen, in coordination with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, should evaluate the long-term impacts of t + development in the city on Lake Riley, then implement measures that will prevent any further degradation of the lake and, hopefully, restore its water quality. ' 5. The EAW should clarify whether intersections at Highway 5 and Market Blvd. and Highway 5 and Highway 101 will be operating at level of service D II before or after Highway 5 is reconstructed. 6. That these comments be forwarded to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I PB143A PHLPA 1 @ 6 • • I n i Barr Engineering Company ' 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis,MN 55435 612/830-0555 November 4, 1988 rMr. Robert A. Worthington OPUS Corporation 9900 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN 55440 Mr. Worthington: rPursuant to our meeting with Dick Osgood of the Metropolitan Council, and in response to his written comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Rosemount Engineering development, I am sending this letter. It should be regarded as an Addendum to the original EAW. Stormwater runoff from the proposed site for the Rosemount Engineering development drains directly to Lake Susan. Lake Susan, in turn, drains through Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. Rice Marsh Lake formerly received ' wastewater effluent from the now abandoned Chanhassen wastewater treatment plant. Consequently, its sediments are extremely rich in _phosphorus. Much of the phosphorus in these sediments is subject to recycling and becomes soluble. The solublized phosphorus is then carried to Lake Riley by waters flowing through Rice Marsh Lake. Therefore, an increase in stormwater - runoff volumes from the Lake Riley watershed above Rice Marsh Lake, regardless of its own phosphorus concentration, results in an increased phosphorus load to Lake Riley by virtue. of its displacement of Rice Marsh Lake waters. Phosphorus in Lake Riley contributes to algal bloom conditions there. As a practical matter, there is little that OPUS Corporation can do by itself to remedy the Rice Marsh Lake/Lake Riley problem. The ' Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie are jointly attempting to correct the problem, however. One component of the pending Lake Riley restoration project is treatment of Rice Marsh Lake sediments to reduce phosphorus recycling to its overlying waters. Hopefully, problems regarding public access to Lakes Lucy and Susan which are now delaying the project will soon be resolved so that the sediment treatment can occur. Barring completion of such a project, stormwater runoff volumes, in addition to runoff rates, will need to be limited to current rates from undeveloped lands, if development is not to affect Lake Riley water quality adversely. I NOV 7 1988 CITY OF CHANI.IA.75c.t'l Mr. Robert A. WorthingLon November 4, 1988 Page 2 It is very difficult to estimate the effects of one particular action such as the proposed Rosemount development on Lake Riley water quality with great accuracy. The aggregate effect of numerous such developments is easier to predict, however, because of the larger increase in post-development runoff volumes. We have estimated that the annual stormwater/snowmelt runoff volume from the Rosemount site will increase approximately 117-acre feet, based on an analysis of the statistically-determined, average summer storm event (0.37 inches in 4 hours) extrapolated over a full year. Discounted 50 percent for evaporative losses in Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake, this represents approximately a 58-acre feet increase in discharge of surface waters to Lake Riley, annually. Coupled with an assumed 0.179 mg/1 total phosphorus concentration leaving Rice Marsh Lake, this also represents a 13 kg per year increase in phosphorus loading to Lake Riley. These numbers are only approximate. More refined estimates would need to be based on analyses of an assumed distribution of storms of varying intensities. For comparative purposes, however, the foregoing figures reasonably estimate the expected increases in runoff volume and annual phosphorus load. These quantities represent about 3.5 percent increases in both the annual hydrologic and phosphorus budgets of Lake Riley. It does not appear to be technically feasible to eliminate all ' development-related stormwater runoff from the Rosemount Engineering site by ponding to promote evaporation and infiltration. Diversion of Rosemount Engineering stormwater runoff around Lake Riley is equally infeasible from a cost standpoint. Therefore, the Rice Marsh Lake/Lake Riley phosphorus - problem must be dealt with by the Cities and the Watershed District instead. This letter should adequately respond to the EAW comments from Dick Osgood of the Metropolitan Council. If further questions arise, please contact either Bob Obermeyer or me at Barr Engineering Co. Sincerely, BARR ENGINEERING CO. Henry M. Runke, Ph.D. Limnologist HMR/dad RW/344,0 11 1 I/ s1 s OCT 1 9 1988 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES 2637 Humboldt Avenue South #3 Minneapolis, MN 55408 October 15, 1988 Robert A. Worthington ' Executive Director - Governmental Affairs OPUS Corporation 800 Opus Center ' 9900 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN 55343 ' Re: Cultural Resource Investigation, Rosemount Inc. Project, Chanhassen Dear Mr. Worthington: Enclosed is a copy of the final report for your review. Please let me know ' if you see the need for any changes. As soon as we hear from you, we will submit the requested number of copies to you and also send copies to the State Historic Preservation Office and the State Archaeologist. ' You will find a couple of things missing in the appendices: the State Site File forms for Appendix C, which still have to be returned to us from the State Archaeologist's Office, and the staff resumes which we have not added 1 yet as they are currently being updated. They will, of course, be added to the final report copies. I have enclosed an invoice for your consideration. We have enjoyed working on this project! Please give me a call at 374-4571 if you have any questions about the results. Sincerely, VA Christina Harrison, PI CH:ig Enclosures 1 4 1 1 REPORT ON CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY ON SITE SELECTED FOR THE ROSEMOUNT, INC. MANUFACTURING FACILITY PROJECT IN CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA (PERFORMED SEPTEMBER 21-24, 1988). 1 Prepared for: OPUS Corporation 800 Opus Center 9900 Bren Road East MINNETONKA, MN 55343 II Prepared by: Christina Harrison, P.I. Archaeological Research Services 2637 Humboldt Avenue South #3 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 r I Submitted October 14, 1988 �- -. I MHS Referral File: 88-2718 I/ „ -1- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA AND PROPOSED UNDERTAKING 1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING; CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL 7 IV. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 13 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 ' VI. REFERENCES 18 Appendix A: Correspondence Requesting Cultural Resource Survey Appendix B: Test Record Forms Appendix C: Minnesota State Site File Forms ' Appendix 0: Description of ARS Team 1 ' FIGURES 1 . General Location Map 2 ' 2. Vicinity Map Showing Survey Area and Archaeological Sites Previously Recorded in the Surrounding Region (excerpt from USDI-Geological Survey's ' 1 :100 000-scale planimetric map of Minnesota, St. Paul Quadrangle, with added information). 3 3. Topography of Survey Area and Vicinity (excerpt ' from USGS Topographic Quadrangle for Shakopee, Minnesota) 4 4. Rosemount Inc. Project, Site plan 5 ' 5. Site Plan Showing Elevation Contours and Archaeo- logical Find Areas 6 16. Schematic Representation of a Pollen Core Taken From Rutz Lake in Carver County 8 7. Environmental and Cultural Sequence in Carver County 9 ' 8. Topographic Site Map with Distribution of Find Spots and Shovel Tests 16 1 1 i 11 TABLES Page 1 . Cultural Resources Previously Recorded Within the Region 10 Surrounding the Survey Area -- Carver County , 2. Cultural Resources Previously Recorded Within the Region Surrounding the Survey Area -- Hennepin and Scott Counties 11 1 1/ 1 . C ABSTRACT ' This report describes the results of a cultural resource investigation per- formed on September 21-24, 1988 within the site proposed for a Rosemount, Inc. manufacturing facility in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site is located north of Lake Susan, in Sections 13 and 14, T116N, R23W. The investigation was conducted by Archaeological Research Services of Min- neapolis, MN, for the OPUS Corporation of Minnetonka, MN. ' Two prehistoric sites were identified: Opus I (formal site numbers pending) a sparse lithic scatter on a plowed portion of the survey area -- and Opus II -- a small prehistoric camp site with ceramic and lithic evidence located on the wooded slope north of Lake Susan. There are also some his- toric or late prehistoric man-made depressions on the same slope as well as another area, a small terrace, with suspected archaeological potential. 1 Opus I would be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Results of the in- vestigation indicate that the site has been plowed through and is unlikely to contain any undisturbed prehistoric evidence. ARS recommends a "no ad- verse effect" determination for this area. Opus II and the other areas mentioned above would not be impacted and were, ' in fact, located outside the area included in the scope for this survey. They were not examined in greater detail. They should, however, be remembered in case future plans for the Rosemount, Inc. property were expanded to include recreational trails or similar facilities along the wooded slope. I 1 1 I I. INTRODUCTION 11 On September 21-24, 1988, a cultural resource survey was conducted on the site selected for a proposed Rosemount, Inc. manufacturing facility in the city of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, The investigation was perform- 11 ed by Archaeological Research Services (ARS) of Minneapolis, MN, for the OPUS Corporation of Minnetonka, MN. It was directed by Christina Harrison, P.I. The rest of the team was made up by Dr. Leila Haglund (visiting arch- aeologist), John Strot (ARS field assistant) and Kathryn Reynolds (volun- teer). The objectives of the investigation were 1 ) to determine the presence or absence of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources within the pro- posed project area; 2) to evaluate any such resources found in terms of their historic/prehistoric significance and possible eligibility for in- clusion within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ; 3) to determine the specific impact on any such resources from the proposed undertaking and make recommendations for the avoidance/mitigation of such adverse effect. II II. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA AND PROPOSED UNDERTAKING I The general location of the survey area is shown on Figures 1 and 2. The site is part of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Second Addition, Lots 2 and 3) and occupies 59 acres of rolling uplands bordered, on the north, by proposed alignment for New Lake Drive, on the east by proposed align- ment for New Market Boulevard, on the south by Lake Susan and on the west by Lake Susan Park -- all in SWNW and NWSW Section 13 as well as SENE and NESE Section 14, T116N, R23W (Figure 3). Most of the Rosemount Inc. site is presently open farmland (38 acres) which , has been cultivated quite intensively for generations. At the time of sur- vey, this area was completely free of either crops or weeds; well washed by rain, it offered circa 95% exposure of any rocks or other items resting on the surface. A smaller area near the western edge of the site (on the crest of a west trending lobe of the main upland) is now under alfalfa but has, in the past, been deeply affected by plowing and top soil erosion; at the time of our investigation, it was covered quite densely by a scatter of gopher mounds and patches of exposed soil within the alfalfa cover which had been cropped very closely and had suffered considerably from the drought , of the preceding summer months. Only two portions of the survey area are wooded: the sides of a ravine in the northwestern part and also the steep slope that separates the farmed uplands (920'-950' elevation) from the lake (normally at 881 ' ). The proposed undertaking would involve the construction of a manufacturing facility and adjacent parking lot within the eastern two thirds of the sur- vey area, on approximately 30% of the total acreage (Figure 4). The western third may be affected by future expansion of the facility. The wooded slope I/ i , .. -2- I I Chanhassen Lakes Business Park I I ( 52 '• \}} I IP 1111 , 55 4 694 1 ----\.„ ` 12 ' �+ Downtown a Downtown I MINNEAPOUS ST.PAUL _a_ 494 �� \ 94 �01 , r EXCELSIOR 0 .III O • I WACONIA CHANHASSEN ®/ 5 Minneapolis- •• CHANHASSEN St_Paul 41 • LAKES Intern:uonal Airport I 1284) -� j L CHASKA 9 35 ' 1�212 11444) i [13' (169 l 282 N I Cri' 1 IFigure 1 . General Location flap I I v VI, >m - i�=_ a v• ` g in �� y `'//'6 gi6� i b JiCb I 'Pr x. ' III \�� j6£ // 3,,""," '.'fr N$—\ 3,Z��, ' / 9 b� I I \..�9 V8 /t I �� rte.%//j \,a f _ ���� ) X11: � I '� f'/, /// ��j/j����' `\\:. , , /\b--fir 1-_�\1 I/ •114/`, ,tt //,,,,„7/,,, ,,,�;/i ' / ., i) ►I)) �7////,------ 111111/ 'I( 1 ., /// /�/ (1// r4,,/ row " ' 1, / ( i /�Q'�i !I/ /11 8.0/4�i///I ,gop ( 1111 % \ \I i, ' i;<y//,,,, zcn j iiI I \\\\ j I I\ E. fr4I4 1 \- 1 if / /�/i/ .`co/ / I / r / _ / / // J I i //+�/ '/l//'' !� rr, 1 1 © I c-�/ ' Qi\✓/ ////� //// I \P.: 1 i ,____ ( - AI j » ji ' --- ( j/ 'i I . .i.-' 0 44.';-J1/ / / /// -_-__---:---7: \\\ \r-- 01-/ I r , -,z1 , ri , _ /; � .; _- / ��� — ©� Il 1 0 /aye , ', /// I \-\ J 11 I µ WA /// // ///t I" // / s \ . / �;/ ee//// //7/�_ � %/ // / \�` �\ \ 1 m u ;�/f 5I'// \ /�/ \ r' I"��\�- 1 1 1 �,b // / �—F. /V / / /// //////////,,,*n\\�_� (^� 2 , \\o,t )\\t/ 1 0/e/ �1' n m r // // // 1 q \ — �j� __2/) /,„ bw �— / I R / /a'` i///�, 1 11` N. \ ( , I1 \ �//// / r/ s'.........—........._....../ ,, 7. 4 c I`l 4/'.47/11 I I \\ I I I I \ \ —�� /// / / —_� /' 1111 II \\„ I I= \ .V) (� ��( I //j /i�� j li II 11,III , \ 1 c --1) i \_ _l 1 ;�r N / I 1 g \ I,/ lI\ j 111 / \ \ \ I✓���'�r%— _ — — . -ill 11t 110 l yam \ ` / /- �� ' - �- 11\\ ,f1��I/tiiq I11 Q .Y. \` � i i Imo`©- /// % , `e1I // \II \\\\\\\\\\t 11 I 1 \ \ \__�_;_ -��J I \\'\s°'o � rl; / / • (,„ Ilj m \\\\�\1\\\\� �`I I i �_�\ 1 1 i —\ I \ I ��—1 -I J / / ' UI1,''• !I ,\ 1111 \\\\ \`\\ \ I �� ► b / �- / / \ \� I \— ' //_ // 1 Hiri.N +g ` \ y C , �\19 'Il\ ICI I li ��I I I) 1 \1, /1 \ �- P\ �\`; ��_---� � // i 1\\1; I\I MI �� 1//\ I� I \ -'� \ 1 i I / /J . 1 ,\ o ;II 1 jlj l illy//// / \ \ \� �:, \ \0�h\ Z 1 \1 VII 1 , I/ --) II II' I'I I I ,°I ' `�,-� T,_ —_ © 1 i\71.--' \ 11 I ' � I, 1,1 , I - �� — I \ 1 \ 11\ III11,. I; 11 : 1i1I * 1 ,, _ - ! , \ ; I I .I I Ilj 1, III I —. `-- ;; 1 ;1, 11 I, T} _ / f',,,,, � , I 1 1 9, 1II y,;1ICI\\,`•\\ \\IIIr(, ,-�� I / 6'd r� ) I \% ( i/ Ire ti. E^ m a III I`II\\\\ \\;�; �>l//�/ Q : t' _ N1 / 1 !1 \ `\ \\ \ I\ ?f ' , \ ■ \ • i l! / I 1 8 I r 1 t\1t'`\\ \\,\\\�I1� 11 , \ / j _��\ \ iI' , / ".-'I.a�'o •..�i I i\ II\��\'\I�, l lI I `��11 \\\ ' -��� �' ', ©� 1p\ \ �I��i �11;'D 11!i ►i;/ /III `. .` - / © , \,/ \ I'� I' , i : I 1 �lill 1i I I �= �� \ \ I ! I I i . . \ Iit ; I � ; ,- - \ \�-- /// lIkl 14 I \\ 11�\ % At. I — / / s L-- ug % I 11 j I i I1''`\ \1\\. ���7�' l i ` 1" -,. \'_,_—_,/// �. t- �/�1 , e �/i'i / >© ��___, / -- MARt SHAKOPE: , c mt: I ...) C 7.5 MINUTE SE .-- • SE/4 LAKE MINN 7273 1 NE WAYZATA 7 Ml 455 (EXCELSIOR) 456 457 32'30" 3 MI. TO MINN.7 R. 1 2 120 000 FEET R 23 W. —_- I ..,''. — ,,, y.._ ,_\ ..fr ja.,•P --Ir.. .-, 1_,...,.,„:„,...i;_5_ d'("1--/-'-' t'-\ 0 ' , •"... , • • ;:..)a ) ---' 0,, '---)... Il 3 k. J _...,, , c. r,__ _. -,‘, \\ ._:=-- • ( .? - •, _____ / ,----- 000 k 9.50 .r-''' \ - , 'C.. -0 • C 9.72 •' VP _ 11'7 •,..„, / 1 \\ •1 .---'- I • / • . /' ,..I . • , ,,....,....,,,,,...,,.... Lake Ann ' ..; -I- e.4 - . . D -- ''.-'')4) ' 956 ' l''. 1 --.V'':'" /-9 '-9,11 / - • \ - 0 - I ) ;:,..-. "-- 1 f.--% ,-.-....,\ - '--b----_---..-,,.--- i - 1 ) - •• -:4 )o 1 1 Ilhi4 ji c)` . - • • n-, ,‘ )'S ..•!.'". '1-, "S __; ' 0'. .',?-7: ii ■ ' ) o I ,Cy,i.-;;.... ..e.,, 8" 1 '' --•- :,\ ie •.,..-..-sz, -. .:Ir.? .. . ' it 'is- • (v..' V000 ' i 1) ', 1 '. " L./. -:-/ ' 1 --; „,'' ,,, __ , . 45 1 ,,, Ote- 1 •.9,5----,-."-s•-•0 0 ' .. -.1:r; - -.'-.• I > \ 'Ili '(.-- '—‘ r- i ; (.._, i f.„..J- ,,2__ ,,,) - _ d •• ., , -, , ,----- o- - ,7 -t--. 1 m • \ / illit 11. ...=4,yr....-,4,....4,... , , ') ---- -}A,,s 1 ,- , ,, (_ , --- ' . . - .7 - ' . i ,, ,a )■`\, --i " -- C7 0 (chill 113 1_ _L, f',, 0) ,,, I , , •-io.:..ii; ,) .4° •kr; . s ,._.,- , ----\_-, . , a '---telil 14 ..,. dier\.t/..f.4 f---, 0 . ' _.L.,--- ---.L. aye 7. 968 • a--11--- - --".".11111,41W• — -- - s., , ._ . \...„:" . • .PC., Cc. . . . ■ , . 0 a '''' _, -1 \--_, 9k ---0,-. - • - j,lay - - &.2...q ,... 0 • pAcIF10, 11.111111. , - 111 - 1 ■, (' '., (::) 4 )? - -__ ' 'r • ---;-' -,_ ..-. t- I : Al& ' ...Hil%.4 01. 1411;00 i Ito . • -----,,, ; /- 1.f) O W.,,,riz• 0 ••••.■ • ' -------ir 1 r -I p.,,, , tc ,.• , ' : ' •• I :;0;'()' ' 1 L... 1001 Ng *so 0 ()' -- ) c___i___,:?;' • 0_ o ''- I .-J , :: 5, 900 :, , ri ' ,, .__., , r'q' 900,. • ic• , 0 -• .1- •l• 0 0 • ' i A ---4t..,1-47A-- (1 A • - — - . ‘‘,/ (---\_ ,-___,-,-,1 ,,,,. ?, c:)• b . , _, ,_, - ) '.‘ 9 .••■• -4. ..L.--.,,,- --)■ _•, ' ' ' '',0 i - ( • } - - , 'v.7- .,.,-........ iv ,, • - ---.'-;-.11 ''--'- 3 °4' N) J'' / I! - -, C•:_ji ; ' '0,,I ,,-,, , --:.= =,.....--. -.---- , . - ,.......---.7.-4=4 - 1 i ' , ' ! 2 \ '0' r ■i Lake Susan . / 900 - -,--..• ...„....-., _ Marsh `:-.t 'N -,.... %., _ , ake... __ ,, _ 4--- ht: , - -- - ___. . ••,,,,, , •,' .--- ----7-4--7- ., .- /0___■-- - ... _ . 1 ;, 1 - ° 953 1. C■. S ' ° • ,t4 - -N "---; , 9 L.? J, ), 1 ill i. • of 1 ;,,,„-. ‘-',,,.---' ,- ,' ( +- 94.7 wir:7 - sk....,;....,-_.,•,%9/4 c ''1 \.- 'i ' dC ,-;:-'1.' il- 43 • ';I,._J ' 4--' •-"i_...;:t (* --__.. -- ; - CD 9°• --.---- ° ,--,-, 0 r,a,j ;.d A 0).••" 411i,1`,,,Z .71 - / ■.1. , . •:-:,. • ( \,_z' Ail ) ) --()) 104--- , , ., : „.....___ — 0-„s—._— r • . ._ , ,, )) it — - — ‘-' ' — • . 411Fik -_-_-• - I ',,,,--•''. '—'71' '- I-— ----.' - ' ,, , : i , , ,.., 0 ,■', c-- .....'t c.+ --Zi i i / .. _ !,..12:1 11,_ _,___, ,.,)js.‘ ... ..., _._. ,---.,,,---.. ... _ j\r, , ._ ,-5-., •- ,,.,, ‘1!.. ._ -''"'' i/ ''''', ''''''-.. • * CY. , __ ____ ______ ____ .• - - .11 /..---; \ • „._.., .;.\\(,,, , I .,. -I '' ''' ; ii—"Ilk.,\ -, _'''l lk,,,,,'"----- - .k ''■s- ',' i . -- , ' .,- . ., _1 • I _..,,,,•.1 • f ,•). „ '„'d, ° ,, -..1_ --; - . ..•ii,', "•••--V---- _...11. -... . '.. .,.\• . ; • ___ ,—_, , _ 0 . , 1 \, . ,.-,,, - .. -- • i --,-,--)C, , °,•.i. : ',, - At, . ,.... I>- . i.i.\ ,_ 4.; , ---.'., ..---,7-•/, )__...-...-,`' ,, („ , ,' -.).',',1k.-i-",•, ••'.': ' t 1 / . - c„c , eI1,,. "•'c,',)t'--•-,-.,•.-..'..;;.;,'i',', / , • viow.,, _ , ,,_;___Hp.mr r. 1 , I I _''' '',.ic""---__,,,,,._\.:--,,-----, , • , ,.• , _. ------t 3.1-------2-5 16--- -------- ---r V' 11 ..._22-....._.----....-.-...--,.,•.,.-,:.”...1. --- -_,;-,-5- __ • ,, 1 i.0 1; '150 0, ). *4. 1• ---:.....- 11,,,i, ,. _ Figure 3. ,- I: 'p.,,o /J.', , , ) ,, • - - , -- • • -- -_-' • ; I,!! .- \ '' --■ .i. ? (`- 1 .I s - Topography of Survey Area and Vicinity )- -6,;;--, • ,-.... .• - 1"--,/"al-,--- - '-:-._ ,' t t (USGS Topographic Quadrangle for 0' ' 'i' '''/ .,,---.9li---------- -----7---- 84- 'lip°.5---j Shakopee, MN.) /7 -, <V,F,...-• -,.../ '' 0 0 IQ, ' 1. -c..\ '' . ,- I j :3--,- ----------7:------ ,; /- ..,---- 1 - / ,- ___ , , -i -- - - - •,, ."1" - i.. .A 1. --'. .. (- " :-.'-;:i.;14V./ '---- ° '''.1 ) 4 \'' '‘ °.° 11 - coitCour II ) ..:d i d str•as as , . t. . '/■9 ■' 1 i „') ..;#:. L' - - ,, / Tr 05 / /i '"--../L. :\ . /J"\'---' 1.>3'.'' 1 A4 -''—'''.. 1 '17‘.,+'-- . ... ' tl /if\ . ' - - - ' ' `-.,:fk ;' ' 1....i Ai. .1.'2._ ...;:..7- : •=‘1-1 ) . ' Se iai�l�lu }e IV•••tl w.�.n 3. .., NOi1V Od!!00 St1d0 -w Y10111/11ew VII IIINN11� 40° ._ .,> 1U10111aS02] •' '0A18 13)Itlrfl M3N M I V,:-........61%•-01 '- - 100 ,i • , , ;�_ o tic . _ i, % -,i 1 , tl sag t! i Ii I _-.--� ,/yam /� �:. : �. i tU.,..,, „..,,,,.. ,; ,,,,..___„,, i , ,, /,;",'i ' i' a P t iill '1 N • 'r li I i - �9 cn ¢ li 117 0 = — =1 i � 11 ! 4-31 I II o 1� II I 1 • 1 A= a) g 1 �. ��, m p f°6'w 1 Z 1� I I�:-----------, : b 1 1 E LI 1 q: Ti: E , i ' � ' s ' /0 II o i .t. .;fit ! ;: i-7 r r 'r, / .... - � , p--q i. ,.. �' 1 . i/ I i1; , t1 '.., , 1 , „i al ,.... i i \., I/A I 1 /� 1 i I I t i • 'I �• �L` l', \V\ .i \ } t 0 cI Il, \ • �\ \*. 1 i i vi ai r4• la �Si�':y t1 ' 4 N• VI \ I i .., \N\ TS \,\ *e d.' • • e C KO s,,, y I .\ 26., ' $ / ! WW1 ! \ \\ x K W SI • I • W \` i5 Y Y Y Y Y 1 1 \ \ 1 / I/ j 1 C iIf'i! • • ! �� ,� ! '. 111! J / off c tc ' y i. r, _ \ r ° it ! —t •s D'.�M1S,X3 i t b i i i i i 6 1 I ii- I all — — — — — — IIIN OM MN — NM r IMO RN all r • Z cc ' cw r a , �•+�+�i.ui.�"y;iii-a '.l> Q� _ � �`--i--�-i.. T!�n-er- n••frr.-n•+rrr'n�r•n+ w..-..�. \ 40 4i ("•----,,,..'„,-, r--\.,1:2„, „ . '-_--, --"i-;-; ' i—.17...7.;--• ) \\)- ',, ' s' ••'s . J .,. 4tr , , - . ''', .: :::. i \-, ''■(:-.''11‘ ‘7,.: 4., !..'1 2 • ! M,'1 l . , 1 ..,-. 7., a""\iimoi ''''''" -. ik ' t .!,ii ...�` - - - 14 ;I• . .', ; , ) , , -,,. , r �__- l' ^ \ = ,...,„,44. : ... �' ) Fie• , . , ;`" `� , ',- mot_ ----� - \ `.n..� =� 1 ` i. . 1 „„_,,..... , , ,„. .., , .. ,,, .... ,, / ' -- '1 - p -- -_ -,• - - -- __ - -rI•Tl\ 1 'el -..__- -- tU� '`'� I c Z y ' .� _ PROPOSED BU N DN _!WO_ N EL.EV 4 A II ( ' ' ):' ,,.: _ _=-�. �o�•.....•e,.�+. % ; D -k% - t 111 .7'0 ')) - , ____-_-..„-•_,,, '; :A SL \ LI,`--.) ` �Z� �;;. ' t,f• %,....:.: • • ` ___- r __ i=ds; E: ` LAKE SUSAN \ ,. _-_-�-_-w�r.riy�.�"� ' ----����/�/ � i • * isolated finds on plowed field NOR n4 ` " ``-- 2 " �'- -- p SITE PLAN . ;.;�4 ' _ _�=—' .. _._.:.cam �>: —. undisturbed archaeological �- --x--�"""-"`' ---- - - - - - deposit I i a (for more detail, see Figure 6) Figure 5. Site plan showing elevation contours and archaeological find areas. towards Lake Susan as well as the ravine would be preserved in their natural 9 state; two smaller wetlands in the northeastern part of the area would be dredged and altered into man-made ponds (Figure 5). I III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING; CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL I The survey area and its surroundings are characterized by a rolling topo- graphy created by terminal moraines of the late Wisconsin glaciation -- a mosaic of steep-sided knolls and ridges, deep, rounded ice-block lakes and numerous more shallow lakes and marshes in irregular, less well defined basins. For most of the post-glacial period -- except during the initial stages when spruce forest followed by deciduous forest succeeded the ice -- the , area was characterized by either open grasslands or open, dry oak savanna (Figure 6). The dense "big woods" that covered much of the area by the 19th century, at the beginning of Euro-American settlement, were a fairly recent II arrival on the scene and this expansive cover of oak, elm, basswood, maple, ash and other deciduous species was not continuous. There were also numerous grassy openings -- islands of surviving tall grass prairie -- on some pf the drier uplands as well as open expanses of wet prairie and marsh in the more shallow depressions (Marschner 1974). A thick blanket of glacial till covers the bedrock throughout this area. From this parent material, under a cover of prairie and prairie/woodland vegetation, developed soils that tend to be deep, well-drained, calcareous clay foams and foams, in the survey area predominantly those classified as Hayden foams (Edwards 1968). For much of the prehistoric period, then, human populations in this area knew it as prairie or open parkland. Prairie plants and prairie game such as bison would have played a major role in their subsistence economy and the scarcity of sheltering woods -- confined mostly to lakeshores and pro- tected valleys -- would have been a significant factor in their choice of habitation sites and travel routes. Prehistoric evidence recorded so far in south central Minnesota spans most of the past ten millennia, beginning with the distinctive, lanceolate projectile points used by the nomadic big-game hunters of the Paleo-Indian period (Figure 7). While there is little concrete evidence of the earliest "fluted" points in the region surrounding the survey area, there is good documentation for the use of the later, unfluted Plano points. More than a dozen have been found in the Hasse Archaeological District in Carver County and occasional Plano points have also been reported from other sites in the region (Lofstrom 1978). In addition, many of the less diagnos- tic "lithic scatters" (scatters of tools, tool fragments, waste-flakes and, at times, fragments of fire-cracked rock) that have been found on plowed fields around the region may well date back to the early prehistoric period (Tables 1 and 2). I/ d ( -8- 1 I Top of Sediment-#.- ZONE IV B IAD 1850 (Elm, Basswood, Maple pollen) AD 1530 BIG WOODS I ZnNE IVA 10 ft - (Oak pollen increases) i AD 30 GRADUAL REFORESTATION (/) OF PRAIRIE O 1240 BC 20 ft-■-..0 ZONE III I 0 Z (Grass & other herb pollens predominate ) m < 2900 BC PRAIRIE I O 30 ft- IQ ( Charcoal indicates frequent grass fires ) I 5800 BC 40 ft- ZONE II (Oak, Pine, Elm pollen ) I DECIDUOUS FOREST WITH 7500 BC GRASSY OPENINGS 50 ft_0..... (Birch. Adler pollen ) 1 10,000 BC ZONE I " BASAL TRASH " ( Spruce needles, seeds & cones ) I SPRUCE FOREST OVER BURIED ICE BLOCK I II II Figure 6. Schematic representation of a pollen core taken from Rutz Lake in Carver County (analysed by J.C.B. Waddington) . Depth of de- posits, with related radio-carbon dates, are shown on the left; II major pollen zones are described on the right. From Lofstrom and IlanOrocklin Spaeth 1978, page 5. II I,, -9- 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL SEQUENCE IN CARVER COUNTY I 1978 — HISTORIC II WOODUI ND/ MISSISSIPPIAN go moo! A.Q OAR MIDDLE N 0 8.G — SAVANNA WOOOL AO T L ATE ARCHAIC 2000 — —T— LA KES PRAIRIE 4000 — DRT EARLY I� ARCIWC I/1 6000 — PLA$o 1 DECIDUOUS TRA017gN I I FOREST REST _ 8000 — T ± CRACIAI f POINT J RIV[R !H T UGE TRADIAOI TION at WARREN FOREST 10,000 — —1-- 1 Ii • i "RETREAT" , OF CLAP ER 12,000 — —L 1 1 Figure 7. Environmental and cultural sequence in Carver County. From Lof- strom and UanBrocklin Spaeth 1978, page 11 . 1 Subsequent populations of the Archaic period (Figure 7) seem to have led II a more circumscribed, semi-nomadic life with more emphasis on a broad spec- trum of local resources: small game as well as the occasional bison and deer; II fish and shellfish; wild vegetables and fruits, seeds and nuts. Their tech- nology was diversified accordingly to include a range of other stone tools -- pecked and ground axes, mauls, gouges and grindstones used for wood and plant processing. These artifacts, along with a variety of flaked tools II and lithic debris, are common on sites in the survey area. Judging by the number of finds from the later Archaic period -- a variety of stemmed and side or corner-notched projectile points used to tip darts and arrows rather II than spears -- the area was quite intensively used at that time, particularly after 3000 B.C. The paucity of earlier Archaic sites is presumably connected II II ° C -10- li 1 Site # Description Paleo- Archaic Woodland Undeter- Historic Indian E. L. M. L. mined In- Euro- prehist. dian Amer. IICR 2 3 circular mounds x 3 single mound x II 8 habitation x 12 habitation x x 13 habitation; mounds x x II 14 habitation x 15 habitation x 19 lithic scatter x II 20 lithic scatter x 42 habitation x 43 lithic scatter x 44 habitation x 50 single circ. mound x 68 lithic scatter x -- Hasse Archaeological ? x x I -- District findspots on Wasser- man Lake x II -- findspots on Lake Bavaria x -- findspot on Hazel- , -- tine Lake x findspot north of Hazeltine Lake x • II Table 1 ., Cultural resources previously recorded within the region surrounding the survey area -- Carver County (locations indicated on Figure 2). II ilwith the extremely dry conditions on the prairie during the 6th and 5th mil- lennia B.C. Reduced water supplies and increased danger of grass fires would have deterred human habitation; what camp sites may have been used, adjacent II to much reduced lake basins and streams, would now be submerged under water or buried under marshy lake margin deposits. II Generally, prehistoric developments along the eastern prairie margin corre- sponded quite closely to those of the woodlands further east. So far, how- ever, there is no evidence in the survey area of the crude, thick pottery 1 that has been found on "Early Woodland" sites in southeastern Minnesota. Traits characteristic of the subsequent period are all the more common on sites in the area (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 2) . They include burial mounds 11 II • -11- Site # Description Paleo- Archaic Woodland Undeter- Historic Indian E. L. M. L. mined In- Euro- prehist. dian Amer. HE 18 Palmer Mounds (5) x I 19 20 mounds x 20 Kempton Mounds (53) x 21 Fieldman Mounds (20?) x 23 single, large mound x 24 21 mounds x 41 8 mounds x 46 13 mounds x 101 habitation x 104 single mound x SC 2 Shakopee Village -- x x x mounds, habita- , tion, mission 22 Ponds Mounds (28) & x Habitation 23 6 mounds x 26 69 mounds x 31 Murphy's Steamboat Landing and Inn x , Table 2. Cultural resources previously recorded within the region surrounding I the survey area -- Hennepin and Scott Counties (locations indicated on Figure 2). and a thick, coil-built, grit-tempered and rather poorly fired type of pot- tery with cord impressions on the exterior and little or no decoration -- possibly a row of irregular depressions below the slightly everted rim (Lof- strom 1978). In general, Woodland lifeways appear to have continued in the Archaic mode as suggested by the technology and food remains found on a , number of sites in south central Minnesota. A few sites near the survey area also contain evidence that suggests a cultural continuity, i.e. the Hasse and Miller Lake Archaeological Districts in central Carver County. The former has yielded evidence from the Middle Woodland, Archaic and, possibly, the Paleo-Indian periods; the latter has yielded Archaic burials in the near vicinity of a large group of Woodland burial mounds as well as habitation areas with large quantities of Middle Woodland pottery (Lofstrom and Van- Brocklin Spaeth 1978:16). I I II r . ( -12- I In contrast to the Middle Woodland period, later prehistoric manifestations are poorly represented on sites in the survey region, a fact which is some- what incongruous with the documented vitality of Late Woodland and Mississip- pian cultural traditions in neighboring areas -- in southeastern and east central Minnesota as well as in the south central part of the state. This discrepancy could indicate a stronger survival of successful Middle Wood- land lifeways in this area, or it could be a misleading impression derived from a bias in the available data. There are, for example, as yet unexplored ' terraces along the Minnesota River (particularly at creek junctions) where one may expect to find sites similar to the Oneota Mississippian fields and villages that have been identified both upstream and downstream the Minnesota River. On the whole, our knowledge of the prehistory in Carver, Hennepin and Scott Counties suffers from the fact that these areas still need to be intensively and systematically inventoried for archaeological sites. Only one research project, the Carver County phase of the Statewide Archaeological Survey (SAS) , has attempted to use a more comprehensive approach (Lofstrom 1978 and 1981 ). ' Other investigations have generally been compliance surveys of limited scope, - generated by construction projects within narrowly defined areas. Those under- taken within a few miles of the survey area are: a reconnaissance survey around ' the southern part of Mitchell Lake, negative except for the identification of an old farmstead (Woolworth and Woolworth 1980a) ; two reconnaissance surveys in the vicinity of Lotus Lake, both negative (Helmen 1980a and 1980b) ; one 11 reconnaissance survey of the Hidden Valley Residential Complex between T.H.5 and Rice Marsh Lake, also negative (Lothson 1985) ; linear surveys along the Lake Ann and Red Rock Lake Interceptor Sewers, both negative except for some - historic evidence (Woolworth and Woolworth 1980b; Dobbs, n.d. ) ; a reconnais- sance survey of the Lake Susan Hills Residential Complex west of Lake Susan which yielded one possible prehistoric campsite and some possible burial mounds (Lothson 1987) ; a reconnaissance survey around Hazeltine Lake which produced evidence of two prehistoric sites at the east end of the lake -- CR 14 and 15 (Oothoudt and Watson 1977); a linear reconnaissance survey per- formed by ARS this year along the proposed southwest corridor of T.H.212 (Cologne to Interstate 494) which identified a number of prehistoric and historic sites near Mitchell Lake, Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Riley and Bluff Creek (Harrison 1988). Archaeological sites included in the State Site File (except for 1988 data which have not yet been processed) and located in the general vicinity of the survey area have all been indicated on Figure 2. Generally, these sites are found adjacent to lake basins (including older, now filled or drained water features); a few of the smaller campsites are found along streams at some distance from the nearest lake. The area around Lake Susan also has considerable potential for yielding historic evidence. Located along the Minnesota River, an important waterway and transportation route during the early days of Euro-American settlement, Carver County was one of the first to be surveyed and organized (1854-1855). Sites from the early historic period -- those connected with the fur trade r I -13- or with early military or civil administration -- can be expected to occur along major water and/or overland transportation routes: major rivers, In- dian trails also used by early Euro-Americans, early governemnt roads (the latter usually plotted on original land office maps and other historic maps) . Homesteads and other settlement related structures of the later 19th and early 20th centuries fit in with the grid pattern superimposed on the land by the original land survey; within that pattern, however, many of the farms, particularly the earliest ones, tend to be located near lakes and streams. Later, proximity to county roads, railroad depots, commercial centers and schools appear to have been major factors in locational decision-making. As Lake Susan is one of the larger water features in the area and also forms a part of the Riley Creek drainage -- a tributary to the Minnesota River -- any uplands in its vicinity must be considered as having a high prehistoric and historic potential. IV. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS _ I The cultivated portion of the survey area was subjected to surface reconnais- sance at 10 m intervals. Surface finds were numbered, flagged and later plot- ted on detailed topographic maps of the Rosemount Inc. property (Figures 5 and 8). Visibility was good to excellent throughout the area (above, page 1 ). Intermittent soil probes, the amount of glacially transported rock debris on the surface and the amount of lighter colored subsoil showing up in the plow horizon all served as an indication that past plow disturbance -- aggravated by top soil erosion -- had extended well into culturally sterile mineral soil. The cultivated area yielded a total of 12 lithic items that appear to have a cultural origin although many of them were quite weathered and some of them therefore seemed rather ambiguous. Their locations are shown on Fig- ures 5 and 8; below is a brief description of each item: 1 . Possible smoother/chopper (siltstone cobble with 4 smooth(ed?) facets 1 and one end modified by two fracture planes). 2. Possible core (very weathered) of yellowish white chert. 3. Scraper made on thick flake of somewhat weathered, tabular grey chert. 4. Scraper made by modifying thick decortication flake of yellow chert. 5. Decortication flake of somewhat weathered grey chert. 6. Polisher/smoother (a flat, ovoid basalt cobble with sets of parallel striations on both of the wider surfaces). I 7. Polisher/smoother? (Rather flat, ovoid cobble of light grey igneous rock with some plow scarring as well as some apparently older scars caused by pecking and grinding or smoothing. ) 8. Possible core (very weathered) of grey, semi-translucent chalcedony. 1 I II g, -14- 11 9. Tertiary flake fragment of greyish white chert. Smoother/polisher (basalt cobble with sets of parallel striations on its basal side). 10. Secondary decortication flake with apparent modification or use- wear -- possibly used as a scraper? Greyish white chert. 11 . Polisher/hammer stone? (Basalt cobble with sets of parallel striations as well as some pecking marks on one flat side.) 11 12. Modified/utilized flake of yellowish brown chert. This thin lithic scatter suggests very intermittent prehistoric use of the uplands between Lake Susan and the smaller wetlands in the northeastern part of the survey area. The apparent lack of ceramics suggests an early cultural affiliation, probably Archaic. I Many of the items were found on the slopes below the ridge crests that pre- sumably were the preferred camp spots or use areas. This fact, along with the frequent weathered appearance, suggests that these lithics have been relocated many times by agricultural activities and that the deposits they came from have been thoroughly reworked by the plow. It seems highly un- likely that any portions of the site area would remain intact below the plow horizon. The findings have been reported as one site, Opus I (formal site number pending), and a state site file form has been submitted to the State Archaeo- Ilogist's Office (SAO) -- see copy in Appendix C. The southeastern portion of the higher area is the only place where the pro- I posed construction would extend beyond the cultivated field into the woods. This area was covered by walkover reconnaissance at 10 m intervals, begin- ning at the point where the east-west oriented tree line takes a sudden turn towards the north for approximately 75 m (before it turns east-east/southeast again towards the eastern edge of the property). Within this wooded area north of the steep slope, the western portion has been severely disturbed in the past. Now under a cover of weeds, brush and immature trees, it seems I to have been graded some decades ago. The southern, less disturbed edge of this terrace was shovel-tested, with negative results (ST10-13 on Figure 8). Some 1 .5 m to 2 m wide and approximately 1 m deep man-made depressions were noted in this area, near the upper edge of the steep slope. To the east of the disturbed area, the land begins to slope steadily towards the south/southeast, under a cover of mature deciduous woods. The eastern half is bisected by a small but steep-sided ravine cut by an intermittent stream. West of the ravine, between approximately 920' and 930' elevation, the slope becomes more gradual, creating a fairly level terrace between the ravine and the main slope down to the lake. Located south of the proposed construction zone, this terrace was not tested, just surface checked. It would seem, however, to possess considerable archaeological potential. In 11 addition, there are, once again, a couple of large, man-made depressions similar to those just described, both located near the southeastern tip of the terrace and close to the ravine. I I Even though the remaining wooded g ni g w ded portions of the Rosemount Inc. property were excluded from the scope for this investigation -- mostly steep slope and not to be developed -- an attempt was made to identify any more level areas that could have had cultural use potential and that may need investi- gation sometime in the future, should they ever be developed as park areas with hiking trails etc. I Sample walkover transects through the northwestern part of the Rosemount, Inc. parcel indicated that all but a small portion is very steep and rugged. Dense vegetation across the more level area -- the 930' lobe shown on Fig- ure 8 precluded any attempt at complete surface reconnaissance. It would seem, however, quite high in archaeological potential. Sample transects walked parallel to the north shore of Lake Susan and at approximately 20 m intervals indicated the presence of several small sub- terraces along the wooded slope which otherwise is too steep to have had prehistoric use potential. Due to very dense underbrush, it was impossible to determine the exact number of such smaller terraces but there appeared to be quite a few. Such a determination would have to be made during late fall or early spring when the leaves are gone. Two of the smaller terraces identified on the slope were shovel-tested in order to get an idea of the general archaeological potential in this area. Both produced some cultural evidence. A total of nine tests were put in at approximately 10 m intervals; each test measured 45-50 cm in diameter and was taken down to sterile mineral soil, with contents screened through inch hardware cloth. Results were recorded on test content forms (Appen- dix 8) and locations were plotted on the detailed topographic maps of the survey area (Figures 5 and 8). The area tested by shovel-tests (ST) 1 to 5 is Y ( quite open, covered by natur- al grasses and weeds and only partially shaded by a few large old oaks. A small, level to gently sloping ledge, it would have been ideal as a stop- ' off point or temporary camp site -- as it still is, judging by the presence of a recent, still used, fire ring and the lack of brush. Within this area, three of the tests proved positive: ST2 which produced a grindstone or smoother from about 10 cm depth (a sandstone cobble with one distinctly smoother, very flat facet) ; ST3 which produced a fractured tertiary flake of Hixton orthoquartzite from the same level; ST4 which yielded 8 body sherds -- 4 of them split or fragmentary, 5 with well defined cord markings on the I/ exterior. ST7 to 9 were placed circa 50 m to the E/NE, on another small ledge some- I what further up the slope. Here, ST7 yielded a decortication flake of chert. This area is more vegetated, though with brush and young trees rather than mature woods. On the whole, this portion of the slope, from ST1 and some 80 m towards the E/NE, has the appearance of an old pasture that is being reclaimed by brush and young trees. Separated only by a natural and shallow depression, the two find areas (ST2-4 and ST7) have been interpreted as one prehistoric site area, Opus II (formal site number pending). A site form has been submitted to the SAO for inclusion within the State Site File. I I/ g 4 i E iL�� �P `� 11 I 1 ' r l . ; dl I• ii ! ,--,, I I J:- ���^ r----NIP,- 1 ,, olio III - / ,-r- d I CJQ�' I 1 -9i ' ,. 1 I s W .• 3 Y m 1 'Irl� k Z ;i' 3 ry x f i s , -a r �yi 7_. ,13_.i..a 1 of 1.r• ( ! I , FAIIIILIMILE ...*� ! iii 4• � l ! iI!I {am. . niu V_____t ,;t>l'' s'-' ....-1 '? IffillellIEI 1110111 gill ,\ss 1 --vic ... „. 1.--- if ,,,, .. to ,,, k Z ^ `1, . 1111/ ...1 \ re' Iii t, ,,,,,i'f -. F1 I 4)Q0, 3,,,,,,,''' ;_ , „ ,. I ,� 111.���. /, ' ', IdaR/ [ (�/& 117#16% ``� i�, F �!1 tW,_N AAA 0 0 ...1_ ,-11C7 _ Bp , , _rx rg 11 I- I 7 I',3 0'6.° s''''' 'It.t' . .-T- "%Mal ' ‘. :'N.litIc.1j • " � / � ` ` � �! \r' "'* a '4l �� i' S• kr, ',-4 1� n I a"V � � wss ' 1\ A °' / i ,� !It � *_,',..WIrr' Ihst11\ 1110 wr (z ), a link- --/ l'' i ,:p I AMIE" 1 libP7-': \‘1' 01 ii • � � N �dc. 1lji, ko a . 1r v •e__• 1,s_ , , a ,_ , .i,.,,s i? 72::I 7.... 1: 1 ■46.. \ II:, a ce-= 7 7. -5. 1 1.1 , 1 '1416,+ !,,-'' • +.----• jia- IRV,'- ';%.■ A 101113K.;-, 4 I . 14 =-7.- " '4111-.'---•lilant ' 1111 04 n' =ikk 3 'lit .. 41 .rm.. _ , : fAlib\‘' A c. i r ',- ir 1 , .,,,. , -- :-_,I '4411.. '..,,. c).z. IIIIMM1 4 '1 T 41.4.-_.0`L: ... k-,-,-,- -%. ititiP',7 7 P441.Kai gelAzill 00 =i t, 1 HENNzE.\ NCo�� B r :ale am���.��.z .j `(.�- �' ICf7�'i�'.. .�'i D - s ,--.(�ro ipol • ,c, - ‘g: inmillVi.&.17, ,.. p"-..r. mail- Mgr "Y rf-7 11;17 ) F:4-' - --7 11-1-- 7--1 — lu....-a. -. rAt■ lurk-1 �1 1� � rPt 1 `\ I M� IF�,�!K'i'" gr�.T�,1�P.#2° .ice` �'(�����-��I`rr�°'�_ m5 'A 111: 1 ltlf i� �z sl��~ !- F `�i1ly �,�I= ��J c 17 y w '1 /N T<, � 4"*il'ihl,el ;` I f2111i r�i11Mia 7J•i. .[r��.--I���� 11.9 c m m n _ cj t j .. �itt a ��EglitTM.��♦f\ AI th1��. NC' o m N. m m I-)Vii--r g ^5 4. . ru � h..��t I �i perf �.G_�_ na ,O .o'w0 pL s:' w, ,/ _, , �1irib _ 1 j lv `r'swiri. vt ro.. '�,--- 11! c,.._° c 1 jZ /J 1•r a „• �fll�Iw�.� r 7 * 1 1 d �! I• ..... 1 �c: 1 humr...w.-.HApiow,,. or lir.� ^/., art; *rob�. \.! �/,�."ci'a_ l►!►,..opmear.4 _AlBir't`;p :.�1�7t1,_ ,_ 1 ' *ft" -•' - 'AprorvoXIIW:211.11 iltai% "IF-ziw�c�w�, Si�! 'f L_ 1 .•E.`p! .11.4 . is.;ogioNi sii11. one 6_■_!r::,w az..:dt_ I. �c_#}..4 ! ["■ ^' r •it igivez ,. r ,o� F � \ Iii= .. s -17- V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIMPIENDATIONS • Survey results have identified two prehistoric sites as well as a series of man-made depressions possibly dating back to the early historic or late prehistoric periods. They also identified one location where such depres- sions overlap with an area of definite archaeological potential. Of the two prehistoric sites, only one, Opus I (the lithic scatter on the cultivated field) would be impacted by the proposed Rosemount, Inc. con- struction project. Opus II, a small camp site half-way down the wooded slope to Lake Susan, lies well outside the proposed construction zone. As mentioned above on page 14, it seems highly unlikely that any undistur- bed portions of Opus I could remain underneath the plow horizon, i.e. that the site could retain enough integrity and research potential to be eligible for the National Register. Our recommendation, therefore, would be a deter- mination of "no adverse effect" and a go-ahead for the proposed construction. Opus II, on the other hand, appears to be quite undisturbed and could, though small, yield some diagnostic ceramics as well as other artifacts in meaning- ful patterns of association; there is also a good chance that firepits and other features could be present. Because of its integrity and research poten- tial, Opus II must be considered potentially eligible for the National Regis- ter. Although this fact has no bearing on the completion of the proposed construction, care should be taken to protect the site from wear and tear through recreational use once this wooded slope becomes a park area adjacent to a facility scheduled to employ approximately 700 people (Figure 4, fine print). The proposed construction would not impact either the man-made depressions found here and there (usually in pairs) along the wooded slope, nor the 920'-930' terrace U/SW of the ravine in the SE corner of the parcel. At the- most, some of these areas may be covered by the fill that would extend some- what beyond the scheduled parking lot (Figure 5). Their existence should be considered, however, if any plans are made, in the future, for a system of hiking trails or other recreational facilities on the wooded slope. The depressions would then have to be mapped and described during a time of optimal lateral visibility as the brush is dense throughout these woods. 1 1 I 1 I I I I I -13- 1 - " VI. REFERENCES rDobbs, Clark A. n.d. Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Red Rock Lake Interceptor Sewer Project, conducted for Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander- I ilk & Associates, Inc., St. Paul, MN. Edwards, Russell J. 1968 Soil Survey: Carver County, Minnesota. USDA Soil Conservation Ser- vice in cooperation with University of Minnesota Agricultural Ex- periment Station, St. Paul. Harrison, Christina 1988 Report on Cultural Resource Investioation Along Proposed Southwest Corridor of T.H. 212 (Cologne, Carver County, to Eden Prairie, Hen- nepin County). Completed for Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, Minneapolis, MN. Helmen, Vernon R. 1980a Final Report on Archaeological Survey for Near Mountain Project, on file at the Minnesota Historical Society, Ft. Snelling, St. Paul. 1980h Final Report on Archaeological Survey of the Lotus Lake Community Park, Chanhassen, Minnesota -- on file at the Minnesota Historical I Society. Lofstrom, Ted 1978 Report on an Archaeological Survey of Carver County. Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Survey, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. 1981 Minnesota Statewide Archaeolooical Survey, Summary: 1977-1980. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Lofstrom, Ted and Lynne VanBrocklin Spaeth 1978 Carver County: A Guide to Its Historic and Prehistoric Places. Minnesota Historical Society - State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul. Lothson, Gordon A. 1985 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Testing of the Hidden Valley Residential Complex, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Cougar Consulting, St. Paul, MN. 1987 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Testing of the Lake Susan Hills Residential Complex, Chanhassen, Minnesota. r I 1 1 f I I I Marschner, F.J. 1974 The Original Vegetation of Minnesota. USDA Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. Oothoudt, J.W. and C.W. Watson 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Hazeltine, Bavaria and Wasserman Lakes, Carver County, Minnesota. Terra Archaeological Services, St. Louis Park, MN. Woolworth, Alan R. and Nancy L. Woolworth 1980a A Cultural Resources Survey of a Tract of Land Adjacent to Mitchell Lake, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Woolworth Research Associates, White Bear Lake, Minnesota. 1980b A Report on a Cultural Resources Survey Along the Route of the Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer, Chanhassen Township, Carver County, Minnesota. Prepared for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission by Woolworth Research Associates, White Bear Lake, MN. I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I ir I Appendix A: Correspondence Requesting Cultural Resource Survey I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NUN NESuTA HISTORIC. �L SOCIET Fc���UED i` inav September 23, 1988 Mr. Robert A. Worthington, AICP ��P 2 9 19bu Opus Corporation P. 0. Box 150 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Dear Mr. Worthington: Re: Rosemount Engineering Headquarters Site 60+ acre site adjoining Lake Susan, South of TH 5 and East of County Road 7; Chanhassen, Carver County MHS Referral File Number: 88-2718 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Office by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800). Our review indicates that there are cultural resource sites located in the vicinity of the project area on almost every lake, and there is a high potential for unrecorded sites to be present. Cultural resource surveys on similar topographic and geomorphic features indicate that sites are frequently located near the banks of current lakes, rivers and creeks as well as on old remnant beach ridges and stream/river terraces. Certain aspects of the project area are typical topographic features that have a high potential for containing prehistoric settlements. Consequently the staff recommends that a cultural resource survey be conducted in the project area. I have enclosed for your reference a list of archaeological consultants who have indicated an interest in performing such surveys. The archaeologist hired will need a map of the project area and an explanation of the kind of development proposed. Upon completion of the survey and before work begins, a copy of the survey results should be submitted to this office for review. Thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve Minnesota's cultural resources. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ted Lofstrcm at the address and telephone number on the letterhead. Sincerely. Dennis A. Ginmestad Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DAG: dmb cc: Dr. Christy Caine, State Archeologist U. S. Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest Cass Lake, MN 56633 Jan Streiff, State Archeologist Office, Hamline University I i i I 1y C Appendix B: Test Record Forms I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i t ;tae sae if .z - 3► County Cc. ,.-•._ SID Crew l4 5 l ...I °4-,-*7 Date 9- z z - 8 C ■ -TETT UNIT: I TE9r' UNIT: 2. • Soil.PROFILE cULTURAL MATERIAL, SOIL PROFILE CULTURAL MATtRIAL Vwydo-....sr..a - y....-- r ....: 4 ('c.•,,o,c 5:,...d- 1�J1-..L- A... .. J 0 VJ1c c...- ...-y., 10 Ll e..c / r.. l..'1..<_ v.+o,+lca d...., S In........� l•C.v,, C��e .,4,0 30 .,.),,I-, .rllew>.( ie 1 e—.,_ brv..- S.l11/41e, `.! Ic....� .�, \ � 40 d....t ..l ,; 1.0 I IJrOww t.,..I..+J=11-- ..,SO C.l0.o lue.,._ C'lw� Io�w i 60 60 70 70 .. ep 90 90 100 CM, • 100 CM. TEST UNIT: 3 TEST U 4 NIT: 1 SOIL PROFILE CvcruRAL MATERIAL SOIL PROFILE CULTURAL MATERIAL 4 W •• W *r v yr .x.>.1..-b rc.....,, - a..lwo.r ,01e.4.ae q Imos.� Zl.i....A w e ele...3.y ...J..+....a •10 i A- .♦ 41.1, - t-..J"...a....\ .<.. Y- l k ....F... evn... \ `Ii 10 (r.- Sim`-' ) >_ % + ..10 5;...,.Ra..- '3 S...y i n. .�e tl w S 4tr. 1t -to S 7 1 Zp 8 4c..■e. G..Z.S I o..... •30 v 30 v ■ •-.3`'4 h 0 .40 40 ..-...... L w-p...i .SO Sp - •60 GO I -7O 70 .g0 g0 -90 90 .100 CM, 100[H. I I I I I I State sate L - Y County .C74 a 1�-.- Crew \!a)\ Sk Date v -z-2-err , TEST YNIT: S TELT UNIT: 6 •■-a- I SOIL PROFILE vc.,.,, d k b'us CYTRAL MATdR1A6 SOIL PROFfLt d o r,1,2,/w..— DULTV{AL NATtRAL k......I .0 H......... , 10 1 s....,,..,.� S 1-.., lC SY� G�5 C.o,...r0 ac--T C\cb loe.w-- 40 ve,.) 0 40 ho...T.a so so I 60 w 70 70 I .0 80 90 90 I100 CM. /00 CM. TEST UNIT: 1 TEST UNIT: SOIL PROFILE CULTURAL MATERIAL SOIL PROFILE CULTURAL MATERIAL wu w w ,,,.7 asp ., _ ol c ei.- C\.-yew w yr r 1n4.w...., •(03 (0 I \.....w.,... *Y..4.•.. '�t..l..c li ...0.-l\c•..!\ 10 10 Y.-1.,..3c...-� r4j u w Z rc7, u-e......, `30 30 IGlace \...,,,..... .40 40 •so 50 i _ w 40 -70 70 -80 80 .90 90 1 .100 CM. 100 CM. II I I I I I .ail 5_,e If County C'a C ail Crew 1Fo)%� .4 s\.0� Date °/ 2� 'rz� I v. , -TEST UNIT: 9 t%I TEST MIT': 1 C , Soli Polo FILE CULTURAL MATERIAL Soli PROF3Lt CULTURAL MAMMAL. 1—c\k w,n..�... s it r,r„.,,.,.», a Io is-r.S i C\.Hr v..,- S:...,,,,La,. -o Co I '6' 7 g to,,,,T xo halt- Ve-3 h She....,I c.- • v cdntIC t-1 s,s,..1.,. 30 30 .. C e»..h 40 C C_4.-.--, }0 40 S 1,47 C.1a-5 1 \Oa.+.. µP.+. ber.-.- S' %).-...,pp0. SO 40 40 1 70 70 S0 80 1 90 90 l00 CM. 100 CM. I 7C Sr UNIT: TEST UNIT: SOIL PROFILE CUtVURAL. MATERIAL. SOIL PROFILE CULTURAL MATERIAL v w •r Nit 41 .r Yt I •10 10 •z0 20 1 .30 30 40 40 1 .90 SD . w `0 1 .70 70 .et- 90 -90 90 .700 CM. 100 CM. I I • I 1 I I I y. Appendix C: Minnesota State Site File Forms I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 Appendix D: Description of ARS Team 1 I t I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 I \NNESOTq I I y ° Minnesota Department of Transportation SQO� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 IrOF TRP- November 4, 1988 Phone 296-1641 11 I Joanne Olsen City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter St. IChanhassen, MN 55317 IRe: Environmental Assessment Worksheet; Proposed Development in Chanhassan of the Rosemount, Inc., Manufacturing Facility. II Dear Ms. Olsen: II The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed a review of the above referenced EAW. I Staff in Mn/DOT District Five, headquartered in Golden Valley, have coordinated with staff of the City of Chanhassan regarding future improvements to Trunk Highway 5 in the vicinity of the proposed development. These improvements are tentatively I/ scheduled for construction in 1989-90. The proposed development at the Rosemount site will impact access design to T.H. 5. Proposed improvements by Chanhassen and Mn/DOT must be inplace to Iprovide adequate access to this development. The drainage plan for the site should be coordinated with the I District Five Hydraulics Engineer, Ellen Anderson. We are concerned that the rate of runoff not increase, as the Lake Susan outlet under T.H. 101 will be unable to handle any increase. Ms. Anderson can be reached at 593-8504. IIf you require additional information from Mn/DOT, please contact Carl Hoffstedt, Transportation Planning Engineer at our Golden IValley office, telephone number 593-8540. Sincerely, I G,C____--17,,,,, Gerald Lars I Environmental Coordinator (acting) Environmental Services Section II NOV 81988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN IAn Equal Opporrunriy Employer 1 As. X>01 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency November 10, 1988 Ms. Joann Olsen City Planner 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: Re: Rosemount, Inc. Manufacturing Facility, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the above referenced project and determined that the project does not have the - II potential for significant environmental effects. The staff does, however, have comments to offer in the water quality area. An industrial wastewater discharge permit must be obtained from the 1 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for the discharge of industrial chemical wastewater to the sanitary sewer. This permit would include local pretreatment limitations for the Metropolitan Disposal System and applicable federal categorical limitations for metals, any total cyanide, and for pH in the proposed facility's wastewater to be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Please contact Don Madore of the MWCC at 612-222-8423 regarding these permitting requirements. If a United States Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is required for the project, 401 Certification by the MPCA is also required. Please contact Louis Flynn of the Division of Water Quality, about the certification process, at 612-297-3364. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Marlene Voita of my staff at 612-296-7275. Sincerely, ' C i ford T. Anderson Director Office of Planning and Review I CTA:mfl cc: Mr. Gregg Downing, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ' Mr. Louis Flynn, MPCA, Division of Water Quality, Program Development Mr. Don Madore, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Phone: 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 NOV 1988 Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF CHAlvHASSEA • I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive I Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 IAPPLICANT: OPUS Corporation OWNER: ALSCOR Investors Joint vpnr1„ N0.2 ADDRESS 9900 Bren Road E. ADDRESS 9900 Bren Road E. I Minnetonka, MN 55440 Zip Minnetonka, MN 55440 p TELEPHONE (Daytime) 936-4419 p Code TELEPHONE 936-4444 Zi Code IREQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan IZoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment x Subdivision ILand Use Plan Amendment X Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Ix X Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review x Environmental Assessment Worksheet x Wetlands Permit ' PROJECT NAME Rosemount Inc. Manufacturing Facility PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION same IPRESENT ZONING IOP - Industrial Office Park District REQUESTED ZONING same IUSES PROPOSED Manufacturing Facility SIZE OF PROPERTY 57.76 acres ILOCATION Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Lakes Business Center I REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To accommodate construction of a 330._000 sq. ft. office/warehouse/manufacturing facility with 950 parking spaces ,and on-site loading docks, for Rosemount Inc. for the manufacture of precision instruments. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) See attached I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 ' FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies ' that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . ' OPUS Corporation Signed By Date 9//9 Fk Applic- t Robert A. Worthington, AICP Executive Director - Governmental Affairs ' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. ALSCOR Invff� Joint Venture No. 2 By OPUS&-Corpor Lion, its Gneral Partner Signed By /� /_,�'�?�� Date U� �' `' Fee Owner Jeffrey W. Essen Vice President - General Manager Real Estate Development Date Application Received ' Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. 1 ' * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �.R."(filled inbyEQB) ' Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE BOX: © REGULAR EAW H SCOPING EAW ' NOTE TO REVIEWERS:For regular EAWs,written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an US. For scoping EAWs,written com- ments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS.Such ' comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit(RGU)during the 30-day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB(metro:612/296-8253:non-metro: 1-800-652-9747,ask for envi- ronmental review program)or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1. Project Name Rosemount Inc. Manufacturing Facility 2. Proposer OPUS Corporation 3. RGU City of Chanhassen Contact Person Robert A. Worthington Contact Person Joann Olsen Address 9900 Bren Road E. and Title City Planner Minnetonka, MN 55440 Address 690 Coulter Street Phone (612) 936-4419 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone (612) 937-1900 Parts of 4. Project Location: * Section 13 & 14 Township 116N Range 23W a. County Name Carver City/Township Name Chanhassen b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW: 1. a county map showing the general area of the project. 2. a copy(ies)of USGS 71/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map. 3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures,roads,extent of flood plain, ' wetlands,wells,etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area,if available. 5. Describe the proposed project completely(attach additional sheets as necessary). The project will consist of a 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility for Rosemount Inc. for the production of precision instruments for the measurement ' and control of temperature, flow, level and pressure as specified by businesses in the process control industry. The facility, as depicted in figures 4-8 as attached, will house 700 employees. It will also provide 950 on site parking stalls as well as loading dock areas to receive and distribute materials and products from the facility. The project site, which is located along the north shore of Lake Susan in Chanhassen, will be 57.76 acres. Total hardcover (parking, loading areas, driveways and building) coverage for the facility will be 30%. The property is currently zoned and guided by the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for industrial use. I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 0. Reason for EAW preparation: Mandatory Project will exceed 200,000 sq.ft. mandatory EAW List all mandatory category rule''s which apply: threshold for 4th Class cities. 7. Estimated construction cost $15,000,000. 8. Total project area(acres) 57.76 acres or length(miles) — 9. Number of residential units n/a or commercial,industrial,or institutional square footage 330,000 sq.ft. 10. Number of proposed parking spaces 950 I11. List all known local,state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Government Type of Application Status IFederal: Army Corps of Engineers (grading plan submitted; awaiting comments) State: Riley Bluff Creek, Purgatory Creek Watershed District (grading, excavation Ipermit to be applied for in Oct. 1988). I Local:Preliminary and final plat approval, site and building plan approval; street vacation; HRA approval of Redevelopment Plan and modification of TIF agreement; City. Wetland Alteration permit. All applications currently pending City approval. 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use I plan or any other adopted plans? © No ❑ Yes If yes,explain: The Chanhassen Comprehensive land use plan adopted in 1982, designates the Rosemount Inc. facility site as being guided for industrial uses. The I zoning for the property is IOP—Industrial Office Park District, wherein industrial, warehouse and manufacturing uses are permitted uses. 13. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. 1 The Rosemount, Inc. site is currently undeveloped. It is a part of a larger 88+ acre tract of previously platted undeveloped land arch extends from Co. Rd. 17 on the west to proposed Market Blvd. on the east/abetween the Chicago, Minneapolis, I St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, State TH 5 on the north and Lake Susan on the south. The site along with the large undeveloped tract, from which it will be subdivided,, is a major parcel in the planned industrial park known as The Chanhassen Lakes Business Park which is owned by the Alscor Investors Joint Venture Partnership I 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (continued on (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) additional page) Before After Before After Forest/Wooded 10 7.5 Wetland(types#I) 6.5 5 Cropland 34.26 0 Impervious Surface 0 17 Brush/grassland 7 x.26 Other(specify) — — 1 Total 57.76 57.76 15. Describe the soils on the site,giving the SCS soil classification type,if known. Post—glacial swamp deposits; top soil; Des Moines' clayey glacial till; intermediate silt deposits; and discontinuous sand seams. (See attached I Exhibit A.) I 16. Does the site contain peat soils,highly erodible soils,steep slopes,sinkholes,shallow limestone formations,abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards?If yes,show on site map and explain: ❑ No © Yes Steep slopes exist along shoreline of Lake Susan which also contains some of I the more wooded areas of the site The shoreline will be protected during construction and preserved in a natural condition after construction is completed. An erosion control program will be implemented to preserve slopes and contain I discharge of sediment and other contaminants into Lake Susan or adjoining wetlands areas to be preserved as a part of the development during and after construction is completed. ' 17. What is the approximate depth(in feet)to: 2 a. groundwater 5 min. 15 avg. b. bedrock 250 min.270 avg. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I . 1 8• Does any part of the project area involve: a. shoreland zoning district? No Yes b. delineated 100-year flood plain? x No Yes I c. state or federally designated river land use district? x No Yes If yes,identify water body and applicable state classification(s),and describe measures to protect water and related land resources: Lake Susan, in Chanhassen, is protected by the Chanhassen I shoreland zoning ordinance and MN State Shoreline regulations by reference. It it considered as a recreational development lake. No Federal or State shoreland (� zoning regulations are in force for that lake although its subject to Corps of 19• De3c on inu d .ot� additional age) any pnysical alteration e.g.,ditte ,excavation, fill,stream diversion)of any drainage system, lake, stream, and/or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im- pairment of the water-related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. I There are two low lying wetland areas in the northwest corner of the site. The larger westerly wetland is about 4 acres in size. The smaller easterly wetland is about 2.5 acres. The extension of Lake Drive will affect both wetland areas by reducing their size to around 5 acres. The overland I storm water management plan for the Rosemount facility (continued on additional page) 20. a.W ill the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water?If yes, explain (indicate quantity and source): © No ❑ Yes I b.Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells(on or off the site)? If yes, ex- plain: El No ❑ Yes 1 21. Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after I construction of the project. Hay baling and environmental fencing with supplemental diking will be used at strategic locations to control erosion and sedimentation during construction. Seeding and mulching will also be done to restore the site to a non–erodible vegetative state until permanent sodding and landscaping can I be installed in accordance with approved landscaping plans for the development. These erosion and sedimentation control measures will be designed and made consistant 22. a.with City and Watershed District guidelines and regulations. Will the project generate: I 1. surface and stormwater runoff? — No Yes 2. sanitary wastewater? — No Yes 3. industrial wastewater? No Yes 4. cooling water(contact and noncontact)? x No L_ Yes I If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods.Give the basis or methodology of estimates. There are two existing wetland areas in the northeast corner of the site. ' The larger westerly area is identified as a "Type A" and the smaller easterly areas as a "Type B" wetland by the City of Chanhassen. DNR regulations do _not apply to either wetland. Rooftop and parking lot area storm water run–off, (Continued on additional page.) 1 b. identity receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the discharges listed above.If discharges to groundwater are anticipated,provide per- colation/permeability and other hydrogeological test data,if available. No direct discharge to groundwater will occur. Discharges to Lake Susan have I been planned so as to mitigate and control erosion and phosphorous content (See Fig. 6 and Exhibit B.) 23• Will the project generate(either during or after construction): I a. air pollution? © No .5.c. Yes b. dust? E No Yes c. noise? ■ No £ Yes d. odors? © No _ Yes I If yes,explain,including as appropriate:distances to sensitive land uses:expected lev- els and duration of noise: types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions(dust):odor sources;and mitigative measures for any impacts.Give the basis or methodology of estimates.A minimal amount of dust will be generated ' during construction. Since construction will occur during winter months, natural climatic conditions will keep dust amounts to a minimum. As a stand–by, watering trucks will be used if dust levels ever reach unacceptable levels. A minimum (continued on additional page) 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 24. Describe the type and amount of solid andior hazardous waste including sludges and ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: I Solid waste generated from the facility will be of composition and quality acceptable to designated solid waste depository and depository transfer facilities in areas receiving the waste. (continued on additional page) ' 25. Will the project affect: a., fish or wildlife habitat,or movement of animals? E.1 No © Yes b. any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special concern(animals and/or plants)? © No ❑ Yes I If yes.explain(identify species and describe impact): The dredging and alteration of the small wetland area referenced in #19 will probably cause some displacement of natural wildlife such as birds and some small animals using that wetland for habitat. (Continued- on additional page) I 26. Do any historical,archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project � site?If yes,explain(show resources on a site map and describe impact): X No C J Yes The MN Historical Society office at Ft. Snelling reported inconclusive data on I the presence of historical or archaeological artifacts on the site. A competent archaeological consultant (Christina Harrison) was hired to do a site survey. 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: (continued on addition.,page) a. designated park or recreation areas? No Yes I b prime or unique farmlands? I c. ecologically sensitive areas? © No Yes No Yes d. scenic views and vistas? x No Yes e. other unique resources(specify)? © No Yes IIf yes.explain: I 28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic(ADT),increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. TH 5 and Carver County Rd. 17 will receive the majority of traffic from the Rosemount facility. 1986 ADT on County Rd. 17 were 4,000 trips between TH 5 and Park Road and 2,800 trips I from Park Road to Lyman Blvd. For TH 5 volumes were 15,500 east of County Rd. 17 and 13,800 trips west of County Rd. 17. Lyman Blvd. which ties into County Rd. 17 on the south reported volumes of 850 east of County Rd. 17 (continued I 29. Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not. what additional utilities and/or services will be required? Natural gas, e lectric, ❑ No �� additional l=1 Yes page. ) telephone, sanitary sewer and water service are all available to the site. A new east/west ](Lake Drive) roadway will be constructed between Co. Rd. 17 and Market ISumm d. at ist licerodate direct traffic to the facility. For regular EAWs,list the issues as identified by"yes"answers above.Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these I issues.For scoping EAWs,list known issues,alternatives,and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. 16. Steep Slopes. Steep slopes exist along the shoreline of Lake Susan. The shoreline will be protected by erosion control measures during construction for their I protection and preservation. No excavation, grading or construction will take place within the steep slope areas to Lake Susan that are in indigenous part of 18. ShorelinedtoningteRegulations. The shoreline of Lake Susan in Chanhassen is protected by City shoreline zoning and State shoreline preservation standards II by reference. The Army Corp of Engineers also has an interest in shoreline management. All applicable City, State and Federal shoreline management standards and procedures will be complied with by the Rosemount Inc. Manufacturing IFacility. (Continued — See Summary of Issues continued) II CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT ! I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature vC> 1 ':)°lam Date. lb� ' "c ' 4— City of Chanhassen 1 13. (continued) of Minnesota (See Appendix C) . The park has been in existence since the mid 1970's. It also partially adjoins City owned park land on its east ' known as Lake Susan Park. A church known as The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ is the only developed parcel to its immediate north. A proposed new road known as Lake Drive E will separate the church property ' from the Rosemount facility and provide it with its primary vehicular access east of County Rd. 17. Three undeveloped Industrial lots will be created north of the Rosemount site with its subdivision from the ' previously mentioned larger tract. The subject site was formerly approved for the construction of a 400,000+ square foot manufacturing building for the Detroit Diesel Corp. (1984) and also a major conference center known as The Sunnybrook Conference Center (1986) . Neither of these projects were ultimately developed on the subject property. However, the road alignment for Lake Drive E, which ' will be implemented in the Rosemount plan, was first established and approved as a part of The Sunnybrook Conference Center proposal by Chanhassen. ' 18. (continued) Engineers' review. Erosion control measures to be used during I construction to protect the shoreline of Lake Susan will be designed and made consistent with City and State shoreland development guidelines and regulations. Disposal of any excavation of material dredged from wetland areas will also comply with City, State and Corps of Engineer regulations. 19. (continued) proposes to excavate 6-8 feet of the easterly smaller wetland area so that on-site discharge from the development is kept to predevelopment rates in compliance with City requirements. The dredge material will be hauled and disposed of off-site in accordance with City, State and Corps of Engineer requirements. The larger westerly wetland will remain largely disturbed. ' And, whatever reduction occurs in that wetland as a result of the extension of Lake Drive will be made up through its reshaping along its westerly side. All wetland alterations activity will be done in ' compliance with City, Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers and Watershed District standards and requirements. i I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 1 II Page -2 22a. (continued) IIfrom the proposed Rosemount facility will be discharged into the smaller easterly low-lying wetland area which will be excavated 6-8 feet to I provide sufficient capacity to control run-off volumes from the facility to the site's predevelopment rate. The westerly "Type A" larger wetland area will remain largely undisturbed. The storm water from the smaller wetland area will outflow through the City storm sewer system westerly II until discharged into a proposed City ponding area located north and west of Lake Susan Park and then into Lake Susan. The envisioned storm water management plan will be designed to comply with City I predevelopment-postdevelopment storm water standards as well as Fish and Wildlife and Watershed District guidelines. City, State and Corps of Engineer standards for phosphorous removal prior to discharging storm I water into Lake Susan will also be complied with. (See Appendix B. ) Final details of the waste water and storm water run off management systems proposed for the Rosemount facility will be reflected in the site plan yet to be approved by the City of Chanhassen. IIThere will be an average of 180,000 GPD of water required by the facility, 38,000 GPD of this water will be discharged into the sanitary sewer system I as waste water. 119,000 GPD will be used as non-contact machinery process water. This machinery process water will be be discharged directly into the City storm sewer system. None of the machinery process water or other waste water discharged from the facility will be directed into either of IIthe two wetland areas described previously. Any industrial chemical waste water discharged into the sanitary sewer I system will be pretreated and neutralized in accordance with State PCA and Federal EPA requirements and procedures. II 23. (continued) amount of noise from construction equipment will also be generated during 1 construction. The nearest receptors to the noise levels will be the Lutheran Church, approximately 800 feet north of the site and single family homes approximately 900 feet to the south across Lake Susan. It is II expected that noise levels will be within the acceptable PCA 65dba range so as not to have an adverse impact on occupants of those housing or users of the church facilities. Also equipment will only be operated during the 1 hours of 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. during a 5-day work week and will not operate on weekends. II II II 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I Page -3- 24. (continued) Solid waste will be picked up and transferred to these designated depositories by standard refuse trucks on a contract basis. Suspended irons (chromium, copper, lead and zinc) and other chemicals that are a by-product of Rosemount's Chemical Laboratory that will operate from the building will be treated, neutralized and then either discharged into the municipal sanitary sewer system or carried to a designated off-site 11 disposal facility by an accredited waste disposal organization under contract with Rosemount. The quantities of this neutralized chemical waste material will be small and well within EPA, Metropolitan Waste ' Control Commission (MWCC) and PCA standards. The EPA, MWCC and PCA will receive reports on a quarterly basis, to assure compliance with their standards. 25. (continued) ' However, preservation of the larger and more fertile companion wetland area to the west of the altered pond, which has similar growth and habitat characteristics gives reason to conclude that displaced wildlife from the ' smaller wetland will transfer easily to the larger preserved wetland area without problem. ' 26. (continued) Preliminary findings indicate that no significant archaeological or historical artifacts exist on the site. Results of her findings will be reported to the Historical Society and City of Chanhassen prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the Rosemount facility. No development will take place which is not in compliance with findings and recommendations of the Historical Society as a result of the consultant' s study. 28. (continued) and 2,300 to its west. Annual increases in ADT volume since 1986 are estimated to be 6.5%. The Rosemount project is expected to add 1,400 to 1,600 trips to these ADT volumes. 40% of those trips will be from the east, 25% west, 15% north and 20% south. In addition, a traffic study done for the City by Jim Benshoof & Associates evaluated the impacts on the intersections of Market Blvd. and TH 5 as well as Highway 101 at TH 5 I I 11 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I/ 1 Page —4— 28. (continued) through extension of Lake Drive as proposed in previous I as well as the Rosemount plan. The traffic study assumed full development of the Rosemount site by a facility of its size and the successful redevelopment of downtown Chanhassen which is to the northeast of the I subject site across TH 5. The conclusion was that after the described full development occurs that both intersections would operate at a "D" level of service during peak hours. II I II 1 II II II II II II II II I I I 1 I 1 III 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I ' SUMMARY OF ISSUES — continued 22. Storm Water and Waste Water Run—Off. An estimated 157,000 GPD of waste water will be discharged from the Rosemount facility. None of this waste water will be run through either of the existing wetland areas, but will be directed into the City sanitary or storm sewer system created for the development. 23. Dust & Noise. Some dust and noise can be expected during g construction. Dust and noise levels should not exceed City and State noise standard designed to keep these potential nuisance generators at acceptable levels. ' 24. Hazardous Waste Disposal. Pretreated and neutralized chemical waste water will either be discharged into the sanitary sewer system or ' hauled away to an authorized disposal area by an accredited waste disposal organization in compliance with EPA and PCA standards and procedures. 25. Wildlife Habitat. The smaller of the two existing on—site wetland areas will be altered to receive storm water run off. Such ' alteration is necessary to assist in satisfying Chanhassen's predevelopment water run off standards and requirements. The larger of the two wetlands will be affected by extension of Lake Drive but otherwise will largely remain unaltered. Wildlife displaced from the alteration of the smaller wetland is expected to migrate to the larger one. All alteration will be done in accordance with Federal, State and City requirements and conditions. 1 29. Utilities and Public Services. Adequate utility services in the form of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water are nearby and will be made immediately available with the extension of Lake Drive E. in 1989. Police and fire service are available through the City of Chanhassen. 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 1. I 1 I IWRIGHT COUNTY Rzsw R25W -rO�.r... - - " -- - -- MCC L. 0 •�''_ =Mr--i� 4 f ATERTO ' IO 111. i L•1 Q ; ria 1--- . . W A' . oWN ' r c 11 I Pile NI �'� t= t! t• SITE la..;I btu,. t ti tl ,,g-4, � ' M� ' HENNEPIN COUNTY I ' filE �1 i !t • R !? i O R24W R23W JJ �i� 1 ;. �m 1 5 1 I - O A - 1 L.cowl, t 01 K f /_ © r^,ON Am ia ONU1 _i /�" • x- tl �, A1' ./Atlr **,4111116„ASIQ L. %�lJ! ' /7 MAN__Ie._ ' 1 nrriiRSON iAIrt6C __ �iiWr;. ,errsav 's' 1 I�A A i ihin ;_,--7 1> tf t , tf Cr�,� tf ®t, ; IL',rp. Nt; 1 t.. , 1 .� L.; ,� RI .!l Ja 1 "^�� JI 1 1 IV, ,'4 J/ J 61 .x! I ra : • : - � � ©- - '-- ----I-- --1 III( .44 kit', e+rLnr;c. ®� ` " (6�, wr ' 1 '° V.6 1 � 1 11111111aill trit �4� p . ,a ?\\ tMASUA .40.............,...,...„: V441 • 5 , ' wall � ALC-M ,� YO V • O� lira 1 M ' I •� /, CARVER Mlle i 1 1 COG 1 K'° A 1 f /G rr d r•wr 1 ts• , 7 , rs el ifikiThoolt I V' A.CA I 111 rifitiltiaffirlar"° 43 .t> 34 : 5 - I ' 0 k I A I HA 'NW ,N16. /.GI #ASS ON a IT I C-_. T „ m ,. j 0 'a FRANC . 001 1,1 �I) 11 1 I �ti `�# �� 1 Q n 1 1 C3 ISIBLEY COUNTY 0 is I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 'AKOPEE QUADRANGLE FIGURE 2. MINNESOTA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SE/4 LAKE MINNETONKA 15'QUADRANGLE - -456 1 :AV ZAT, 7 MI 451 32'30" ;2 120000 FEET R 23 1V. MI TO MINN. T R,22 W 460 93°3C •00 ;'95,E j - •�. 9-. I ( ' t Ann I • ' JS ??;i►%`. . 4. . • . 1x ' 7 v y i ;. : . L l'i t o ,�, l. ; ``a ,...,,,,,,*,„ ,‘,,, .„ _____.... • .:. .•I : _------ --\_i , _,,,„.._ ,0 976 r II - , 1 / ' 4 0$4:1'.P•1 e /;I N '.-.1,,,,' ‘171e'"" ` . . �•4;416 •� t . . • i 937 ,,�-+ 1,-. ► ' �. : r ° ° na ■ ii 8 I�IAGt',•rLBh O fp ciFQr 1 •�� i I t)Lake �. o ,A-'Q S I T E_ �.. • .;�nom-- �L:,,: I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I , , :4:;3:;477—'jr3'.---"""`-------- ----"----------"" -- -------------------------- ---- FIGURE 3. RFC.FiVED .... I : - SEP 1 2 1988 elle• II •• N 110111. Z7-57P 2.7-153P 0 <Nor C 0. 2:1-136P N 93'35' AL,. ...., : \•10,,,. sd!" r .,..;w .0.7 attoetzwooD -T____ ett.,1.1 zi-vp* ‘.•,- ... / MINNETOTMLA kg 4.1 IC.4E 14..'-' . . : f'.' La So ,.....?:::::.. . . lif:.:::. ....* .:71■!*....:7' -- . ..:::;: ..iiii::. ••■$, :.:.,7:. •?. .:. .. .f•..••et, .:Iert oviir _ - =-- ,...- - ---•.11 --••• '-1.1.7""--"T: i • 4' 0 I,152./ 4:0' ' f ••,.....• ____, ,..._.,jfilso"-"..): :"' ( --‘..„,, 10 vilii 311101k....'.......1: 3 I • 14 9 to-gr Cr. . - • , 1 • li .1. Red' ra•gialrl en II. meson " ast lir I : ...e.... 1 ke • I MON ' FIlr no ackl;k'/. •.• • .. ;., Libf St:I• 4 I PC4" ' tj sw :a1;1.1), i . •:„... • ICFNJ V. • , • 122 ' ......,• .. , . / . It ' • -aig i I \ • '' .i:.... f0-1 P \ • , . ,... ..!` .....3. :k'.. , . 11 ,j ,,IMMINIMI.MOS ....,,:. 'CHANHASSEN 0.1 ....;: la ....w. , 1 ..e...... - L. " . '. -........ ••,..(5 4.1.11.C11 PM WM 1 0 , ..0,1111610 FA,. To St.Peal fA.P.I -1"...,. 3.3 ----...... ....:: • i .••".. To Jet Internam 494 ,: il - , ...„-....-r : -; - it ' 114‘1444) 1: f.A.'' - - ' .:t"- III ' 0.■ ?..'i ':::3 . ....0,... . .o.... ... it 11 0:c.° --';'; ' k 15 if it rn ... $. II ''''.......''''''''.:""."..'":,f)-.; I i a.O$V4 :•;.4,ztiv'7.:::::'-:-.:::::'''''.1: • , 1 :q/ 3 13 ,.. , - ----,--- . • IF , \.*:',,•'■;•.g,,,i.,:ik:iti,:'.C..': ' *:;';,;;j.:.; s - -. - - (V.::: '--- 1,■ *:''' , "/'/ •___a_rksh..1 _ _ , .'i..'..-."--'"*".26. •..._. . ''.. ."-i;:''75'2.1 1 ''':?..::: r . 71 • --"••-11-44:...:,:::::.4::. ...:.-.,.-:,. _________„.. •,. - 1:: ..;::::::: . • 1 „, co.. • a . • 215r, 1:. 4. • . i • • '4'...::::i$- ' — 1 — i• 21 • ::-•*--• ::.0.ii, :1.• .\ .... AW:---- . .. talL °A 4, - • . i.. A-K—A —--. ....:. CH S li I • # , • 21‘10 1 II • zmi . .,... . , . • • . 25-\ .--.-:■13-*Auh ......_. r• Jon. • •. • . VI 2N4 -----....,,,,,,,, zi I \ :4: •• . I ------ • ' WAINAL '— ,,...... I2Ce 2bIt :41.iicpior , . . & . .. 31 \ 1 33 . Iiir • N.\ ■ Illi 17 • ' 1.4'--- :411"-H;s1 ...-- .-*" 154F 23-1.5LP ... 11■1..........,■••....., , ‘.• \__ ... OW'-1.- • .• ... '1::...:'■•. ', s'..'.:%ii.ff's'' ..a.:.4D.•..frLni...,r••• •Th....41:::11':::. -*=<) 4F.---- •' --1- -.7. n- --A-7 iii4:.-• . ,.... e• .-..."......•■• *ft r 1 0. ' 14,1 ..': 2Z2v1 . ... -4, ,-..,.4. 1,'111•!..*•■••!‘!.. - ... •• ''..\''.- ,, II . . . . - sa,0• ..To . . 2L1W - • I 1.4 ......:.:-'----- E I ,..,0 t. . ./ '. - ..--' , 1 22.5vJ 5 k.I.:: /, --,,. • /' I .-n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , FIGURE 4. , I ; : • '...., :.) / 'k .1 r•. e - 12, t . 1 ,) ; '1 !. , .. ,i 1 . . ; 1 - t .ti& i''' •,, '2: '.:1 / ( 1. / r • • f`, . , t... . . /\/ 4 1 .• i .. il ,4 ? 4 I •..,„ , ., , . . ,hr i 4 • ...„ I ' 1 j.4:1 ' \ ‘1 \ V \r I. ; , s ,L , .. ,., , , .-..-. ..- ' / A ' . I / r. ' , ! , • i. _ \ , i ,.., ,\ , . , _ ,,, A ■ A ..I 4 ' I , , - r ,1 1 1 • \ \ ‘ .. \ ,.. i/ (,,,,\ \ -..'.; ; •' i . 1 .'".. .. ■ , '.-• -, I \,', A 113 \ \\ \ • 1. 1 1 '• i I / 1 , , . 1, 1,- - \Y' /K ,..f 11', *‘ \ 'l \ im_.. \ it '' 14-• : \ A..t: ;'q.,., . •s list. • &.,.-t . t p \ i.i" ,-t !,-.„...-. ,., . ..1 ri • ., , ..,, ,,,,0 0#, .•:.01, ,.,l.; 2 o \ \\ \ s I, f-:.,: •.:._v,..,- -I , . \ 0, 1 .1 ' -.-tr0 t '.',. !, • •:."l 't i r '“ I 14 1 k ''':* ?-' .-i• - ' \ 4 # 1 I .„...- .. _ I -., 41, , :I idll ; i :' ' f ,)i: '°i6 j , ii .7 tl \ - • \ ---,-.: . :. . : , • I 1 ft., ; ot. i .:I • f I 0 \\ ' 't i .41 \ \ ., ,.,. A, .1,1 4, i \ r,,f v ii. ,..•.,,:',- I -. i - 3 \ ( 3* - ,'.,:. 1.. i' , .:, , ..7 :. \ 1 1 "1411 , . 1. ff' I • A I , - , r 1 r -, , - \ _ I , ' 'I.: , .1 \ t ill 'I ' 1 --'4,, , , • . -„ i ., 4- • %I,w ' I k• Z - \ , -• ,l',w / / . 1--..: ,.f ...! / ..,... I , . / \._-/ / . , . ''' ' . • I II ( I #- . *--z - k. - r ' A ' ' . ' I FIGURE 5. • / l �8 !1d s `s ' lt 1 9'/ �? l9tF Fli t A 1511111ho C.S.A.H.NO.17 v i I 9 'ji, 9 1 i.5. il _ .1iI; II r LL / ' \\\ 11 g IAA • iiii133 ! its 7.\ \ \ \:c\i:, \ n 1' i \ 1 Itt •i 1. .. \ \\ . 1 Z , \A .\,.._ / i( \aA 7. 1 j it I r v / ii/ iii I / 1 i l I 11, I 1, ) Li °( ° — ' iii I 1 4�R i fi I I r , nn �i f 1■ if 9� ! S �� I 1 �Y or r I /1 ' _ettor:_ ,l'�r - li d ! i f J /iF' II .II ■ ' 0 ii = ' F�-:'-: I.rIh. '\ E r( a xi,, l c i a,_iiimk-.7.70",e' I / a 1 6L�. . . . . . . . . ._..._._. . »' NEW MARKET BLVD. • &rw- aa1°Rosemount +m wo is rw a.aa.. I " " .. 0 OPUS CORPORATION Cl P CNAIMMiiEN,MINNESOTA o. w cn.o..e w 7M. ow. O. DESIGNERS BUILDERS DEVELOPERS SITE PLAN .,,... 7 .,.,9K.3�Ma Mt MGM SSW 6,11916•M� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 • Z I• 1 1 fl ______-1,-------- . • o t- -------- I Ia. li I4„ occ 211 " -5;4- -- --- II o 21 • •i".12,-,-- - s in A y ft.6 Lil a. s2 a• i o Em2 • 0 r8------ r--------__ , 1..., ,-- • .........-..--7.-7--. ._.-....---....- 7777-;-",:-;.-'7- . ,..• III .1. vec• .,• ,- 4", _______________________pROpERTY LINE ...,,,,, ‘••••■..• , —.......__—__,,______.....:•••...... • 5 ri 1 I ,,/' :•9' ., 6 ,4„4 .,•'. ../ I / -/° /'Allr ." NJI• • / .::".1 '7":1:p.:---t•-•.,, ...,, ..? / r %O. . t'S i ...-----------,---------- it\ -'[-;',•77-,:,:=-"----- Ti ;11....,,......,...,—....... - -___ _ - si\ -- --- ------------- oz,.• , ____._ ....___, g,' #74)..._ _. . ,49 IpARKING - 174 a 4' ---,..-- Vi05:#4,7* I A "'Will 0 sER v lc E f 4 ffs:__:_f_--,, + ,... 'it, yA, ot(A;, \ i a g,,, le" ,-44,1in name SIM rod remarks 1.., /TO _e.; , \ g r A 4,,,....,..,,...,,,,,.. exi....,.N PAFIKINO •,„:. Dock .('° tir:.,,,9.‘ WetV;.. r.:: ,.... r_ •• .• a— 74-,::et::::::-:.,`:' ri•014-1,..--,_. 41 . 7..t,-- - -.7,.7 ..0 ...— ..4.7-46-,------ .Tsylt__ 3 eco ,..• .,) it -R 7.--■r rl,c;+;,i.■t-.7;■1,..-. .,'.." ,,,,. :•----,..................,........_______----------- '-'17,.'e....-,C.- '1! 1‘,Iel.e l';:177. •-•""1.' AL- t‘Al.. II I. 'I tt I.i itii\ . -'fir'I'-•—-7.',..-,7.=- ----- 4 El I\ !I %,,,-,,......T......,1-_,.••= __ _ 1.w, r.,•• , ERVICE • ' 42 _, _DOCK 4:7-7.7.,r-;•'";•7'.- --_----- _ PROE_O$ED BILe.DING _ ii• --001111141MI NOME 11.1\ EMPLOYEE ENTRY I,'-.4 z..„(--,zcl°o‘zrill -di z [K'. .'. 1 SOD lt,,._ J. ---L'-_, _ _______ :. .__ *4-.•;,, / : te I . 1 SEED •■;:-. ■ #0,0 prii ....,.. -,.. .0 A fir- 4.-;., 4, igkftt r .-ap. ii f 1,p7, T - •,‘ 1 we.- - —.". - cerzwtu-- /--- - ...-.., 11 if 5 -„, lig 9 Li co i l ' LAKE SUSAI1 ', .. . E X IS T ING TREES 0 TO REMAIN ....:..s., et 4,449,1 A ts? ., .,..,"7.,,t„ _— — —,;;EFE:;r2=-.. _._...--4.-- ''' ...,.. ••;.,, 0 or $3, ii 1 1 , ---;-.7-;L27:24.-- -.-- ,.. ... ir yzir,==.-.... '• vgj. --.....7.--:-.:-:„..--,..231 . - ............ -N9 ■11, LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTH ,,, •.,,Zi",--,-„,......,_____ * ___,..,,-,;,WfaircgrITY LIN ..ri!-•' ,. • ;;;;;;-..4,6-, ,,,-„:■••• s•K• •,..,5 itt Ig4Tek11.-11 6_, •,-,. ,iocr-o• \,,,,, - ------'- L( 2 Tree oSisubs °Deciduous Tree 71.1— ....../ 1111111 MN MN 11111111 MO INNI IIMI 1111111 III IIIIIII IIM INN MI MO "IN ' Mil MIll MN • 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 6. I ; � Q ,, 7;\, �ISSi+6c.s.,►H.NQi L 7 \‘' SS r 1 II I I /\ \ . , 1 ' ,,,, �� ,L. \\t , , f,43e,,,,,,,,,,, , , ,,, , '4,;.:\ \E \ • f '-' • //\VAPi ' ' : , , 1. I (, \4 ;,' I. • lz ‘ ey,';,,,, ,,,-,:-- ,' ,f.„ 1 ( (7":">;---,,' ":''' ", ' \ -Ai ,, ' -- ,\, /1 IL'''; '/;[,',�ri�i, --- Vl \ v 11i' T; ` la , 'f. „,, /,,,,,,,'� /,'/ tea_ `\, -----_- •1 ��' 1' .„avow ;:.,,1 -.. ,.__._...,-- _ _ ,(' jr‘,0*-e4s-_,: •:. ,' //,' , t ; ,11',f',',” ;Oj c } �' — Gil I /ll fill ".:1',,': in i s, li -7--A -h,L , --,, , 1. ,, I , ,„, I '0 l!; i ! .7' ,fi/ d' 1 oi' s' o i 1 7 { . L 1 '1p;',,y\: it ■ '; . „AI if . Jill' i ii k : : a- :\ - ',/ . ii. ,' ' . - i„ i i,4 i 1- r .I I ? �•`�/ / 114 I .),' I ‘,' ‘, `; ", r ,,, /41/ ,, i; ,;-- ,if., s:, , . ; .,..:..mi— ---. ----- ----, fir , , ,_,•,„,„..„,;__,/ •___.,..-• , : _ _ ....: AI, P s, Ti—iii i I Rosemount =•N p:um OPUS CORPORATION Tv I pCi2 p1ANNAS,EN MINNESOTA ° 'n°' °"•'O° o.w 3ESIGNERS MURDERS DEVELOPERS PRELIMINARY STREET GRADING&UTILITY PLAN 300Q061^"ISO°i"'ti°""""'""""x"' sr vc.... 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 FIGURE 7. s „T, .® ® ® .. T, (ppcii) cii, 1 f 1 1 , 1. _ I I ! ----7-1,1 1 v;I I s i i i I I 7 i O . m4 < 0041 a I I I I iI i illn�I I _ wy r O 2 I Pi r �� I <a i Lm A> I I > O i a m g i F ; I O s � a 1A71 -I Ii 71 1 ° 1� D v O i m m 1 l I m I ca n I 'w I m 1 ` I il r m M Z I5 m 1 > 1 4 c 1 I m ----1---r-i-- ---7---i d ,m I 1 , ,1 i i , 1 : .. I I a 1 SIM Ma Rosemount I•-•• *WM. 111 OPUS CORPORATION I PA, CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA ;M •0° TM. CHANHASSEN, P ES16NEBS BUILDERS DEVELOPERS SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN •M l cad cow ssoo a.ft.em W.uo r....m aw I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I . FIGURE 8a. rZ. I t I - -a-, _ a , o r 0 - . X M r ° , m < m I q ° < -i `o- 9 -0 z o all -0 I ! 1 r --o-4 r .-. MN -E ° , I i ;''' in ..1111111111 -0 MI Mr r Mill . MI um-CI 1 VIII . . I � ; . . I ° �w — F -D --o 1 0 am I -0 0 : Mil PIE. o 1 I - I n 1 P ° All a b I - ° � r I - I I =' _, , ° we ° — II 1 S No. ',mpg" Job No WI R OnS I Rosemount •nap OPUS CORPORATION pA2 Dragon by p ..�b. CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA Tide ow ',nap DESIGNERS BUILDERS DEVELOPERS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •""" 300Ova 9°bRen RM0 rat"`°°°M""so"5'"' 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I IFIGURE 8b. I _ I1 -U-- -._ _ ;III {] a I ❑ j = N ❑ r CA — I- II • M I - ,II1 I I -I m x - II ❑ ! r - ❑-- m _ n ❑ < m — 1 2, -1 D N -D 1 1 O 1 - z — ; r — i I■ -0 _ — ,1l I ❑ - It — _ INI 1■ _ i►UII I ❑ -❑ -❑ A 1 ❑ ❑ ■1 II ❑ -D 1 ■ ❑ ❑ a 1 D - i ■ 1= -❑ ! -0 I -0 1 -D 1 -D ■ g • -D -❑ -D El 1 --❑ - NI • -0 r--' ❑ -❑ I1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ 1 I I I■ ■ ❑ - IIi -❑ III ! --c ❑ ❑ III — a I ; 1 ❑ 1■ w ❑ I' a ❑ 1,l ,� ..I 11 b -❑ n -0 1 ' = — .. ❑ 1 I ■.. ❑ ■ -El ,' f—fi'd j• : - I __� ❑ snw w. Pr' ' Nm:o° J.motel=. » xn..an I Rosemount -� OPUS CORPORATION D.MASER 0 pA3 CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA ° 'n 0y "°°' rtr Or..D DESIGNERS BUILDERS ss�oo1L0amSro,aOEmELOPEmS.a w+mu svn EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS s,,,�;,; 1 1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ILARVER COUNTY. MINNE. IA — :-HLET NUMBER '3 EXHIBIT A. SOIL I S U R V E Y II - \ La8 �TGT �I! .°`LaD? Hr IS3 Lip' ! , ruyE •I _ - �/ y ‘7,-",r \ / uUUnD! t+. jay' _ �• ` .y 1. / .cS \ fld)7 Ha8 l a� _ ,_ T � %SC1 : it Haa • . -• I �- jeCn^. ", • 4+ Ha8 J\ ---/-N......./A)Gn de G!` •- HaC7� i"` �F}c nha.sen • ..;,3-,.; //`��I- O, ` ." o^ rla�\ v /- Ls[3,c it a..• ID. \\ Z5- ,K Fir , \ `� Lag{ Ge ,/ LA.' , a G•• \,/ - / Ha a* .C'- - C1.1( ; Cri C -Ls ,-/ ,a'• ) i _ haC2r G `- • ,, y �L s/r ,i •`i--�� HaC ,{I_ •..• r� ,r/ a6 HaFi I USN H ,e q ....,,,,e: 1r,•1 i Hat/ _ i ". {. . Ha 2) ♦ �`.. - SITE/ ---±. j�a., • Lag a 'A ' 'Ha82 3 _ HaC2 7. ,,...7-1' j\ C- --N aD?,GP , '07 Ha62\ s. ,a fIaC7 Pd o' _ 1 �_ I _/� •�j�"r t��, r G e Pow- �i.� \�� Hat H Ge '4'6504,�W La.2 \L., 7_ `:t � F d 3. Cw '�� IFaD7 f' Cti /HaDT i-- /,{4 �'f - yam /� Hd i .. t , 1 83F7 ,'„ • ,� HeC2• „ �,-'' r I ul 1 l r 1 • _ e..- s' •. �-,'�S• ' 1� Hc03 •, Nat s• 'tr \m HcD Ha8: �* ,Ha8 '1• '�~ �� 4',1: 0, : , ,, • a©'a , 7� HaC2 .,;� .,. A C^ ��.• i '� LaC2 �••i.` „� Haf,7./''� \ T a.( a. .•.,,.w` / (/Hal'_ , U •SI%ti:t.\r li.f Cw�v `'k �' Ma Lag HaC2 Ge Ge IIaH2 I Tb8 r/f \.----5 y0 Ha \� HdHJ 1 .t +dQ 1. a )' J (` , a ' ( ` - aC•1' �-i Ge�j HaC2 r !.�LL as r� F,� f ( (:\\\21.,s /�.� LaF9 Hal) �� �, r n. tea —. \d �. I �•� ,\ki Ge.- HcD3 HaD7 --�,•,` G��Mdr \ A 1M i. ` ii HaO' -��` (.. =J HaC2 \ �✓ La82 a H.rtx•_ y\ Ge }HaC kIaE2 j•- L, ( ' v 1 1, -' ( 1 n r.l r" /1 d� ice- 1'ti g'. ��� T H,rL4/ l i - ) Ge �,'_,�%/� ,r/f e�/ }= ��M.IE f e j I tiC7 LsH // H..�? ��irQ ) 1.� -;-�H,-Hl — 1�-7``l ��i1, JHCO3 f !_ fMaB P`c , F,n\ ✓ . _� .fl.r1 � / I } `1 _ Ge �� ! aF��-� f w Em �� �\ ♦�(\\ .r• ,r/a B (. `•�`I - Y a C v.• r ���_____� e.Z _ s\ \, \/ •`• lie 6� �-,=.r0� 0�'. ( ..____,- \J.,d,...X' `/� I l,ti1. .� �H�cp :-;.tlaE2• �'4. Teel Hat) LsC2 /C �\ (}e HaFs {-'F fi_� i/ ) ..r. • HaC2 ,ti PO `�^ G.. �� J 1„n'' �. _� HaB �„sr C. 11CO3 n.. ,.� �,(,V LihC ,`�G`�6�hL,J�tlll F4aE3. i``,B. ,_� r.EllIB I ‘ 1•1. 1aLi a . IidC�;.•) Bh8 \ ll �i Hal?�� rl' . 7;� I.46 Ge G ^` + A. *'�- �J Ge I G�(�y�/" �j ; !, Ha8 ` ^� 1 •r (laB2 . r H iy ..xvin use 1aC�Vtc fsC` g' F• '�/� �`ic =.!T\ t\° Hag FFe m(• 2 �� _ , I HaC HaB HaUL•� 1 Bh / \ •.•l \ ;,k -, Ge HcE3 �aC l I +C. r Ha 0 HcE3 pm , e -...".!.. .,..g....., f Bh8( Lag ��� �\` �e l(\� 'O' ,:�� HaD? (,e IIaD2HaC2 ,- \�� jBuD "� �G �� \� L a , Ha87 Ma Pd eF3\ i 3hFi • ► r 2b H;IF • la 2 4i \m ) C3hCY`,e \ HaC2 Ge a �{ J Ge hirer s„ry rl, Kai Ho(' •LaB /�' H»U7 ; .. l.len.-.• „uy CIO, L,om 1 r HaB� Ge Lag /' ”'v HaC7 1� Ge sir •�,• Fe�9 HaC2 -Z1' Q$�'!'Q•+. r Hof' Hoyden loom, 2 ro 6 percent slope, 1. \v -;- ■ aC2 Ha C2 A9 •P' II.I•: Ho r1 w_�, S �f, r•�en loom to 6 percent slopes, .r-,.),.•d �F�7 j., ' 3C rla, Hoyden loam, 6 to 12 p•.rc,,, sl„r•e, /}/ F` j 4- - e.• Ge Itn( : Hava.-r„wo, r. Ord O 1",,,,,, .SJ , .:• i jy. .rltYP�• 6� •0 1:pert-cot� P 'oC.•s rro,lu,l d per.enr ,I y;•es , !, '6 '�•i Cd LaC' HCD3 fi• :',• .�' r �i Ho.•da•n loam I;rt, 18 .. S77 - • I• '_1„'rA C 11,1 . liirle,•loom, I',„ IP pen:e i •,r.,:,•, rr..to •/ ' , �Ge - •,.,,••••0•-• tT�•Y 1 I Lrf I b,Hoyden lo.,n, IN.., 'S �. � �_ Pm i i }` iz_C2- � D••rcen, s,00es ernord Hat, („ h a,,••► , I. Ih,,den l I nn 7'r;,•l.)percent r'..,u's .c. IL.'” n t / Hi,den 0;, wam 6„ 12 peer ,,. •es, • `en•,y I 11a,lefn Wy loom, I,ro 19 pe • •,,•pns •.erely r.d.•1 11 : , Ida.J•.n,!or Lw,n ..,t,,,r er to, •1•r.e. ..•verei r 1 Mob .- (1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 Exhibit B. Stormwater Management: Water Quality Stormwater runoff from the proposed Rosemount development was analyzed by methods developed as part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) for analysis of the performance of stormwater runoff detention basins for control of urban runoff quality (Driscoll et al. , 1986) . Basins constructed according to NURP-recommended design criteria exhibit good performance in terms of long-term average removal of urban runoff pollutants. Total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal rates are estimated to be 90 to 95 percent and 60 to 65 percent, respectively, for NURP basins. The runoff from an average summer storm event in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area (0.347 inches in 4.2 hours) was simulated for the Rosemount site. ' The performance of a NURP design detention basin on the Rosemount site was then evaluated and was compared to the performance of two outlet-controlled wetlands on the site acting as detention basins instead. Comparisons between these two scenarios are presented in Table 1 . The wetlands appear to outperform the NURP basin, and use of the wetlands could result in better stormwater runoff quality, therefore. The wetlands detention basins are assumed to be controlled so that the runoff rate from the developed site is no greater than the calculated runoff rate from the undeveloped site under conditions of both the 2 year-1 hour and the 100 year-2 hour storm events. ' The wetland detention basins would provide greater "dead storage" volume, lower surface overflow rate, and greater mean hydraulic residence time than would a NURP basin. While the wetlands detention basin system may outperform a NURP design pond, its construction may require variances from both the Chanhassen Wetlands Protection Ordinance and the Mn/DNR Protected Waters Regulations. ' If used as detention basins, the wetlands should be protected from infilling by coarse particulate materials. The foregoing hydrologic analyses do not include the discharge of ' cooling waters to the wetlands as has been mentioned is a possibility. Cooling water flows are not expected to significantly change the performance OR/344,0 tmk / 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I characteristics of the wetlands detention basin system, however. Also, these analyses pertain to Phase 1 development plans only. Additional ' on-site stormwater detention will be required for Phase 2 and Phase 3 developments. That additional detention can be either on-site, or in a detention pond to be constructed by the City of Chanhassen at a site between ' Powers Boulevard and the north shore of Lake Susan (Source: City of Chanhassen, Design and Implementation Feasibility Study Report on Powers ' Boulevard. West 78th Street Detachment) . I I 1 OR/344,0/tmk 2