Loading...
CAS-03_TH 41 TRAIL & UNDERPASS PROJECTNA-02684-03 Rev. 04/94 Region 6 REQUISITION FOR SURFACE INNESOTA WATER/HYDROGRAPHIC Department of Naturk, Resources SERVICES Division of — stars fi Project Lake No. Wetland 10-132W OHW Study 10-132W City County cA R V E R Req. No. Chanhassen -Heastepirt-• d=�51 t Sec. Twp. Rng. Quad No. 3 116 23 S15a State Problem or Situation (provide detailed information) The City of Chanhassen has plans to construct a new outlet for wetland 10-132W. The wetland is currently draining to the Bluff Creek watershed. The proposed outlet would change the drainage of the wetland to the Minnehaha Creek watershed. This change will require an official change in the boundaries of the watershed districts. Note: According to Jim Wiczek (797-3054) at MnDOT, MnDOT installed a culvert through Trunk Highway 41 (on west side of 10-132W) in 1953. It appears that the pipe was intended to be an equalizer since it was only one-half foot below the old roadway. The area on the west side of Trunk Highway 41 used to be part of the same wetland. MnDOT may have additional information on the location of the old culvert. Services Requested (Attach map as necessary) 1. Determine OHW of wetland 10-132W 2. Determine location and elevation of the runout of the basin 3. Document all water level indicators found around basin Three possible benchmarks are shown in the attached materials. Further benchmarks can be obtained from George Martin, MnDOT 797-3108. Metro staff are available to assist on this survey, if needed (772-7910). maps photos are attached to illustrate the location of the basin and various points of Various and interest. Landowners: Dave Gestach Permission obtained for access: Permission to enter the land has been obtained from Dave Gestach. Dave should be notified on the day the work will be done (448-3332). Requested By: natp- Phone No. Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist 1 1 /23/94 (612) 772-7910 Approved By (Regional or Unit Supv.) Date: E. Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Approved Date: ktrL'C, u' 1 1-- 29 -C=14- SCANNED �� l �-03 �u7 � �ti• 6 � �R-SE �- � V GT �� � F� . � � � ,v r1 c'� � �a4,� !�°�� R NA-02630-02 Rev 3/92 INNESOTA Hydrographic Survey Department of {„ Natural Resources Report Division of Waters 1 ' Project Lake No, Unnamed Wetland 10-132 City County Req. No. near Chanhassen Carver 95-59 Sec. Twp. Rng. Watershed 3 and 4 116 1 23 Mississippi River -Metro SURVEY DATE: 12/6 and 12/7/94 SURVEY CREW: Scherek, Moll, Woodrich LAKE SIZE Meandered Area Acres ® Non -meandered Planimetered Area 8 Acres ❑ Unknown DATUM ADJUSTMENT ❑l Assumed ❑ 1912 a 1929 ❑ 1988 Source: MN/DOT B.M. "1008 J-1979" CONTROL BENCHMARK Location: i mile south of the Jct. of T.H.7 and T.H.41 (NE -SE -SE -NE, Sec. 4) Elevation: 1008.15 Description: brass disk in concrete monument, 65' west of T.H.41 and 48' north of a drive to the west (old Ches-mar drive) SURVEY WOR; 'COMPLETED Ez levels ❑ topography ❑ cross sections !! j prof ies 1] OHW ❑ establish benchmarks (E outlet elevations ❑ other: WATER LEVELS Highest Recorded: Water Surface: 994.83, 12/6/94 Lowest Recorded: OHW Elev: 995.8 Range: Highest Known: 996.4 (distinct stain OUTLET on trees) General Description: considered to be landlocked (SEE NEXT PAGE) Runout Elevation& Description: highwater runout = 999.1 (low point on ridge at SE side of wetland) BENCHMARKS SET Location: Elevation: Description: Location: Elevation: Description: Prepared By Title Date John M_ Scherek Survey Crew Supv. 12/12/94 The O.H.W. level is based on the average reduced elevation of the 7 best trees of the 13 which we documented (elm, ash, cottonwood, and willow). We also recorded distinct stainlines on trees at 995.6 and 996.4. No definite washlines were observed. Some stumps in water indicate a lower stage of water levels at approximately 990. The present highwater outlet of the wetland would be to the SE, however, some information exists indicating the possibility of a previous outlet to the west. Although there is presently no evidence of a culvert through T.H. 41, information from MN/DOT refers to installation of a culvert through the highway in 1953. There is another roadway just west of T.H. 41, and we found a catch basin at the east toe of this road and a culvert running west from the catch basin under the road. If this catch basin was inplace at the same time the culvert through T.H. 41 was inplace and functioning, this would have served as an outlet for Wetland 10-132. The contours on the USGS quadrangle and the following limited elevations we obtained also support the possibility of an outlet to the west. Water level in Wetland 10-132 (12/6/94) 994.83 Water level in catch basin (12/7/94) 986.24 Bottom on sediment in catch basin (approximate flowline of culvert to the west) 983.6 Water level in ponded area on west side of roadway located immediately west of T.H. 41 (12/7/94) 985.15 cc A z U� fed. Proj. No. OUTLOT B N �p� .,,�, . �., PUBLI � C WETLAND �Z >° m \ \ NO. 10-132 W 1 OS o ' So Ioo tsssrss tY0 _ _ IK,o,D -+a >.t-x:d .Ott FJ 994.50 NWL 996.80 HWL SCALE W FEET �C) m ! o ,� PUBLIC WETLAND50 GG NQ 10-132W A Z j SCx_ N FEET 994.50 NWL 1 a �Nt 996.80 HWL II I II JEROME CARLSON LA �c°P\ 4 LAW POINT ST,4 3471.10 \ RP°E" I I z \ GI CY. r3CY,CL:yP A 0 7 CL Y RIP RAP t q I 0 4'PV TILE oerz-� I �� C810 I C 4� GRAIN I I I Q I,- !• Y 10 C Y. q, 20'EACH p CLRIP RAP G0 SIDE CS's } POINT STA. 13+83.13 k o = I I II CY.m RIP o \ ROAD Ac NOTE: 3 , 5 C.Y. . J. I r 7 INSTALL 4ATED _ �1 CL. Y TILE 0D1 RIP RAP SDE OF L WT - C' / N Q 2 JEROME CARLSON OUTLOT C EXISTING WETLAND 4 JEROME CARLSON_' - ._ ... — -- - ---- --- t_ _...-- , ! ! 1 ! T 1 L 1 ! L _. 1, 1 ! ! 2 E- - - x co _. ._ ! ! 0 t.. i ! into ! t 1 _ - -- — _*4= - - oako I 1 1 _ i • E ' CLY o P I _ �_S�fIT Zi O a sx , d� ! I E 1 aoa = as aCr_998.46 •" 1 i 0 _ .:-..�-" . -•... S O� % ! 3 Ilya --= - �9+ee _— ._.. _._. _ _ _ F I ! 1000 € 990'�sai _ _ �9srrr „_ass I�� a.CP m 6S% _ _ - — — - 947 93 ME__._- -- MP INV. i99 rtSc' - 99723 SW 9� _.._ . —.. ....... 7Nv.998.25 1 .. - - i 1 + 995.95 NE y I .. - I W-aINV9988- 95.35 SW NV 99 CONTRACTOR NORTHDALE DALE 90990 p00 4 RECORDL AN r F•- ! 27 STORM SWR RCr ! cLyog "RCP STO '. I INK _ .��' - -- 1 - 12 RCP Cl Y ® 4S4' j tl w 1 ! wv sx 14 • �ao 15 I _.-- ____. t•_-= ....__ _._._ --. ___. _ _ _....- t _-- 1 � - "! - a � needy .:rr,ry root ms plm,tpec:ltaran� ,my PROJECT ' U ROAD K SEPT., 94 AT , _ _ _- II7sW,LD! . _.-....«.. _...__..__ - __. ," .. ... .._ -- - .. i ! s.osritia+ ana trot I am c awr LAKE L C Y REVISIONS ILL WA7FR1j1A1N LAM R.ENGELHARDT ASSOC, INC. .,ONSLri-:.% LN me Im. 5,IEET T;TLE WV 978M 1107 HAZELTNE 801.tE�AK SUTE 48C ..__ ...... _..—... . _...._ _ .. _... _. _...... 978,44S %�// eea prof me SCALE .._.__._....._... CHASKA,NMIESOTA 5531e -"' —�— "—"�' — STORM SEWER Hoaz. 1Mt . i , 3 4 S. A. P. No. 194 - 101 - 07 Sheet No. 15 of 19 Sheets PrintF Os army corps of Engineers St. Paul District Request for Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Review Please enter the following general information about the property under review: Name of property owner Carver County Parks Property Address (No. & Street, City, State, Zip Code) TH 41 from Longacres Drove (south terminus) to Hwy 7 (north terminus) Lat. 44 52' o Long. 93 35' (decimal degrees) County Carver Location: 1/4 Section Township Range Size of review area Unknown acre(s) By submission of this wetland delineation report I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District provide me with the following (check only one box): 0 Wetland Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with awetland delineation is a written notification from the Corps concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the wetland boundaries delineated on a property. Under this request, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the property, only the boundaries ="the resources within the review area. ❑ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination is a nonbinding written indication that there may be waters of the United States, including wetlands, on a parcel or indications of the approximate location(s) of waters of the United States or wetlands on a parcel. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary jurisdictional determination will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Preliminary jurisdictional determinations are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑d Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States or navigable waters of the United States, or both, are either present or absent on the property. An approved jurisdictional determination precisely identifies the limits of those waters on the project site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved urisdictional determinations can be relied upon by the affected party for a period of five years. An approved jurisdictional determination may be appealed through the Corps' administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://www.mvp.usace.arrny.mil/regulatory/). Requestor J e-r-FIC- �' iv (5l Sod Name (typed) Jeffrey W. Olson (agent) for Carver Co. Parks Date Nov 15, 2010 SCANNED TH 41 Underpass Trail Carver County, Chanhassen Minnesota 1TJj:111CL1�1 DELINEATION REPORT Prepared by: Jeffrey Olson and Matthew Meyer (November 2010) ® �l)r r'Djj�UIrJ11J rj- !Uu ),J11r, t1113 ratL-Utl PJt;_'.7J/,��i'__ J�1J 1'/IJ11113:I"J`JJ1�, 1jII I J7-." SRF #: 7068 YI','/'.'l,5llr911�!J�SJ11 J,rJ1I1 SCANNED Table of Contents Listof Tables.................................................................................................... Listof Figures................................................................................................... 1.0 Introduction and Background.................................................................... 2.0 Methods..................................................................................................... I I; ................................ 2 ..---.. . -- ? ............................................. 3 ............................................. 3 2.1 Routine On -Site Wet and De ineat ion................................................................................................3 2.2 Definition of "Areas" vs. "Delineated Wetlands"..............................................................................3 3.0 Review of Published Sources................................................................................................................10 3.1 Soils and NWI (National Wetland Inventory Mapping)....................................................................10 3.2 Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands Mapping.....................................................................11 3.3 Rainfall Data and Antecedent Moisture...........................................................................................11 4.0 Results...................................................................................................................................................12 5.0 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................16 Listof References........................................................................................................................................20 Appendix A: Routine On -Site Wetland Delineation Forms Appendix B: NRCS Mapped Soils List of Tables Page Table 1 Summary of Characteristics of Soils Mapped Near Delineated Wetlands .............. 10 Table 2 Summary of Antecedent Precipitation .............. 12 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated .............. 16 Wetlands" and "Areas" List of Figures Page Figure 1 General Location Map .............. 5 Figure 2a Field -Delineated Wetland Areas (with aerial imagery) .............. 6 Figure 2b Field -Delineated Wetland Areas (with aerial imagery) .............. 7 Figure 3a Field -Delineated Wetland Areas (with aerial imagery) .............. 8 Figure 3b Field -Delineated Wetland Areas (with aerial imagery) .............. 9 TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 2 1.0 Introduction and Background A recreational trail is proposed along the east side of TH 41 (Chanhassen) from approximately Highway 7 south to Longacre Drive. Another leg of the trail would extend into Lake Minnewashta Park (see Figure 1 on page S). In preparation for trail construction wetlands were delineated in late September 2010 along the entirety of both trail legs. An on -site Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was convened on October 14, 2010 to determine the adequacy of the delineation effort. This report and associated graphics reflect recommendations made by the TEP prior to and during the field visit. Appendix A presents Routine On -site Wetland Delineation Forms. Appendix B shows NRCS-mapped soils in the project area. 2.0 Methods 2.1 Routine On -Site Wetland Delineation Wetlands in the project area were delineated with the 3-parameter method prescribed in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, specifically, the Midwest Regional Supplement. Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were described in two sampling pits; one clearly within the wetland and one sampling pit that was clearly on the upland side of the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary was the uppermost extent at which indicators of all three wetland parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) were present. Areas upslope from the delineated wetland line were lacking in one or more of the 3 wetland parameters. Data collected at each sampling pit are summarized in the Wetland Determinatior: Data Forms in Appendix A. Fluorescent pink pin flags, numbered sequentially (w1-1 start, wl-2, w1-2,...w1-13end) were placed at the wetland edge. The wetland edge is defined as the point, moving upslope, where indicators of one or more of the 3 parameters are not observed. Additionally, pin flags were placed at locations of sampling pits and labeled "wl-tl-wet, and wl-tl-up". Locations of each of the wetland perimeter flags and sampling pit flags were recorded with sub -foot accurate GPS. The locations of surveyed boundary flags are depicted in Figures 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b of this report. 2.2 Definition of "Areas" vs. "Delineated Wetlands" Figures in this report depict 11 "Areas" (Areas A-K). Delineated wetlands within the project limits are numbered W-1 through W-13 and W-20 through W-22. There are no wetlands W-14 through W-19. Delineated wetlands show no evidence of having been constructed in uplands or used as stormponds or roadside ditches. For purposes of this report, we define "Areas" generally as wet roadside ditches. "Areas" have a predominance of hydrophytes (commonly Typha spp. and Phalaris orundinacea), typically are inundated or saturated to the soil surface for a long or very long duration during the growing season, and as such are considered hydric soils per USDA hydric criteria 3 (ponded) or 4 (flooded). Thus, these "Areas" meet the 3 parameters of wetlands; however, they were excavated in uplands and wet conditions are caused TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 3 by impoundment of the road embankment. lurisdictionally, these "Areas" are outside the scope of the Wetland Conservation Act. Whether the Corps of Engineers exerts jurisdiction over "Areas" will be determined during the permitting phase of this project; however, none of these "Areas" drain adjacent wetlands. Three areas depicted on report figures as "Wetlands" were confirmed by the TEP to be either "Areas" or storm ponds constructed in uplands. These are: • W-3. Found to be a wider portion of a roadside ditch and impounded by the TH 41 road embankment and continuous with the more narrow "Area F" (roadside ditch) to the south. • W-4. The southernmost cell of what is depicted as W-4 is a stormpond constructed in uplands. The northernmost cell of W-4 is wetland. • W-6. Determined to be a stormpond constructed in uplands. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 4 Noble Rd Wild Rose ��' °O pad �Y St p O K q G t 4 H Smithtown Rd Sin�thZoWnRdv' GilletteC t! 9 gn<oe F t7 a V Echo Rd 3 010 Academy Ave 0 Sh o re wo od Parkst MINNESOTA � n f N YdlowstoneT, w^ <0 rt o "' ct`� yea Carver County \ a haslL. pRhard La �P °'@ay Rd pr M-354 O Minneto ka West u Mlddlt School P�ro�ett Location / ! Proposed 3 RetainirZ Walls Lake Prop os d Pedestrian Minnewashto Underpass a Minnewashta A - Region na11�k '`b y��r� ro �R r M.Sga � o E o` 0 4g a V Guettin�S� ER COUNTY aA ass qF ran < ., - m adoona Or o�Bacrespc yufie`pr Ea�c y c 0 occa 4-� a 0 1,000 2,000 O Proposed Trail Alignment Proposed Retaining Wall Existing Trail Feet Project Area Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project sP 10-090-30 Carver County, Minnesota Figure 1 mi Delineated Wetland Boundary Figure 2A Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Coumy, Mnnesda ®Delineated Wetland Boundary Figure 2B Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County. MKme+raa {' OAK AREA J , ! � r •! ,� � � � �`R a \, Joe _ ,'+r,,,,. �' .�' � •�,;��; .ter. � 41 it ���• A# f. i. ti t AREA E 1 . Wet Ditch Construction Limits Delineated Welland Boundaries Hydric Soils National Wetland Inventory r;. E, y ', �, 1 r ®Delineated Wetland Boundary _,. Carver Canty TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Figure 36 Carver Cmoy, Akmesaa 3.0 Review of Published Sources 3.1 Soils and NWI (National Wetland Inventory Mapping) Table 1 summarizes soils mapped in and near the project area by the Carver County Soil Survey. Those soils in bold are considered hydric per the Carver County Hydric Soils List. See Appendix B for additional data. Table 1 Summary of Characteristics of Soils Mapped Near Delineated Wetlands and Areas Wetland # Map Unit Name (bold Map Unit Mapped Hydric? NWI Mapping indicates hydric) Symbol W-1 See "Area A" below. - -- W-2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, KE2 No (except None 18-25% slopes inclusions) W-3 Lester -Kilkenny loams, KE2 No (except None 18-25% slopes inclusions) W-4 Hamel Loam HM Yes None W-5 Houghton and Muskego MK Yes PUBG Soils W-6 Terril Loam, 0-6% slopes/ TB/KC2 No (except None Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- inclusions) 12% slopes, eroded W-7 Cordova -Webster CW Yes None Complex W-8 Kilkenny -Lester loams, 2- KB/TB No (except None 6% slopes/ Terril Loam, inclusions) 0-6% slopes W-9 Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KC/ TB No (except Portions as PEMCd 12% slopes/ Terril Loam, inclusions) 0-6% slopes W-10 Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KC No (except PEMC 12% slopes inclusions) W-11 Water/ Essexville sandy W/ EX Yes PEM/FO1C loam W-12 Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KD No (except PEMC 12-18% slopes inclusions) W-13 Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KD No (except None 12-18% slopes inclusions) W-20 Essexville sandy loam/ EX/ GL Yes Portions as PEMF Glencoe Clay Loam _ W-21� Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KC/HM Yes (Hamel None 12% slopes/ Hamel Loam Loam) W-22 Lester -Kilkenny Loams, 6- KC/ KE2 No (except PEMC 12% slopes /Lester- inclusions) Kilkenny loams, 18-25% slopes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 10 Table 1 Summary of Characteristics of Soils Mapped Near Delineated Wetlands and Areas Wetland # Map Unit Name (bold Map Unit Mapped Hydric? NWI Mapping indicates hydric) Symbol Area A Kilkenny -Lester loams, 2- KB No (except None 6% slopes inclusions) Area B Terril Loam, 0-6% slopes TB No (except None inclusions) Area C -- -- - Area D - -- Area E Lester -Kilkenny loams, KE2 No (except None 18-25% slopes inclusions) Area F Lester -Kilkenny loams, KE2 No (except None 18-25% slopes inclusions) Area G Lester -Kilkenny loams, KD2 No (except None 12-18% slopes, eroded inclusions) Area H Lester -Kilkenny foams, 6- KC No (except None 12% slopes inclusions) Area I Lester -Kilkenny loams, KD No (except None 12-18% slopes inclusions) Area J Lester -Kilkenny loams, KE2 No (except None 18-25% slopes inclusions) Area K Lester -Kilkenny Complex, L41C2 No (except None 6-12% slopes, eroded inclusions) 3.2 Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands Mapping The Minnesota DNR has mapped wetland W-5 as Protected Water Wetland 132W and wetland W-21 (Lake Minnewashta) as Protected Water 10-9P. The DNR has jurisdiction of areas below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) for Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands. The OHW for 132W is elevation 995.8 feet (NGVD 1929) and for 10-9P it is 944.5 feet (NGVD 1929). 3.3 Rainfall Data and Antecedent Moisture Data from The Minnesota Climatology Working Group were examined in order to determine the normalcy of the precipitation in the days and three months antecedent to the September 17, 2010 fieldwork. Table 2 summarizes precipitation data from a gridded database comprised of the average of several weather stations close to Twp116N, R23W, Section 9 (roughly the middle of the project area). August 2010 rainfall data had not yet been entered into the gridded database at the time this report was written so daily rainfall data from weather station "212676 Excelsior" were used for August. Ranges of normalcy are based on a 30 year average (1971 - 2000). Precipitation below a 30th percentile of 30-year average is considered abnormally dry. Precipitation above a 70th percentile of 30-year average is considered abnormally wet. Based on Table 2 we conclude that August was exceptionally wet, and precipitation in July and June was normal. Two days prior to the September 17, 2010 fieldwork, approximately 1.05 inches of rain fell. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 11 Review of longer term climate datasets (>180 days) such as the Vegetation Drought Response Index and the 180 day departure from mean (Midwestern Regional Climate Center) show Carver County to be normal to wet during the period from May 2, 2010 to October 28, 2010. Table 2 Summary of Antecedent Precipitation Precipitation* Normalcy August 2010 (inches)** July 2010 (inches) June 2010 (inches) Lower Bound of 3.02 2.85 2.83 Normal (30th %ile) Upper Bound of 4.77 5.14 5.14 Normal (70th %ile) Actual Precipitation 8.28 * 4.06 1 4.37 Conclusion wet normal normal Note: *2.42 inches of precipitation fell at weather station "212676 Excelsior" during the first 17 days of September 2010; approx. normal based on the 30-year average for the first half of September. **Daily precipitation data from weather station "212676 Excelsior". 4.0 Results Potential WCA, DNR, and Corps jurisdictions (assuming Corps Final Jurisdictional Determination) for each "Delineated Wetland" and "Area" are summarized in Table 4. Each "Delineated Wetland" and "Area" is described in more detail below. Information in (parentheses) indicates the corresponding City of Chanhassen Wetland Identification Number and Management Type for wetlands that have been delineated by the City of Chanhassen. Not all wetlands identified in this report of been surveyed by the City of Chanhassen. W-1 See Area A, below. W-2 W-2 is located along the east side of TH 41 near the intersection with Ches Mar Farm Road. W-2 is a -disturbed, partially forested/ emergent wetland which conveys road runoff through a culvert under TH 41. Surface hydrology does not remain long within W-2; the culvert under TH 41 conveys water efficiently away from this site. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 12 W-3 W-3 is a wider portion of a roadside ditch, located just east of the intersection of TH 41 and the Minnewashta Regional Park entrance. W-3 is a continuation of Area F (ditch) to the south all constructed in uplands. Dominant species are Typha spp., Pholaris arundinacea, and Solix exigua. W-4 The southern cell of W-4 is, according to Terry Jeffery (City of Chanhassen), a storm pond constructed in uplands. The northernmost cell of W-4 is a wetland dominated by Pholaris arundinacea, Typha spp., and Solidogo conodensis. W-5 (10-116-23-04-012-A, Manage 2) W-5 is located along the east side of TH 41 at the toe -of -slope of the TH 41 embankment. W-5 is at the edge of an unnamed open water basin (Public Water Wetland 132W). W-6 is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of TH 41 and the Minnetonka Middle School Road. According to Terry Jeffery (City of Chanhassen), W-6 is a stormpond constructed in uplands. Dominant vegetation in W-6 is Pholaris arundinacea and Solix exigua. W-7 (10-116-23-03-027-A, Manage 2) W-7 is a forested/ emergent wetland located along the east side of TH 41 just south of the northern project area terminus (Hwy 7). Dominant vegetation in W-7 is Acer negundo and Pholaris arundinacea. W-8 W-8 is an isolated wet meadow located just west of Ches Mar Farm Road. Dominant vegetation W-8 is Pholaris arundinacea. W-9 (10-116-23-04-014-A, Manage 1) W-9 is located within Minnewashta Regional Park north of the Park entrance road. W-9 is at the perimeter of an open water wetland. Dominant vegetation in W-9 is Pholaris arundinacea, Poo protensis, Solix nigro, and Cornus ammomum. W-10 W-10 is a disturbed, isolated wet meadow within the Park, dominated by Pholaris arundinacea. This small wetland is surrounded on three sides by gravel roads. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 13 W-11 (10-116-23-04-016-A, Preserve) W-11 is a wet meadow on the fringe of a lobe of Lake Minnewashta. Dominant vegetation in W-11 is Phalaris arundinacea and Cirsium arvense. P. arundinacea formed a dense mat upslope from the delineated wetland boundary as did hydric soils; however, only one secondary hydrology indicator (FAC Neutral Test) was observed upslope from the wetland boundary, whereas 2 hydrology indicators (1 Primary and 1 secondary) were observed below the line (FAC Neutral Test and oxidized rhizospheres). Also, dense growth of Cirsium orvense was observed amid the Phalaris arundinacea upslope from the wetland boundary - an indicator of drier conditions. hiVdi VA W-12 is a small disturbed hillside herbaceous seep within a forested area of the Park. Dominant vegetation in W-12 is Calamagrostis canadensis, Phalaris arundinacea, and Rhamnus cothortica. Lobelia cardinalis (cardinal flower), Onoclea sensibilis (sensitive fern) are present. A few small Juniperus virginiona (eastern red -cedar) have become established in the seep - perhaps indicative of starved hydrology. W-13 W-13 is an isolated depression within a forested area of the Park. Dominant vegetation is Boehmeria cylindrica and Pileo pumilo. W-20 (10-116-23-05-004-A, Preserve) W-20 is a forested/scrub shrub/ emergent wetland at the fringe of Lake Minnewashta. Dominant vegetation in W-20 includes Carex locustris, Typho spp., Corpus foemina, Rhamnus catharticus, and Rhamnus frongula. W-20 extends into the turf trial in several low spots; these areas are dominated by Poo pratensis. Areas devoid of vegetation indicative of standing water in the early growing season and tire ruts are evident in low spots along the turf trail. W-21 (10-116-23-04-023-A, Manage 1) W-21 is located within the Park and receives road runoff via a ditch and culvert. Standing water is present in the southeasternmost extent of W-21. Bare areas, devoid of vegetation, are present in the northwesternmost extent of W-21. Calamagrostis Canadensis and Salix exiguo are dominant. W-22 W-22 is an herbaceous seep within the Park, north of the main park road. Hydrology enters this site from under the gravel road bed and derives from the hillside to the south of the road. Hummocks are present throughout much of W-22, indicative of a degraded sedge meadow. Dominant vegetation includes Eleocharis ociculoris, Poo pratensis, Calamagrostis Canadensis, and Solidago canadensis. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 14 Hydrology exits W-22 at its western end down a narrow eroding ravine which runs into Lake Minnewashta below. Area A Area A is located along the east side of TH 41 near the southern terminus of the project area (just north of Longacres Drive). Area is a low-lying forested area dominated by Acer negundo, Rhamnus cotharticus, Glechoma hederacea, Solonum dulcomaro, and Alliario petiolate. Soils were found to be hydric; however, no evidence of wetland hydrology was found. The lowest point of this forested area is at the same elevation as backyards of residences to the east and south. Thus, if this site were inundated, basements of neighboring residences would likely flood. Area B Area B was a sample point taken in the sloping forest that lies west of TH 41 and east of Ches Mar Farm Road. Neither a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, nor wetland hydrology were found at this sampling pit. Area C [There is no Area C.] Area D [There is no Area D.] Areas E through K Areas E through K are roadside ditches constructed in uplands. All contain a predominance of hydrophytes including Typho spp., Pholoris arundinocea, Salix exigua, Solidago conadensis, and Solidago giganteo. All ditch bottoms were saturated to the soil surface and are likely wet for a long or very long duration during the growing season. Based on the long periods of inundation we conclude that conditions are conducive to the formation of hydric soils. None of these Areas (ditches) drain wetlands and we therefore assert that they are outside the scope of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). We also assert that based on hydrologic isolation, these ditches would not be Corps jurisdictional. More clarity concerning state and federal jurisdiction of these Areas will be sought during the permitting process. TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 15 5.0 Conclusions We conclude that during the field delineation effort conditions were on the wet side of normal based on analysis of three months of antecedent precipitation data and longer data sets (-180 days antecedent). Table 3, below, summarizes our assertions concerning potential jurisdiction of WCA, DNR (Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands), and the Army Corps (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Confirmed jurisdictions will be verified during the permitting process. Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) W-1 See "Area A" -- -- -- -- - below. W-2 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 1L/ (hydrologically PF01A and connected to PEMA/ W-9 and Floodplain ultimately to Forest and Lake Seasonally Minnewashta Flooded Basin) via surface water conveyances) W-3 No (isolated No No (ditch Yes -- hydrologically, constructed in ditch uplands) constructed in uplands) W-4 No (isolated No Yes(northern Yes (Type 3/PEMC/ hydrologically) cell); No Shallow (southern cell - Marsh) stormpond constructed in uplands) W-5 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes (Type 6/ small body of OHW elevation PSS1C/ Shrub- open water) of 995.8 feet Carr) (NGVD 1929) W-6 No (stormpond No No (stormpond Yes -- constructed in constructed in uplands) uplands) W-7 No (isolated No Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 16 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 1L and hydrologically) 2/ PF01A and PEMB/ Floodplain Forest and Wet Meadow) W-8 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-9 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 6/ (hydrologically PSS1A/ Shrub- connected to Carr) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-10 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-11 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ (hydrologically PEMB/ Wet connected to Meadow) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-12 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) Yes Yes W-13 No (isolated No (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) W-20 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 17 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 1L and Lake OHW elevation 1/ PF01A and Minnewashta) of 944.5 feet PEMA/ (NGVD 1929) Floodplain Forest and Seasonally flooded basin) W-21 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 6/ hydrologically) PSS1C/ Shrub - Carr) W-22 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ PEMB/ wet meadow) Area A No (ditch No No (created in No -- . -- created in uplands) uplands) Area B No (ditch No No (created in No -- created in uplands) uplands) Area C No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area D No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands)s uplands) Area E No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area F No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area G No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- ' -- created in uplands) uplands) Area H No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 18 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) Area I No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- created in uplands) uplands) Area J No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- created in uplands) uplands) Area K No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) * Wetland Type: (Circular 39/ Cowardin/ Eggers and Reed) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 19 List of References Clean Water Act, Section 401. Water Quality Certification. 33 USC 1341. Clean Water Act, Section 404. Permits for the Discharge of Dredged and Fill Material. 33 USC 1344. Cowardin, LM, V. Carter, FC Golet, and ET LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79-31. Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Protected Waters and Protected Waters Wetland Map of Carver County. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Protected Waters Work Permit Program. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Various years. SSURGO soils database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Various years. Carver County Hydric Soils List. Shaw, SP, and CG Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States ('Circular 39'). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. USACOE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. The 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and Associated Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGLs), and Midwest Supplement. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Various years. National Wetland Inventory (NWI). USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands. USGS (US Geological Survey) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (various). TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 20 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Certified Wetland Delineator under the Wetland Delineator Certification Program for the State of Minnesota. Jeffrey W. Olson, MnCWP Certified Wetland Delineator 41089 Wetland Delineator Certification Program TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 21 Appendix A: Routine On -Site Wetland Delineation Forms Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) t. (Include p Project/Site: T 7 ''II WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region � � Y ` t, . I City/County: ik �� !' Na �-,--am if P% - l II Sampling Date: / G plicanUOvvner. �� �. 'I State: Sampling Point: 4"estigator(s). _�1U �i Mr`yP� f �r Gl� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Long: Local relier (concave, convex, none): Datum: NWI or WWI dassification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of ear? Yes ✓ No y (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? 9 Y AA? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes / No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic. /t.iD (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No No Is the Sampled Area No within a Wetland? VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot sir%usoiuie uommant Indicator ze: ) % Cover Species? Status 2._' g77,�vrn L' !G( M�'t.C�1''ti/kGl4 3. 4. Sabllno/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: n = Total Cover 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover U, ) 2. YY1:1:;5 tr� �ll� Cam-_ PS rTx-�C 3. _�,o,rl �c ��SE.�I fP��,L22ria h, -S� 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 IndlcatorS of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Yes No uommance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: �_ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / D (A/B) rrevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: MUltMly by: OBL species x t = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is :53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Hydrophytic Vegetation Total Cover Present? Yes No = numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 16V t•� i'h /l d�1!-e G lj(/LS "�Y/7`� 5 i`I G r "�"✓yP�.,.% US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: 6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Co or most % Type'Loc Texture _ Remarks — � / S e�! �ryy ,� [gym � ���/✓.� � �, ,� 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matr':x. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iran -Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: y 7 M 1 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (B1) , Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes F No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydroiogy Presti:t? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site: 41 % (A ) i Ci /Coun /lt k �C y��, / ./ ty � Sampling Date: 1 b 14Nplicant/Owner. Stater' t- � 'r I ` Sampling Point: v � ,nvestigator(s): ='f e( f' /X7 Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): J Slope N: Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Long: Datum: or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes t/ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? A10 Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes 6 No _ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? 0 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts imnnrfnnf fe,,,,. �.r Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: — use suienuric names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No "! Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree tratum (Plot size: '1- ) % Cover S ecies? Status 1. t'r !lot U rJ 0 -r 2. t� V`� 3. -tom' — Saoling/Shrub Stratum (P of size: - ) = Total Cover 2. 3. 4. 5. �-- Herb_ Stamm (Plot size: 142. ) = Total Cover 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = ) Total Cover 1. i 4 l = Total Cover arks: (Include photo num rs 'heere or on a separate sheet-) Ylego 7r� ij es uomtnance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:_ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (g) Percent of Dominant Suedes That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: lS (3 (A/g) ence Index Total % Cover of. Multiply by-. OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (g) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% — Prevalence Index is 53-0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes T_ No US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL _ Sampling Point: �, i Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features i �ches L Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' —L.—OCT Texture Remarks 'CON t' �-'� 1 i", i �'�' • ~': K`r �' Ir ; I F1'� a— ! l f e� ,0� j ' i.. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) — Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY or Coated Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linim^, M=Matrix. indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes / ` No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) Saturation, (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ~ Depth (inches) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reguir Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) -ram FAC-Neutral Test (D5) N Saturation Present? /r Yes No Depth (inches): Z_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary frin e Describ�eR ecorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: rv?�� A Try; i ii eP1 coo, �5�1 uce jJ GF!?,f�r�teGf.t i(9tite_ o Gf�`t'T,rGc�t.lCUs/6 (� ��/nrGc?/ jGe S S G/f ! I,r US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Proi.ecVSite: 7 /' �� /�� — City/County: C%�l�J�✓yT%9�5� V `%� plicanVOwner. l Sampling Date: lye State: Sampling Point: Jj � (e f 4vestigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are Vegetation Soil Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yesy No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? r�✓� Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ki No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? /1l-10 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site mat) showinn Camnline, .,-i-f r,,, ,.:.. .____ ....,,.a —j nnNUt ianl Ieatures, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area Yes � No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yesf No No Remarks: VFr.FTATInM II.- -_- ---- Tree Stratum (Plot size: i Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number 1. , i, ✓4 �h n / .� ��s of Dominant Species That Are 2. _�r� OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (B) 'S• Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ,� (A/B) ff Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply — by- 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = FAC" speces x q = Herb Stratum f r (Plot size: 1 1� ) �, = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = all r_ L, Ip �/ _ 1� Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. eN jf b' PAC-� = Prevalence Index = B/A3. 1c4j 71L GLJ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: . r(4Iy,rf G c� -A /� r• + i G(( _Dominance Test is >50% 5. _ Prevalence Index is 53,0' 6. 7 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8• _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 9. — -- 10. i inc t f Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover ) ,V�'.ti- -- ude photo num nere or on a separate sheet.) = Total Cover ca ors o hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes K No US Army Corps of Engineers Mitiwoet P—;— - 1-0—i- ; SOIL - Cmm�linn Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confine the absence of indicators.) J Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color (moistt))� % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks c Y-. � b � v — 1 (f y C i is Jack VV\,. t Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): narks: ("11 for RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dario Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) d Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) — High Water Table (A2) , Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) — Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) _ Sediment Deposits (B2)j �' _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ 6 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation _ Drift Deposits (33) _ _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (87) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / - Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No T Depth (inches): r`k�-0 TI— �C/ Saturation Present? (includes capillary fr nge) Yes No Depth (inches): *. —' 40 i � Wetland H Hydrology ? Present? Yes No I Descnbe Recorded Data (stream gauge, momtonng well, aenal photos, previous inspections), if available: ✓! r 7 �.�t f A J �} l i cam- 2.j C( d �. ! � r r `l c US Army Corps of Engineers Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 2. arks: (Intl WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region > ProjectJSite: 7•17�/ s4 r L City/County: f ,o0l;q P1 fIASSC�tl�/� Sampling l % plicant/Owner: _ Date: State: --� -- �� t Sampling Point: ,nvestigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I," No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? &t/D Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes VXNo Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology natural) y problematic. i(i(� (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes within a Wetland? _ Remarks: No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. - = ` ^) Aosotute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: a /o Cover S ecaes? Status 2. 3. 1. lin /Shrub Stratum , p o ) =Total Cover (, t size: 2• 3. 4. 5. He S' tum (Plot. size: V = Total Cover J ) 2. 1r� �� 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Lbe present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC D (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Q Z) (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species _ x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover pno(o numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Ale p- r,Z.r rt c e Zy �� fi r_ US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: vrome vescnpuon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conflrtn the absence of indicators.) Depth inches L Matrix Redox Features Texture Color moist '/o Color (moist) % Type' Loc Remarks c r C �? , Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) S. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=N Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No �z I ,�'4 G�(!� ►'� s:. H-r �.i"i~i� �t o'er. — `p Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired7 check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of'wo required) _ Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Saturation (A3) — Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) — Hydrogen Sulfde Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat Crust (B4) _ Presence of ,Reduced Iron ( ) C4 ` Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) it , Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) — Geomorphic Position (D2) _ _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — ( ) Thin Muck Surface C7 _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No k Depth (inches): Tic ' 1� Saturation Present? Yes No y. Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region City/County: l.(M.,I/►vYLi/ys.1i•� i,�M� t�Sampling Date: plicanUOwner. State:Sampling Point: n,esbgator(s): ,L 5 r'PJ %.��/<� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: ong: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? 49 Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes tJ/ No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturallynn probiematic. /JJ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes �' No I Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes a within a Wetland? Yes y No No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4 HDsoiute Uominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: _ (A) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover } 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Number of Dominant Spec Species Across All Strata: — (g) Percent of Dominant Species % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: i (A/B) L� Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: _ Multiply by- OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) _ 1 Mai rover UPL species x 5 = 1, G r,'— ,� �M.�,; a i1 r n Q �i Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 `f Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. �a , �'r� `� _ ?,� Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% 5. _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 6. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 _ Problematic Hy!r_�hf vtic vegetation' (Explain) 9 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. FHyydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover Kemarxs: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers C SOIL Sarno— Pn - W � '-I tA'ZC Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches % (moist)% Tv.e Loc Texture Remarks ZCJoflorYpmois[tt. /Color C_ T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) — Black Histic (A3) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Iron-Manganese e Masses (F12) _Other (Explain Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) — Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _, Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) — Redox Dark Surface (F6) — Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, Restrictive Layer (if observed): unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes L No Remarks: — ff'ej7Z:,)K Arlo 1 V I N %a 1 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired7 check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves 69 _ — ( ) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (310) Saturation (A3) — True Aquatic Plants (B ;4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) — Sediment Deposits (132) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) — Other (Explain In Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No incudes ca illa frin e Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology �( Present? Yes , ` No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 'ema ks: LA- / / ,7 r US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Rankin — voTi.... WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region �• Project/Site:r i< hi L City/County: / ^0 "2 l-,- (''v[I t; t` Sampling Date: t,plicanUOwner. J State: 1 # Sampling Point I✓ ,nvestigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes L/ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? )JO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ,✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? rJJ� (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes —2L No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area � t, Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No _ within a Wetland? Yes No T_ Remarks: ,t VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tr e Stratum (Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: ) %Cover Species? Status .,r I / -- Y ES Number of Dominant Species That ' Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2, 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) i. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: —r d D {A/B) Yl Sa lin / hrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. 4 /Q r Lt 2. 1 3. yJ 2Lel 7 ?5 f, = Total Cover /n V r t~ Bc- 4. 5. Herb Stratum (?lot size: ) = Total Cover r . e 4 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) = Total Cover 1. = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) r �G�C�G�I eeJi�a(.�i �J7 oJe urll1 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — interim Version SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color (moist) _Color (moist) % Type Loc Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grai _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Sampling Point: W absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks F! S. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina. M=N Indicators for Problematic Hydric So! Coast Prairie Redox (A16) iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Saturation (A3) — True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ` Sediment Deposits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (B3) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: ' � jr, I I`�b_ t n.7� C' Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No _ — Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): r ` I Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Var.-;inn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region ProjecVSite: I Vic City/County: W1 `Fiv—Sampling Date: plicanVOwner. MI '. P/� p G (511 State: r L Sampling Point: W Wf nvestigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: / NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? PA Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes r/ No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? �jb (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X Is the Sampled Area No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plots Absclute Dominant Indicator e: `�~ o /o Cover S eci ,U W. Status 1. r' o 'llllvtttt�S ;3T1 AC(n� 2. 3. 4. 5. r = SaolinolShrub Total Cover Stratum (Plot size: '' � 2. 3, 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: ' ` 1 ` =Total Cover 2. 3. ^tt^c 41 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. — 10. Wood V ne Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. 11 I = Total Cover arks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species 7 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2— (A) Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: J (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) rrevalenceIndex worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes�L No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL t Sampling PoinL•ifq'!« Depth Matrix Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) k(inches)Color (moist) % _ Color (moist) Features ,i tt . �'/a Vie, Loc Texture Remarks 1., L 7%S `ck�� C f 'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Hydnc Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) — Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) .X Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Thick Dario Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Y;o 1,rc,eK ;r� w i 4 k 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydnc Soil Present? Ye/-�_ No vvetiano mydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (63) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (B5) — Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Gauge or Weil Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No inches Depth ; P (inches): ) Water Table Present? Yes No Depth kin ches):.O- Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previo 1::9 , /6 < 4 Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) — Drainage Patterns (610) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5) T Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No us inspections), if available: �n �.�1 '4 7"r �F7 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Raninn — irHori_ w.—i ... WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: Tk l q 1 G �(oCity/County: Ch/. t Gt/yyr� Sampling Date: �plicanUOwner. ,y_ � State: Sampling Point: =%"f' % , ' 4�" nvestigator(s): %p %� J p C) Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? 9 Y 0 Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? 0 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Rcmn.l.� No Is the Sampled Area No No within a Wetland? , I vt_U&- I ATION — Use scientific names of plants. Yes No /I ' Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: o /o Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. ice` v c -Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: > = Total Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. +� Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 = Total Cover 3.70 it�� 4. iJ: EiCI0'�`� Fly 5. 6. f 8. `1 k li)` .3 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: =Total Cover fill = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (A) 3 (B) Per;;ent of Dominant Species 7 �iD That Are OBL, 7ACW, or FAC: ) ( (AB) Prevalence Index worksheet. Total % Cover of Muftioly bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is :53.0' ` Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) /I, ,,z/ US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version f� SOIL Sampling Point: �; � "-T 1 - %) rronie uescnption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth kk(inches Matrix Redox Features '/o Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks Color (moist) T 'Type: C=Concentration D=De_plefion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered Hydric Soil Indicators: or Coated — HISto501 (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) i Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (At 2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Depth (inches): I Hydric Soil Present? Yes No / narks. nvB� /--0 0/­C-; a e l / S-EL �T HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is •eguired• check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) _` Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (81) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deoosits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Presence of Reduced Iron ll _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algaf Mat or Crust (84) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (67) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) i Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No f t/ Depth (inches): > 7— Saturation Present? Yes No includes capilla frin e Depth (inches): / z c! p ( ) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: G �� r US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Reqion — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region � _ (l ` 1 ` Project/Site: 7—N 7 / T2A1L City/County: �`4 N�� S� N/ Sampling Date: ��/ �� ApplicanUOwner. Stater Sampling Point: ��—� wev - Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation _Soil_ or Hydrology significantly disturbed? AD Are'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes v No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NQ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No T Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ l� No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: 6 ,r " � VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum, (Plot size: ) °'o Cover Species? Status 1. �/bgas �fr �r-�c.+/n , IV- 3 kl otll 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sadina/Shtub Stratum (Plot size: ) �— w` 2. fAr- 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: --=fir— (A) (B) Prevalence Indexworksheet: Total °n Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x , = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is :53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. I Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes X No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: W 5/ Vile Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features o! (inches) Color (moist) . Color (moist) _% Type' Loc TextureRemarks // i �(�/•1` Al - 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. `'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matvr. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _Y Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) ! Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes L No Remarks: CFJ, //�/� ( d f��-iit+rut�cZ�irftr39 7 &ur C11 .�L•�-»�- 't �-•rr.,�.� 1- :?' � � �1.1 Q �iQW ���/�J „N+/i,L„y�/i��-L �pa„c,��:>'Ir'1�, �•� -PiV ��K.niti�t�G2 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No /� Depth (inches)- /?` !' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avaiiable: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region n ProjectlSite: 7/0':/ L City/County: Sag Date: Applicant/Owner. State: ill :V Sampling Point: V,� -5 V p Investgator(s): /� �S (" �`�i -{� _ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): t— Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? WD Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? ljl� (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �_ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No � Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No _� within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % CS2vQr Species? Status Yea ,�e(v Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW,orFAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) (B) .9D �' (A/B) 3 ✓ 4. 5. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. - = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of. Multiply by: 2. OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stra�tum- (Plot size: ) /.� , / — Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. ��.�t/' �!Ytt! G/ r I I C J vi. 4U r,4 Zd/Tl/ �f YAG 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Prevalence Index = B/A = _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mus. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes No — = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) 17_ ltn� �i✓�'' �''---tit;� r US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: W / ota Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist %b Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks /p0 — r — — J') Gt�i+i awv— 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocabon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric SOIIs': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (Al C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (FB) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required- check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence o` Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): / b Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7 lb si Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ,, / �V 0 / n .�� G��DvS j LC%'���( fit,✓.ter >✓ �C�j� US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version u WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: T ff l 1 T fQl, ( 4n, piicanUOwner.City/County: '✓k' i U,- 1 Yj ,!XVV'n�Sampling Date:state: MirSampling Point: �Ji 11-estigator(s): _ MCI A4't'gt' � JPA- G 5av`- Section, Township, Range: Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _CZ- No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? N-0 Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology Y 9Y naturally problematic? /f0 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Yes No Yes No Yes _ No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Tree Stratum (Plot sizes Absolute Dominant Indicator /o Cover Species? Status �Pto y vIO" ,Co5 1AD 2. 3. 4. Sablino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: I!�/ = Total Cover ✓�i.✓tIC-, 2 3. 4. 5. Herb S r tum (Plot size: Total Cover 1. G a�� f a ,&r 2. r•� -too �ry✓a �c�5�5 la AJQ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. �� Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover� = Total Cover emarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) uominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (q) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (g) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I �� (q/B) Prevalence Index worksheet• Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers ,SOIL Sampling Point: W 7-"T1—(,� eronle Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 7t�apth Matrix Redox Features inches) Color m ist % Color (moist) % C-Di Type ' Loc Texture Re^iaks �Ol' �00 — _ 5 f (-ot vv\ 'ape: C=Concentration D=Depl Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY CS _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (SS) Stripped Matrix (56) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining 1 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. —f-- ! Hydric Soil Present? Yes No i — C Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Fiefd Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No kDepth (inches): a Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous m oe `emarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (1310) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Vsib!e on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No if available: Wood Vine Stratum (Plot size- 1. Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region ProjecUSite: TIC q I Try; l 4",i� _ _ ,��CitviCounty: ( Q�✓Sampling Date: fU plicanUOwner. � � p State: M Sampling Point: %+� estigator(s): N4 PlPy'PI f ){ G S c� Section. Township, Range: Landform (hi(lslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓/ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology / Y ogY significantly disturbed? I✓� Are "Normal Circumstances` present? Yes VVV No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic. ,tf9 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ves Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? tees Remarks: No 4 I I Is the Sampled Area No within a Wetland? No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. f!- G ( Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Str tum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? St tus 1. �/a/,�n�5 ��pnSfvtan�c✓.� 7Q x 2. j�G�a✓l5 i a� ►�� 9\0 Y Flku 3. 4. L S lin /Sh b Stratum Plot size: 15 ) 1.` ia7,Ca(y��S �fNP/ifui1ov 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover 3 Cb x - Herb Stratum (Plot size: ` rr = Total Cover t. Garr, A - Ac r �iG�at �G 2. K' c6c-, f2CEO X �(�C tV 3. ( 0, �%T?jC �M U4' I � f 't. G/ 4. -1 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Yes No uominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species T!-iat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: rrevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply bv- OBL species x t = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACJ species x 4 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) -1 Prevalence Index = B/A = ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is _<3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N 4� = Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL on: (Describe to Sampling Point: W�'T('t Profile Descriptithe depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color oist % Color (moist) % Twe, Loc Texture Ir ,,, _ tRemarks s� CO�^'1 Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol(Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 an Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (173) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) — Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, tJ=N Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) ---ju nyoroiogy indicators: Priniaa Indicators minimum of one is re uired• check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) ! Water -Stained Leaves (89) — High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) — Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (134) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (85) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) — Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No 4—Depth (inches): r�_" j Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): nCi ia Saturation Present? Yes No Y_ D ft, it 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, _unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nq%� Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) (includes capillary fringe) epth (inches): ►1b a 7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes vibe 'ema Data gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, inspections), if available: NK US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: T 4 1� ( TfG'I O _. City/County:piing Date: /G plicanUOwner,.. ''ff f ll kt o State: Sampling Point: I1%$ -T� KJ� 4nvestigator(s): q� f J Tr SG/` Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc-): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Daum: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? - NWI or WWI classification: Are Vegetation Soil Yes No {If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? 0Q Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes / No Are Vegetation Sal or Hydrology naturally problematic? �fD (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. [Remarks: ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area Yes No etland Hydrology Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No No — VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. ( Absolute Dominant Indictor Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: O ) 1% over Species? Status / , Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. —`� Total Number of Dominant I 4. Species Across All Strata: (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �O (A/B) C � =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 7 ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. . Total % Cover of: Multiply by- 3. i6 OBL species x 1 = 3 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb tratum (Plot size: I►'ha = Total Cover 1. 2. /1 d. �i C °l /Gl � 3. C ;its; U A Cd l,,e � se 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: / = Totai Cover 1. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sh FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is :0-0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Samplin P 'nw — w i. t e Profile Description: (Describe to the deptfi needed g oto document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.] Depth inches Matrix Color moist Redox Features % o !o Color (mois`) Type' Loc Texture Remarks - �•S �S to L f / Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) — Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restnctrve Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): narks: HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered o• Coated Sa _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Mat.�x (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Grains. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=N Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) — !ron-Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required7 check all that apply) — Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Saturation (A3) — True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Sediment Deposits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Presence of Reduced iron (C4) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tille d ed Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (B5) ` Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No\� Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators {minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) — Geomorphic Position (D2) — FAC-Neutral Test (135) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No inGudes ca illa !nn e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Project/site: T rT WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region t-f � � rr i I � City/County: Sampling Date: �plicanUOwner. — — State: N_ Sampling Point: �$-T�- v p nvestigator(s): 4 �I P y o 4 o G 5� .� -JS -T k u Section, Township, Range: Landform (hitlslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Soil Map Unit Name: Datum: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil , or H drolo Y gy significantly disturbed? AID Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil , or Hydrology natural) � y problematic. ,'JD (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. kHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area etland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No emarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree S ratum (Plot size: 7!o Absolute Dominant Indicator °o7rCover S aes. Status 2. 3. 4. Sa li /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: �� = Total Cover 2. L�r CP (ol 3. lrs rhriSy Lqf 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size): 1. M n, u (q-�r cs CSC S 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Wood Vine Stratum (Plot size: ' ) 1. t at/� rks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate = Total Cover 1r5 at Dominance Test worksheets Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: C D G D (Ar B) Prevalence Index worksheets Total % Cover of:ultiply by- OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species ' x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Total Cover �! Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? = Total Cover Yes No US Army Cops of Engineers SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix inches Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type, Loc Texture Remarks O-g 10 R 3rn v 1" 3 S ,6 c PL C a 0a0y 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (35) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology Y gy must be present, Restrictive Layer (if observed): unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydr7Soilent? Yes No wnanf nr_v wenana Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired7 check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High _ Water -Stained Leaves 89 _ ( ) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Pattems (B10) _ T Water Marks (B1) True Aquatic Plants (814) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift D Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery C9 9efY ( ) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ` Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ — Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ , — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _` Gauge or Well Data (D9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: �( Surface Water Present? Yes ����77```--- No /` Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No includes ca itla frin e Depth (inches): t— Wetland Hydrology `j(/ Present? Ye� ` No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region ProjecUSite: �E� V1 rkAd City/County:� y�/ //m1 f�fi�$� ��ll %� tlL'O/"' E--/i- Sampling Date: 1010 State: M tJ Sampling Point AeV 4n,estiqatoqs): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hi;lslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope M: Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? OVO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil -or Hydrology natural) 6 y problematic. N (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? "es No Hydric Soil Present? veS- NO Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. L1­1e�ro 5'traftj (Plot size: 2- 3. Dogulc o f c rf, ra Z`9"1y yes 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cov US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: AJ� Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix _ Redox Features inches Color moist % Color moist % Ty De Locrexture; Remarks lie Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 crn Muck (A10) — Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) — 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY nd Hydrology Indicators: CS --Covered or Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) L 1 4S h O>� Sand Grains. 2Location. PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No J1_ Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) — Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): i Water Table Present? Yes No >L Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No r� Depth (inches): 5 / i— Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes inGudes ca ilia Erin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No US Army Corps of Engineers I !!// WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site: -an to T/y 7� %Ai� City/County: CI-14-UN,45S vI 412p ,/' Q �y Sampling Date: �plicanUOwner: State: Sampling Point: its%-1 we,4 nvestigator(s): � d1$.�h � I1'r r � (!�, Section, Township, Range: Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope (%): Lat: LOB Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NVVI or WWI classifical`�V: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)"' Are Vegetation • , Soil or Hydrology significantly d-sturbed? NO Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes v No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? /JO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No I Hydric Soil Present? Yes X N° Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No within a Wetland? Yes �_ No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant Indicalo, Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover S eaes? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Sa RShrub S tum (Plot size: = Total Cover �. W"Lx ex/ u9,0 PCs oet- 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1 , � D 70 CS %ECG✓ 2. �/r joc 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. — 10. I Woody Vine Stratum, (Plot size, = Total Cover 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? photo num here or on a separate sheet. = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species �j -That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: t Of%�p -(AtB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of- - Multi°iv bv- OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document th ' Sampling Point: 0✓) -/ wGf e �--ul wnnrm me aosence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features nches Color moist % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture IV Z Remarks 2/r -' �yx 10 C- PL T e: C=Concentration, Q=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ _ (A2) Ep tic _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) lacktic _ Black (A3peclon _ _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) i Other (Explain in Remarks) en S ffid _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ _ Stratified Layers (A5) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al,) Z( Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface F7 — ( ) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) — Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology Y ogy must be present, Restrictive Laver rif nhanrverll• unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: O M A HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Present? Yes X_ No G I o r»-,-r - r-.-r cL r7^l .r J /- acN jr G (' /'h i rn Lrn '✓it tic `o.�.� / Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required• check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) — True Aquatic Plants (B14) — Water Marks (61) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) — Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Algal Mat or Crust (64) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (85) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) — Surface Soil Cracks (B6) — Drainage Patterns (1310) — Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) — Geomorphic Position (02) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes No - -K- Depth (inches): —T— Water Table Present? Yes k No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): {inGudes capillary fringe) - Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -/— No Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 1 W/ cJ=•l�►) �4 US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/site: ld ( T(% � R City/County: z� i,1 f t . ; : fit..,-J WSampling Date: ba�G Plicant/Owner. State: %% Sampling Point: w io --T(— (� i 4'estigator(s): f1(4# M-fyp( 7 Jr 0 5,:„ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): L I Slope (%): Lat- oca relief (concave, convex, none): Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: i NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)ti Are Vegetation ,Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? 9 Y tJ0 Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic. /.%) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No FNydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: / Y ) Absolute /a Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1 • _rkiX__ Ku�j �Ph h� � �� r� a��� � Number of Dominant Species That 2. I Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (q) 3. 4. Sa in /Shrub Stratu {Plot size: �ee = Total Cover ,. iA ,tju5 Zaan ) �A* g& ai 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: t = Total Cover 2. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. N,"cu 11un-veers nere or on a separate sheet.) = Total Cover = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: _�2_ (B) Percent of Dominant Species ✓% That Are06L, FACW, or FAC --lam . --TAB Prevalence Index worksheets Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — Dominance Test is >5o% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes tNo US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matnx inches Color moist % �-� (0Y 0, Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc T ture Remarks — -- " Y a l `( IUt' L -I�� oc� — — T e: C=Concentration, D=D letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Al)istosolndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — — Histic Epipedpedon (A2) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) — Black Histic (A3) _ _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) — Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X Redox Dark Surface (176) — Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface F7 — ( ) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ — 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) — Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology Y 9Y must be present, Restrictive Layer (if observed): unless disturbed or problematic. Type' Depth (inches): �// Hydric Soil Present? Ye No s� \ Remarks: — LIVI'1Rnr nr_v Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required- check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) — Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __._ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) — Water Marks (61) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — — — Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) — _ — Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) — — Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) , — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) FAC-Neutral Test (DS} — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No includes capillaryfrin e Depth (inches): a N Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aer al photos, previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region ProjecUSite: -IN U ( ` -T, �( P l� i e� �p�, % 4n,estigator(s): City/County: if'w'r✓,%rf.:ti l/L�. rpl�Sampling Date:plicanVOwner.TState: N Sampling Point: ilk e o c C a v� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%); Lat: Long: Datum: Sal Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? ' rm n� v Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil _,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YYes es No Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: I7o r Absolute Dominant Indicator 1. - ) % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. F- S2ollna/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: % = Total Cover 1. 2. _ O {� t✓ 3. 4. 5. HeSt atum (Plot size- I Z = Total Cover 1. �I4(1 a("� �taCaal �G 15 �CUJ 2- O of `C n 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. — tA'oodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: =Total Cover 1. I _ Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate r C-O-^ 47 a4-'�r- = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species f� _ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: L/ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, F-ACW, or FAC: - - --va —�V— Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: _ Multiply bv� OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ___. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Ven,P+ation' (Fxr)lain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No e-A t/Y�d t1 %�c�C GL � i�� )/A 07 0 / J US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: k) V) 7l "v vrotile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features i 'ches Color moist % Color moist % Type' Loc Texture Remarks fs-ay IoYRa 'Type: C=Concentration Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 — Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) __._ Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) J Sand Grains, 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Other (Explain in .Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes A No wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Saturation (A3) — True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (63) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) i Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _Y�FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Yes No Depth (inches): Yes No Depth (inches): T Yes No Depth (inches): _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ' FFORM - Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: A�,o ��'�/��,f—Sampling Date: 0I — I wCplicant/Owner: State: NU Sampling Point: 4'estigator(s): � iiiP�P r ? �.p U�se.�.. r Section, Township, Range: Landform (hiflsiope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Long: Local relief (concave, convex none): Datum: NWI or WWI classification: (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? N � Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? v 0* (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes \ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes � No Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. / Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheeL- Tree tratum (Plot size: 1. ) % over Soecies? S tus 1. i Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant a Species Across All Strata: (g) Percent of Dominant Species — trr That Are 98L, FACW, or f=AC — - Sa lin Shrub Stra (P size = Total Cover r 7� AA 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb &traWm (Plot size: 101 = Total Cover 1. IR i(1S GIIt,nT1r,lei 2. tN 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 - 10. - Woody Vine e_ Stratum (plot size: ) = Total Cover t. Hydrophytic Vegetation Total Present? = Cover Remarks- (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sleet.) Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply bv- OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Yes /\ No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL AT/ Sampling Point' _ T/_ k4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) '— _ Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color (moist) % _Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture lo �o (� , _ L oa Remarks P Phi - r r Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix CS Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Laver (if o6sPrvPrn• or Coated Sand Grains. '1 n, Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (FS) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 1 , !" CY -- 24 r ^GY ram• f si f? M HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one is reauired7 check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) High Water Table (A2) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) p _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) n _ Sediment Deposits (62) @ ib Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Alga! Mat or Crust rust 84 ( ) — Presence of Reduced Iron ) ( C4ecent _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) _ RIron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Muck _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) `Thin Surface ) ( C7 _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) �FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Saturation Present? Yes No � Depth (inches): %► Depth (inches): incudes capillary frin e Wetland Hydrology Present? YesX No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aer al photos, previous inspections), if available: � L, US Army Corps of Engineers Project/Site:-WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwes Region plicanVOwner: j 1T � l tic(:( City/County: Sampling Date: 'itT/ t O II State: Sampling Point: k/��—TI—up nvestigator(s): K4 Rue r 4 T. U g,c,rl Section, Township, Range: t_— Landform (hillslope. Terrace, etc.): Slope (° : Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Long: Local relief (concave, convex, none): WDatum: / NWI or WI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? A/0 Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? a (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showina sam❑linn nninr le%ro+l— :_ --------• _...�, —IF—L L icaluleb, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? "es - No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No f Is the Sampled Area I X/ Wetland Hydro'ogy Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No /\ _ I I U1:GGTATIn►1 I I ---.. •• •�-•. ...oc at,�ci�tnw ua�IICS VI �IdflLS. 1 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2. 1- 3.WA 4. Sapling Shrub Stratum (Plot size: I�7 = Total!rover 1. LX,�U �Q6lwGrfV �j (�_ SAG tv' 2_ 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: ' = Total Cover 2. 14 f i S a 1 alQtrq �ylc5 �✓ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 110— Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: J I = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) / (A) Total Number of Dominant ,Z Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species �•'f% Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of --Multiply by- OBL species x 1 = FACW species f x 2 = / 2 FAC species x 3 = FACU species 1 x 4= / b O UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)F S (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = %, ; f IX Hydrophytic Vegetation —Indicators.- Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point w11-Tl-v rrorne uescnpuon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color moist % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Te t re Remartcs d'a` 0i 3 L ►� �- o� r� Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 — Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restnct,e Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ' \ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uired; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ High Water Table (A2) — Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (31) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) — Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / ' Depth (inches): hC/ Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): AO 16 x Saturation Present? Yes (includes capillary frin e) No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nd' Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 'emarks: US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site: T H T I 1 12 R I L Cit /County: C N gNH ASSE�v r r- t y / Sampling Date: I � �o (�L Applicant/Owner: State: 1/ 4 F % Sampling Point: Iva-- I wei Investigator(s): v� 7✓t i�►1 {iY' --I'{ Yr v/SZil�ection, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Long: Datum: NWI classification: Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _A No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? t%(O Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes —X— No Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? /4f (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dom inance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status �t '/ � us Number of DominantSpecies "o P h o v �/ 0 G7' t FS �/9C or F That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 0 Q ° 5. That Are OBL FACW, or FAC: f< A/B _ = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x t = 2. 3. FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) a7 `/ � Column Totals: (A) (B) 1- l /✓✓G r+-I aL 4rdFf7/J C,�-rt �t�fih S� : !r 1 2. L o y_l_ 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. 6,4 Q:,� z S d}i fi S/ �/S f O 7a yr--CAI � Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 5. 6. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 9 _ 9. 10 Indicators of hydre wil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here oron a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: c V 12-I We Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Color (moist) % Texture Re -narks O--3 /0IX z 1 �co — - ,r�tuc�y ,jiY�L 3-/ 3 G y 2 Z � SyR S /� . G Pf� �� cl� .tea,.,•-. 7 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (At) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Minera' (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes —?L No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required' check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B.4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (135) , Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) A Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? r"es No Depth (inches): > r3 " Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): > 13 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: / ;-S:rd'.tal1V�y.[!�Y'arh%� 7L �2Q�e� ry Dul 0 rJ cJz7uli� �iT S',�(%�'� aJ��� /��' Y' �"t.... (/�Y 1-G�- � � �� ! r' GfitGa.�_ �✓� 0. ,�ifn i f • Ga�ti- US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Interim Version ,l WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region (� / Project/Site: 7�1 �� �� � L— City/County:C#4l"A17q)4 SEAI / Sampling Date: ApplicanUOwner.. / State: 14 h) Sampling Point: — �P Investigator(s): F�� �f �/�t . 1 Vf� r� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo (If no, explain in Remarks.) _ �/ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? W40 Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NG (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No = within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) ° v r Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. �r [ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant o 2. .�1 c e r lyd Cr �a. rr : tlti c3y /O 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. r -- -- Perpnt of Dominant Species 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: a AB = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) T 1. /�/Jl=iK !^ G'S Gct- fl1Q. / F"7!<1 aO ,—S Fe X Total % Cover of Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 2. 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = = Total Cover Herb Strat m (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B!A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 4. 5. g. 7. B _ 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 9. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2. Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) r US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: .t&�_� U�o Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Color (most' % Tvfle oc` Texture Remarks D YR 311- / o'u _ �- S� %1 S-z to 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) — Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matra (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: AP HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primate Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Suede Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ` Gauge or Well Data (09) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): �/ t Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Z / rr Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: e J US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: eG�WAl��ss / fir Sampling Date // -� . 20�0L Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: VV Investigator(s): l/ 6150" r Al' yam- Section, Township, Range: Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IX No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? A10 Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes _ Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? AAA (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ✓ No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes /` No is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 1. 2. 3. 1. 5. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Cover = Total Cover Herb SVatu (Plot 1. � 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Z (A) Total Number of Dominant ^ Species Across All Strata: (B ) Percent of Dominant Species /�D That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: tA/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation X Present? Yes ' \ No US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: v" l�—( W-el- Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features { (inches) Color �(ymoist) % Color (moist) 'io Type 'V V 1 5- , Loc Texture Remarks C=Concentration, D=De lefon, RM=Reduced Matra, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. -'Type: Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric $Oils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ 2 cm Muck (AID) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) X Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: ,n / Y a c.� O GA •^a-vn a m r^i X i C_yyy HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) i� Geomorphic Position (D2) _ iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): �'> l /� Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): « Y Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Q Project/Site: A/L. City/County, G�%w�%AS�t�li �pling Date: J 2©lo ApplicantlOwner. State: U` Sampling Point: iv/3 Investigator(s): / • 0�S �n �-- Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of years Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) // Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? AA Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yesy No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? AJ-O (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric No J Is the Sampled Area Soil Present? Yes Wetland No V within a Wetland? Yes No Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. G P✓ S'Q��lA A rU % Cover Species? Status �y �G�.�/o C S G u Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: _� (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 2. �1ir A 3. C e r .') ✓ r1 1 D 7� `14 5_ tN '� � 4 — - Percent of Dominant Species 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:) (A/B) t dotal over Prevalence Index worksheet: Saplin /Sh b�St Stratum (Plot size: ) �/ 1. /t f'L 4441 v1 titS 6-A- fa �/ G2 � C' ! tf r- 6( Total % Cover of. Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) ,. /[h a4r tl u s vc -ln to io v ?'cs FA` It Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is :53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 4. 5. g 7. 13 _ Indicators of hydrrc soil and wetland hydrology must 9. 10 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X 2 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: V V / 3—vP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matra Redox Features Cinches) Color mois! % Color (moist) % Tvae Loc Toxture Remarks /� 1­� Cda — — — — i?e-sZ fir 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matra, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Suffide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matra (F2) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth Cinches): Hydric Sol[ Present? Yes No �_ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) _ Drainage Patterns (610) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (1213) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust C34) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (65) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wate,:Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >/Sf Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No--�-- includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ^ / i d :-c�--;�-� US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site:`r4�2- 1 City/County: I�lt`l v plicanVOwner. Sampling Date: 4estigator(s): �� � �S-o-� f� , �Jr. Q� 4 Section, Township, Range: �� State: Sampling Point: Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): c —�= Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%); Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil , or H drolo / y gY significantly disturbed? �0 Are "Normal Circumstances` present? Yesy No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? 1A (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ,No Hydric Soil Present? Yes Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes_ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: r Absolute Cover Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: S ecies.2 Status 1 Y�/rAJ; x p� i ����� 2 I w f S —�— 1� Number of Dominant Species �1G That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3• Total Number of Dominant 4. ie Species Across All Strata: (j1 (B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 2. �'c,,r,1�7c C Ala.-•: t� — —�� }/!S�`�-.tr 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 20 6.5 06L 2. 5 3. cc v, r v r j—� �L?� C �} 4. C-0- 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. arks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet_) 1/1 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species _ThatAre 9. 0. FAC. r to (A/ Prevalence Index worksheets Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (a) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover I T-- US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrx Redox Features (Linches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Twe ILoc Texture Remarks -2 N lc�n CA-- Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosof (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) lC Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or _ Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) D yLa,✓v: r-- S A-.^.ft9P Sand Grains. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes _Y No if/ Cam t vLQJ/t CY c r ✓ J�-CevA- dlon A i ! j kr7 :.fill f ve-P, VV 1 l Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators !minimum of one is required check all that apply) L(Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (813) Saturation (A3) ` True Aquatic Plants (814) _ Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Drift Deposits (83) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Algal Mat or Crust (84) , Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): '" 5\4 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): _A-� .j\,,,j.G Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): includes capillary frin2e) Describe necorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspe( Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) Drainage Patterns (610) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ _� No ms), if available: �� "�/T7 US Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Projectisite: — r o \ 1 City/County: Q%ANf;Q5S511J f Clt,,v plicanVOwner. I Z Sampling Date: � ( a 4estigator(s): / `�A State: 1N4Al Sampling Point: VJ7r�i_ 1 j 19 " 1, c� �3"K •-t � k't,"� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI or WWI Gasification: Are dimatic r hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , soil , or Hydrology si nificantl disturbed? significantly N6 Are -Normal Circumstances' present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology natural) problematic? Y P A (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No �_ Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Trge Stratum (Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator /o Cover Species? Status ., V't s O C. r 2. 3. 4. k Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: = I otal (over 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. ) 2. 3. 7-0 C LI 4. 5. 6. r. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet_) vomrnance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ail Strata: (g) Percent of Dominant Species That Ara nRl FArW, er F116 bD� t;q,+gr Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply br OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (g) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: �! Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �— No US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point _w VYJ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or Depth Matrix Redox Features confirm the absence of indicators.) inches Color (moist) % Color (.moist) % Type Loc Texture 2 3 Z Remarks Q lao .� Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol(Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) — 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) — Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restnctive Layer (if observed); Type: Depth (inches): RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand G _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) IS. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ iron -Manganese Masses (F12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No/ " _yam A i -Zv HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) S_ econdary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Fauna (B13) 814 _ True Aquatic Plants ( ) _Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation rrowe on Aerial imagery (C9) — Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron C4 ( ) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) _ Iron Deposits (BS) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) `Thin Muck Surface C7 ( ) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) i Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No `I Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No XI De th inches : includes ca illa fine p ( ) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 'emarks: G US Army Corps of Engineers Appendix B: NRCS Mapped Soils Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (North)) 44' 5 T 34' 44` 57 41" Map scale: 1:7,8401 prnted on Asae (8.5" x 111 sheet. N Meters a A 0 50 100 200 300 N Feet 0 300 600 1.200 1,800 4453 35 4C 52' 41" USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 t" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (North)) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features lit Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot ® Landfill A Lava Flow ,A, Marsh or swamp R Mine or Quarry Q Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water .i Rock Outcrop t Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot S Spoil Area Q Stony Spot Very Stony Spot t Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope ,.. Other Political Features p Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation 44-4- Rails s,. Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads ^i Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:7,840 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000 Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 7, Aug 2, 2010 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 �+ Conser cation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota. and Hennepin County. Minnesota I Mm era Map Unit Legend TH 41 Trail (North) Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CCW Cordova -Webster complex 1.6 0.8% GL Glencoe day loam 3 2 1.6% ��-H--M Hamel loam 10 8 5.5% KB Kilkenny -Lester hams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 14.2 7.3% KB2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded ; 7 1 3.7% KC Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 406 20.8% KC2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 14.5 TA% KD Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 Io 16 penow dopes 8.3 4.2% KD2 Lester -Kilkenny loams,1210 18 pdroertt slopes, eroded 13.8 71% KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded 29.5 15.1 % MK Houghton and Muskego soils 7.7 4.0% MP Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded 1.8 0.9% 1D3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, 6.7 3.4% severely eroded NE3 Lester -Kilkenny clay foams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded PM Klossner muck To Terril loom, 0 to 6 percent slopes TC Temil loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes YS Rasset-Lesbr-IGNcermy complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes YO Rasset-Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes Subtotals for Soil Surrey Arco _ Totals for Area of Interest 32 _ 0.111 1.2 2.7 12.2 3.9 163.1 1lS.1' 1.6% 2.0% f3.7% 100.0% Hennepin County, Minnesota (MN053) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L22D2 Lester barn, morainic, 12 to 16 percent slopes, eroded L22E Lester loam, morairic, 18 Io 25 percent slopes L24A Glencoe loam, depressional, 0Io 1 perceM slopes L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes L41C2 Lester -Kilkenny complex, 6 to 112 percent siopes, eroded U1A Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, ito 2 percent slopes U38 Udorthents (cut and fill land), 0 l0 6 percent slopes Subtotals for Soil Survey Area Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 0.2 0.1 % 0.6 0.3% 0.3 0.1 0.2% 0.1 % 0.51 5.4% 021 0.1% 0.4 02% 12.3 6.3% 195.4 100.0% 10/26/2010 Page 3 of 4 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH41Trail (South) Soils) 44' 5Z 55" 44' 57 11" Map Scale: 1:6,470 1 printed on Asize (8.5" x 111 sheet. N i Meters A 0 50 100 200 300 N Feet 0 200 400 800 1.200 44' 52' 55' 44° 5r 11' USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 MAPLEGEND Area of Interest(AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features V) Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot ♦ Closed Depression X Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot ® Landfill A Lava Flow ,J, Marsh or swamp R Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot a Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole Slide or Slip fig Sodic Spot s Spoil Area Q Stony Spot Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH41Trail (South) Soils) Very Stony Spot t Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features O Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation 4-++ Rails .v Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads n� Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:6,470 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your ACI were mapped at 1:12,000 Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. I %1)A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 ;1111111im Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend TH41Trail (South) Soils Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CO Cordova Gay loam CW Cordova -Webster complex EX Essexville sandy loam HM Hamel loam KB Kilkenny -Lester loans, 2 to 6 percent slopes K82 Lester -Kilkenny loans, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded KC Lester -Kilkenny bans, 6 to 12 percent slopes 2.0 4.3 0.9 20.4 37.21 9.0 18.3 0.8% 1.8% 0.4% 8.4% 15.3% 3.7% 7.5% KC2 KID KD2 KE2 LA MK NC3 ND3 NE3 PM Lester -Kilkenny hems, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Lester -Kilkenny loams,12 to 18 percent slopes , Lester -Kilkenny loans, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded Lester -Kilkenny foams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Le Sueur-Lester hams, 1 to 4 percent slopes Houghton and Muskego soils 1 Lester -Kilkenny clay loans, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12 to 18 peroent slopes, severely eroded Lester -Kilkenny day loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Klossner muds 40.8 8.7 11.51 25.7 2.2 4.7 6.01 16.3 12.8 1.3 16.8% 3.6% 4.7% 10.6% 0.9% 1.9% 2.5% 6.7% 5.3% 0.5% TB Terrill loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 18.5 7.6% W Weller 2.4 1.0% T Is for Arne of Into on 243.1 100.0% t4, L SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 44' 52' 24' Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (West) Soils) Z. Map Scale: 1:10,300 it primed m A size (0.5' ie 11') sheet. N Meters n m A 0 100 200 400 600 a N F(?el 0 5o0 1,000 2,000 3,000 USDA Natural Resources WiM Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Page 1 of 3 44' 5Z 25' MAP LEGEND Area ofInterest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features k.J Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression X Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot ® Landfill A Lava Flow 41 Marsh or swamp yi Mine or Quarry Co) Miscellaneous Water i Perennial Water Rock Outcrop t Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Q Stony Spot Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (West) Soils) M Very Stony Spot ,t Wet Spot 1 Other Special Line Features _ Gully Short Steep Slope i.. Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails Aye Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads N Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:10,300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources We? Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 0 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota TH 41 Trail (West) Soils Map Unit Legend Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI EX Essexville sandy loam 24.8 Glencoe clay loam 3.5 5.3% 0.7% 8.3% 5.9% GL HM Hamel loam 38.9 Kilkenny -Lester hams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 27.6 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, 8.3 eroded Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 57.3 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, 41.5 eroded Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 29A KS KB2 1.8% KC 12.1% KC2 8.8% KD 6.2% KD2 KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent 32A slopes, eroded Lester -Kilkenny loams, 18 to 25 percent 51.4 slopes. eroded 6.9% 10.9% LA Le Sueur-Lester loenks, 1 to 4 percent elopes 2.4 0.5% MK MP NC3 ND3 Houghton and Muskego soils Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded Lester-Kiikenny clay loams, 6lo 12 pwo" slopes, severely eroded Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12 to 18 pMcMM slopes, severely eroded Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 18 to 25 percerd slopes, severely eroded Klossner muck 13.6 2.9% Its 4.1% 2.6 0.6% 14.0 3.0% !E3 PM 6.7 1.4% 3.1 0.7% TB Terrill loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes TC TeMI loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes W 1waw Totals for /MN of" 23.3 5.0% 2.2 0.5% 88.3 14.5% 471.8 100.0% i sDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 4� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Hydric Soils Carver County, Minnesota Map symbol and Component Percent of map Landform Hydric Hydric map unit name unit rating criteria BH: Blue Earth mucky silt loam Blue Earth BY: Biscay loam Biscay CL: Coland clay loam, occasionally flooded Coland, occasionally flooded CO: Cordova clay loam Cordova CS: Canisteo silty clay loam. depressional Canisteo, depressional CT: Canisteo clay loam Canisteo CU: Coland clay loam, frequently flooded Coland, frequently flooded CW: Cordova -Webster complex Cordova Webster EX: Essexville sandy loam Essexville GL: Glencoe clay loam Glencoe HM: Hamel loam Hamel KL: Hanlon-Kalmarville complex, frequently Kalmarville, frequently flooded flooded KM: Minneiska-Kalmarville complex, Kalmarville, frequently frequently flooded flooded 85 Depressions, Flood Yes 2B3, 3, 4 plains, Moraines 85 Drainageways, Stream Yes 2B3 terraces 85 Flats, Flood plains Yes 2B3 85 Drainageways, Yes 2B3 Moraines 85 Depressions, Moraines Yes 2B3, 3 85 Flats, Moraines Yes 2B3 85 Flats, Flood plains Yes 283,4 70 Drainageways, Yes 2B3 Moraines 30 Drainageways, Yes 2B3 Moraines 85 Beaches Yes 263 85 Depressions, Moraines Yes 283,3 85 Drainageways, Yes 2B3 Moraines 45 Flats, Flood plains Yes 2B3, 4 40 Flats, Flood plains Yes 2B3, 4 USDA Natural Resources Tabular Data Version: 6 Conservation Seri -ice Tabular Data Version Date: 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 Hydric Soils Carver County, Minnesota Map symbol and Component Percent of map Landform Hydric Hydric map unit name unit rating criteria MK: Houghton and Muskego soils Houghton 50 Depressions, Moraines Yes 1.3 Muskego 50 Depressions, Moraines Yes 1,3 MP: Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded Klossner, ponded 50 Marshes, Moraines Yes 1,3 Muskego, ponded 50 Marshes, Moraines Yes 1,3 MY: Mayer loam Mayer 85 Stream terraces. Yes 2133 Swales OS: Oshawa silty clay loam Oshawa, frequently flooded 85 Flood plains, Oxbows Yes 2B3, 3, 4 PM: Klossner muck Klossner 85 Depressions, Moraines Yes 1,3 PS: Klossner muck, sandy substratum Klossner, sandy substratum 85 Depressions, Stream Yes 1,3 terraces TT: Talcot silty clay loam Talcot 85 Depressions, Stream Yes 2B3 terraces Explanation of hydric criteria codes: 1. All Histels except for Folistels, and Histosols except for Folists. 2 Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Historthels great group, Histoturbels great group, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that: A. are somewhat poorly drained and have a water table at the surface (0.0 feet) during the growing season, or B. are poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: 1.) a water table at the surface (0.0 feet) during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within a depth of 20 inches, or 2.) a water table at a depth of 0.5 foot or less during the growing season if permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 in/hr in all layers within a depth of 20 inches, or 3.) a water table at a depth of 1.0 foot or less during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 in/hr in any layer within a depth of 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long or very long duration during the growing season. 4. Soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season. USA Natural Resources Tabular Data Version: 6 Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 11-03 CITY OF CHANAASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: TH 41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case File No. 2011-03 FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: July 29, 2011 SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit 2011-03 Recording Status The 2011-03 Wetland Alteration Permit will not be recorded against the affected properties because mitigation is to occur through wetland banking which will be recorded with the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resource (BWSR). A confirmation letter from BWSR will follow. g:\p1an\2011 planning cases\I 1-03 th 41 trail & underpass .wtland alteration pennit\memo to file 7-29-1 I.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Meuwissen, Kim From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:11 AM To: Spreiter, Krista Subject: RE: TH 41 Underpass Trail Project Legal Desc.docx Krista, According to our attorney's office, we need to provide the legal description of the property the affected wetlands are located on. If you can provide me with a map showing all of the affected wetlands, I can find the legal description of the property/properties they are located on. Thanks! Kim MEUWISSEN *CITY OF CHANHASSLEN PLANNING SECRETARY 952-227-1 107 ,VAI LTO: i<MEUVvI SSEN@CI__CHAiV HASSE:V. MN. t s ©Find us on Facebook From: Spreiter, Krista Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:45 AM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: TH 41 Underpass Trail Project Legal Desc.docx Here you are. Let me know if this works. Thanks, Krista J. Spreiter Natural Resources Technician City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ksspreiter(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us Direct Phone: 952.227.1173 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT #2011-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a wetland alteration permit for the following use: To fill and mitigate wetlands within the right-of-way along Trunk Highway 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park . 2. Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. The City Council approved Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorized the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, based upon the included findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: a. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. b. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011, prepared by SRF. d. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in figure 4C below, prepared by SU. a..�4� Gerow Courrry TH 41 UnderperA end Tral Prood Figure 4C e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. f. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. g. The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. h. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the city prior to commencement of activity. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 2 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: April 25, 2011 SEAL STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: 0 Tho as A. Furlong, Mayor By: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .."Sth day of ` 2011, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City o Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 ` KAREN J. ENGELHARDT ! Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31. 2015 G:\PLAN\201 I Planning Cases\11-03 TH 41 Trail & Underpass Wetland Alteration PerTn&WAP Agreement.doc Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. _..�.-• : _ -..: _ � r i J N O w • 0 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us U49J8ZUJbb54 $ 00.440 04/07/2011 Mailed From 55317 US POSTAGE rORWARD TIME:3 NFE 1 AO9I 00 04/07/11 CHAMBERS EXp RTN TO SEND 7043 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN--S5317-7572 RETURN TO SENDER ++ II I�III I�IfIIIf'illl'I�111'��Illlllf�l�ll�Il ilf 1111 I1111 �1II11 MATTHEW CHAMBERS 7675 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9317 t1 �1111'i�/l/�tl ll}��t}31 tt7t1})i�ti3/11�t1ll�til lti �/�11111 �� Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the Proposal: construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Applicant: Carver County Parks Property Various — See map on reverse. Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2 The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/l1-03.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Krista Questions & Spreiter by email at kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings. Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommerdation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant ( waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete- Any I person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. . A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethinq to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. - - - •-• CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us U49J82UJbb54 $ 00.440 04/0712011 Mailed From 55317 US POSTAGE X 553 Nr= i A091 CEO 04/ O7/ 11 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND HCNULTV 7052 f-110HOVER OR CHAN►-IASSEN MN S5317-7572 RETURN TO SENDER ERIC & NICOLE MCNULTY 4432 PLEASANT AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419-4938 SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the Proposal: construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Applicant: Carver County Parks Property Various — See map on reverse. Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/l1-03.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Krista Questions & Spreiter by email at kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews. Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations. Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse. affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings. land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethinq to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. 11- 63 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Carver County Parks for a Wetland Alteration Permit for wetland replacement for proposed impacts to five wetlands totaling 12,415 square feet, as a part of the proposed TH 41 Trail & Underpass project. On April 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit to impact five wetlands. The total area proposed to be impacted is 0.285 acres or 12,415 square feet. However, staff recommends that the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) cannot be avoided and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided prior to permitting these impacts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the wetland alteration permit which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, Planned Unit Development -Residential, and Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Parks and Open Space, Residential Low - Density and Public/Semi-Public. 3. The proposed project is located within the right-of-way along the east side of TH 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, from the underpass to the west parking lot and beach area. The TH 41 underpass is located immediately north of the intersection of Ches Mar Drive and TH 41. The proposed completed trail project will connect Minnetonka Middle School with area neighborhoods as well as Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. 4. City code directs that a wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits and the additional requirement of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0230. Wetland alteration and Conditional Use Criteria: a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. SCANNED The proposed wetland impacts that will occur with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass project have not been found to pose danger to public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare. The goal of the proposed project is to provide a safe travel route between residential areas, employment centers, and schools, as well as access and safe travel to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, improving safety and convenience for residents and recreationalists. b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and City Code. It complies with all city, state and federal requirements. The proposed trail is shown in the City's Future Park & Recreation Initiatives map. c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The appearance and character of the general vicinity will not change. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize impacts to wetlands through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. Currently, the proposed project is located within an area that includes single family residential neighborhoods, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, and Minnetonka Middle School. These neighborhoods and the park contain trails providing recreational opportunities. The proposed project would provide a connection to these existing trails, thus remaining compatible with and enhancing the existing and intended character and appearance of the area. d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The surrounding uses are zoned for single-family residential, public/semi-public, and parks and open space. The wetland impacts proposed as a result of the project are not foreseen to cause hazards or disturbance to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed project is considered an enhancement to neighboring uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, and businesses, by providing a safe pedestrian and non -motorized recreational route between all. e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Any changes to drainage structures or additional drainage structures needed as a result of the proposed wetland impacts will be designed and constructed by the applicant or the 2 applicant's contracted consultant in compliance with city design standards. Proposed trails within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park will be maintained by Carver County Parks. Proposed trails east of the underpass will be maintained by the City of Chanhassen, and will be designed and constructed according to city standards. f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass Project will not create excessive need for public facilities and services. The trail project requires some additional services required by the city associated with trail maintenance. The trail west of the box culvert will be maintained by Carver County Parks. The trail east of the box culvert will be maintained by the city. Any maintenance or upkeep to the box culvert will be split 50150. In addition, the proposed trail project is foreseen as an enhancement to economic community welfare, by providing a safe pedestrian and biking access for residents and recreationalists to local businesses. g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed wetland alterations are not expected to be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed wetland impacts will not create nor interfere with traffic and surrounding public thoroughfares. When completed, the proposed trail will separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic which will create a safer atmosphere. i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the project will have no impact on solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize wetland impacts and retain aesthetical compatibility within the area. In addition, the proposed trail project will complement the area. k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values. The proposed wetland impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible, while still allowing for the trail project to occur. The proposed trail project will create a safer setting and will be an asset to the surrounding properties. 1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the City code. 20-410 (b) When a permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimize the impact on wetlands and vegetation through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. With the exception of Wetland 8 and Wetland 22, the applicant has made a reasonable effort to limit the proposed wetland impacts to the minimum amount required in order to complete the trail project. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted During construction the contractor is required to follow approved plans to limit alterations to the minimum the project necessitates. (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas. The applicant and their contractor are prohibited from disposing of excess material within remaining wetland areas as well as any 4 other activities which may negatively impact the remaining wetland areas. (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. The applicant and their contractor must submit a satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan, and comply with all applicable sections of Chanhassen City Code, the citys Surface Water Management Plan, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. The applicant and their contractor are required to refrain from any wetland altering activity during waterfowl breeding and fish spawning season. (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. The applicant has submitted a replacement plan as part of the Joint Notification Application for Wetland Replacement which was received on February 22, 2011. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits. The required replacement ratio is 2:1. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp. 7. C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules, and City Code, Chapter 20, Article VI. (9) Dedicated buffers in accordance with section 20-411. The applicant must comply with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010 5. The planning report #2011-03, dated April 19, 2011prepared by Krista Spreiter, eta], is incorporated herein. 5 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of Planning Case 2011-03. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19`h day of April, 2011. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: is airman 31 Affidavit of Publication CITY OFER&HENN Southwest Newspapers CARVER & HENNEPIN PIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.11-03 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN State of Minnesota) that the Chanhassen Planning Com- )SS. mission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 7:00 County of Carver ) p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized with the construction of a paved 10. agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- foot, off road, multi -use trail within lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal - TH 41 Trail & Underpass Project. newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as Applicant: Carver County Parks. d. amende A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public u (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. review on the City's web site at was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/ Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of plan/11-03.htm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both interested persons are invited to at- inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition tend this public hearing and express and publication of the Notice: their opinions with respect to this proposal. abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician GC��✓ Email: kspreiter@ y. vw ` ' ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1173 Laurie A. Hartmann (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, April 7, 2011; No. 4492) Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 2011 =BARKNOTARMy Com No Abiij RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch SCANNED 11,b3 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, NIN 55317 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Carver County TH 41 Underpass Trail Application Number 11/18/2010 2010-02 Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (it ❑ Approve ® Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): Data forms describe disturbed soil conditions in the remarks, but indicate "normal circumstances" and no disturbance at the beginning of the form (form for Area B for example). This is conflicting data on the same form. None of the forms indicate landform, local relief, slope, soil unit, or NWI class for the sample point location. This information should be included on the form as it provides important context for the observations. In some cases, some of this missing information is provided in the remarks section, but in other cases it is not provided at all. Although these comments may have no bearing on the delineated boundary, TEP member Ken Powell, BWSR, recommend they be rectified prior to final approval. John Gleason, Minnesota DNR, stated that the trail alignment is in close proximity to two DNR Public Waters, Lake Minnewashta (10-09P) and unnamed wetland (10-132W). Placing fill into a public water of the state for trail construction is prohibited. The OHW for these basins are 944.5 (10-09P) and 995.8 (10-132W) datum NGVD 1929. The trail will have to be constructed where the ground surface elevation is currently above the OHWs. The proposed retaining wall also needs to be constructed above 995.8, as a retaining wall is not permitted below the OHW. If that is not feasible, the proposer will need to look at alternatives such as a bridge or alternate alignment. 2_ LOC'A1. C.OVF,RNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: December 13, 2010 ❑ Approved ® Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): The City of Chanhassen has reviewed the delineation report prepared and provided by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Sixteen wetlands were originally delineated and identified as wetlands on site, as a part of this report. After the TEP reviewed the delineation, three of these originally identified wetlands were confirmed by the TEP to be stormwater ponds constructed in wetlands and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act. One of the remaining 13 identified wetlands was also later delineated as two cells; the northernmost cell confirmed as wetland, and the southern cell identified as a stormwater pond constructed in uplands. As the LGU responsible for administration of Minnesota R. 8420, we concur with the delineated boundaries as shown and described within the report. scAt+neo As LGU, we concur with the wetland types identified in section 5.0 of the wetland delineation report submitted by SRF dated November of 2010 and given the project number: SRF #: 7068 and included with this notice. BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 1 of 3 This concludes our review, and the delineation is to be considered approved with the following conditions: The City does require that all delineated boundaries be submitted as an electronic file in either *.shp or *.dwg format. The discrepancies pointed out be BWSR shall be clarified. This review applies only to that area defined by a potential trail corridor and is not intended to imply that this is the full extent of wetland within Carver Park. For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: ❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Si Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name I Title Terry Jeffery „ Water Resources Coordinator — -- - -- Date Phone Number and E-mail 12/14/2010 1 952-227-1168 chanhassen.mn.us Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 2 of 3 Check one: ® Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $ fee (if applicable) to: petition and $500 filing fee to: Executive Director Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Greg Graczyk ® BWSR TEP member: Ken Powell ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP member: John "Jack" Gleason ❑ DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) ® WD or WMO (if applicable): Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ® WD or WMO (if applicable): Riley -Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District ❑ Applicant and Landowner (if different) ® Members of the public who requested notice: Jeffrey Olson, SRF Consulting Martin Walsh, Parks Director, Carver County Parks and Recreation Corps of Engineers Project Manager BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan decisions onl 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.inn.us/wetiands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf DeDartment of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 Bemidji, MN 56601 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http•//files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdt ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www.mvD.usace.armv.mil/re2ulatorv/default.asr)?Dageid=687 or send to: ➢Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: ® Figures 2A — 3B of SRF Report ® Section 5.0, Table 3 of SRF Report El BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 3 of 3 Noble Rd 0 6� tandic NJ � o >° � f A p 6 t Smithtown Rd Smith S°w� Fdr a 1 u Echo Rd Shorewood 3 A A Yellowstone Tr G� C P O u^ orchard�a V eaY Rd 06 Sr Gi{lette C' V 3 5 Al O Academy Ave O Park St �� l� 0 7 M-354 Minne West Middl School Project Location Proposed west Parking Retaining Walls Lake Propos6d.Pedestrian , Minnewashta Underpass �g Lake Minnewashta R� 'Regional Park 7p C 111-SarD ¢ E u a -A A � Z Y S U CARVER COUNTY Teftcfft"4 C-IA A¢ * Chanhasse p< a "'umet m o `2 0 Tr E 0 1,000 2,000 Proposed Trail Alignment - Proposed Retaining Wall Existing Trail Feet P Figure 1 Ca d Trail Project SP 1 Carver ®Delineated Wetland Boundary ___ - ---- Figure ZA Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Cwly. Mlmesola ®Delineated Wetland Boundary - — Figure 2B Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Comy, Mnnewa ' 1 veyi/ri�� 6 e � Sipw,c gar," �,- r- ;• L w 3M wtl-n t y--t.i Z e 2i49Fe'r fps'. t rip w^2 2-7 ti w st t-ar, li a Af, NOW 01 41. 2 / e L .�. , 1!Y�� �•f. Y / �4 jrf L ArrarlM.yt•Ca.. a ��nOmtT/ Y t e `i° , Yr- ,.� . GPS Survey Points Wet Ditch • � !�� � • i �,, Construction Limits • ,� �; ;; �� t ' - r.�, / - Delineated Wetland Boundaries Hydric Soils National Wetland Inventory � �S l•!r N --•Yp., �pFeet N T ®Delineated Wetland Boundary _ _ --- — Figure 3A Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carvet County, Mmesda goDelineated Wetland Boundary Figure 3B Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Cormry, Wmesm 5.0 Conclusions We conclude that during the field delineation effort conditions were on the wet side of normal based on analysis of three months of antecedent precipitation data and longer data sets (-180 days antecedent). Table 3, below, summarizes our assertions concerning potential jurisdiction of WCA, DNR (Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands), and the Army Corps (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Confirmed jurisdictions will be verified during the permitting process. Table 3 r...Y.Y _�..-t n,.•....at..1 1...:rl:�►:.,.. -�r.A Imnortc fnr "r)PIinPatPd Wetlands" and `Areas" Junnnaiy V1 rvwnuP�- Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland 7nd Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Corps Jurisdictional Determination) W-1 See "Area A" -- -- -- -- -- below. W-2 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 1L/ (hydrologically PF01A and connected to PEMA/ W-9 and Floodplain ultimately to Forest and Lake Seasonally Minnewashta Flooded Basin) via surface water conveyances) W-3 No (isolated No No (ditch -- hydrologically, constructed in 7Ye ditch uplands) constructed in uplands) W-4 No (isolated No Yes(northern Yes (Type 3/PEMC/ hydrologically) cell); No Shallow (southern cell - Marsh) stormpond constructed in uplands) W-5 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes (Type 6/ small body of OHW elevation PSS1C/ Shrub- open water) of 995.8 feet Carr) (NGVD 1929) W-6 No (stormpond No No (stormpond Yes -- constructed in constructed in uplands) uplands) W-7 No (isolated No Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 16 M Table 3 f. ..f n..F....+*. 1 1...:A;,+;^m —A 1m nr+c fnr 1111olinantati WPtlnndr." and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 1L and hydrologically) 2/ PF01A and PEMB/ Floodplain Forest and Wet Meadow) W-8 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-9 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 6/ (hydrologically PSS1A/ Shrub- connected to Carr) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-10 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-11 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ (hydrologically PEMB/ Wet connected to Meadow) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-12 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) W-13 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) W-20 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 17 Table 3 S immary of Pntantial hiricrlirtinn anti Imnartc fnr "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 1L and Lake OHW elevation 1/ PF01A and Minnewashta) of 944.5 feet PEMA/ (NGVD 1929) Floodplain Forest and Seasonally flooded basin) W-21 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 6/ hydrologically) PSS1C/Shrub- Carr) W-22 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ PEMB/ wet meadow) Area A No (ditch No No (created in No -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area B No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area C No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area D No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands)s uplands) Area E No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area F No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area G No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area H No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 18 Table 3 Cummnf Dntnntinl Inricrlirtinn onrl Imnnrtr fnr ,nPIinaatPd Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) Area I No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area 1 No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area K No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) * Wetland Type: (Circular 39/ Cowardin/ Eggers and Reed) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us April 26, 2011 Mr. Martin Walsh Carver County Parks 11360 Highway 212 West Cologne, MN 55322 Re: TH 41 Trail and Underpass Project Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case 2011-03 Dear Mr. Walsh: This letter is to formally notify you that on April 25, 2011, the Chanhassen City Council adopted the following motion: "The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, and based upon the included findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. 3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011, prepared by SRF. 4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in figure 4C below, prepared by SRF. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow $(�',AWM It Mr. Martin Walsh April 26, 2011 Page 2 }t w Y51LT TYrf7lJ11� ii = _ W R/hGT r1ETLM B MOSM \:04 LEGEM i Wsftd"" Rpm 4C �..► Cow CaxrtyTN 41 tkde pm W Tfd RoOd c4m Castc MtrwoY 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7. The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to city prior to commencement of activity." 0 Mr. Martin Walsh April 26, 2011 Page 3 This permit will be recorded against the title for the property and is transferable with the property. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1173. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANH Water R66urc ici KS:ktm c: Jeffrey Olson, SRF Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician G:\PLAN\2011 Planning Cases\I 1-03 TH 41 Trail & Underpass Wetland Alteration Purnit\Approval Letter.doc Chanhassen City Council - April 25, 2011 commission, he was a volunteer driver for Smart Link Transportation. A volunteer Defensive Driver Instructor. Member of our Lions Club that sponsors our annual Senior Picnic out at Lake Ann, which is a very well attended event. Volunteer for Meals on Wheels driver as well. Fred was first appointed to the Senior Commission in 2008 and has been a valued member of the commission as well. His accomplishments include a volunteer Meals on Wheels driver. He has contacted a number of Chanhassen businesses and advocated for senior citizen parking stalls, of which we get a few each and every year so the numbers are growing. Fred has volunteered for numerous city functions including Arbor Day, Halloween Party, and serving as an election judge for many years. So Charlie and Fred, on behalf of the City Council and all members of the City of Chanhassen, thank you for your service on the Senior Commission. Charlie Robbins: Thank you. Fred Prinz: Mayor, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Let me invite up Beverly Foster and Bob, were you going to come for Rose? Rose Kircher couldn't be here tonight but ... Rose Kircher and Beverly Foster have both been members of, are outgoing members right now of our Environmental Commission. In 2007 Rose was appointed to the commission and Beverly followed a year later. All have brought creativity, passion and commitment to the commission while they served. Contributed in a number of different ways. Recognizing the environmental stewardship in our city with the Environmental Excellence Award program that we award each and every year. Promoting the Arbor Day poster contest, which we saw earlier this evening with 5`h graders in our city. Revitalizing our Arbor Day celebration in honor of the spirit of the day with tree planting which began last year and will be continuing on May 7th. And then donating their time and talents with public education at the July P and July 4th events. And Beverly you also served as an officer of the commission. Vice Chair, yeah for a few years so Beverly and for Rose, if you can extend our appreciation to her. Thank you for your commitment and service on the commission. Sincerely appreciate it. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 11, 2011 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 11, 2011 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated April 5, 2011 b. Resolution#2011-23: Approve Resolution Proclaiming May 7, 2011 as Arbor Day. TH 41 Trail and Underpass Project: Approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within the portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Applicant: Carver County Parks. 3 SCANNED Chanhassen City Council - April 25, 2011 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: Tonight we have Lieutenant Jeff Enevold with us from the Carver County Sheriff's Department. Lieutenant, welcome. This is your first report in your new position so, and you get to move the podium. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Three quick items for you, if I could. First thing I'd like to do is introduce or re -introduce myself to some of you folks that know me so I've been working as a deputy sheriff since January 1, 1990. I got my first job. I came to Carver County in 1993. I worked several years in the city of Chanhassen as a deputy. Most of that was on the night watch but I'm familiar with the city. I've worked my way up through the ranks. Was Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant. Most recently I was a Commander of Operations down at the sheriff's office which was in charge of the contract policing. As you know last year Bud Olson, or at the beginning of the year Bud Olson retired. Jim Olson was elected Sheriff. There was an opening here at Chanhassen. I rose my hand and said I'd like to take that opportunity to work up at the City of Chanhassen and Jim Olson assigned me up here and I'm really happy to be here. Like I said I've worked with many of you as the contract manager and building the model that we have up here and I think we have an excellent model and I'm very proud of the work that we've done to build that model up here. This was my second week here as a liaison Lieutenant. I've met a number of employees here in the city of Chanhassen and I know I don't have to tell you folks what a great group of people you have working here and I'm just really honored to be part of the team up here so I really appreciate that. I'm looking forward to working with all of you in the years to come to maintain and improve the contracting model we have here today so I'm looking forward to that. Second item is the monthly stats. I saw nothing out of the ordinary there but if you have some specific questions I'll do my best to try and answer those questions for you. The third item is the kind of a flood update on Highway 101. I know that's still closed. I got the most recent update today. They're starting repairs as of this morning and they anticipate that will be opened in I to 2 weeks so that should open up all the traffic across the river there for us which will help traffic flow so. So that's all I have if there's any questions of me I'd be happy to answer those for you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Lieutenant Enevold? Councilman Laufenburger: I just had one Lieutenant. Welcome. Nice to have you back in Chanhassen I think. There was one of the reports that you had reflected a gun permit acquisition which seemed to be slightly higher than last year. Or actually not slightly. Significantly higher than last year. Any thoughts on why that might be? 4 _1C MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITYOF FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician CHMNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard DATE: April 25, 2011 PO BOX 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a proposed multi -use trail project within the right-of-way along Trunk Highway 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within Administration portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Phone:952,227.1100 Planning Case 42011-03 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Pho--. ��)2.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227,1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952,227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, subject to conditions within this staff report. And, Adopts the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact." City Council approval requires a simple majority vote. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning & Carver County Parks is requesting a wetland alteration permit for wetland impacts Natural Resources as a result of the proposed TH 41 trail and underpass project. The proposed trail Phone .,_ Z.1130 project is to be located along the east side of TH 41, extending from Longacres Fax: 952.227.1110 Drive to Chaska Road and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Public Works 1591 Park Road PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 2011to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted seven for and none against Senior Cep a motion recommending approval of the project. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 The Planning Commission minutes are attached. Web Site wmci.chanhassen. mn.us SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt April 25, 2011 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, subject to conditions on pages 13-15 of the staff report, and adoption of the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact." ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission staff report dated April 19, 2011. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 2011. gAplan\2011 planning cases\l 1-03 th 41 trail & underpass wetland alteration permit\executive summary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: April 19, 2011 CC DATE: April 25, 2011 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 21, 2011 CASE #: 11-3 BY: KS The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, subject to conditions within this staff report. And, Adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. �. p g SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a proposed multi -use trail project. LOCATION: Within the right-of-way along Trunk Highway 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. APPLICANT: Carver County Parks 11360 Highway 212 West Cologne, MN 55322 Contact: Martin Walsh Phone: 952-466-5252 Fax: Email: mwalsh@co.carver.mn.us PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR, Planned Unit Development -Residential, PUD-R and Single -Family Residential District, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Parks and Open Space, Single Family Residential, Public/Semi-Public ACREAGE: N/A DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a proposed multi -use trail project. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit, based on whether or not the proposal meets the wetland alteration permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that SCANNED TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 2of16 all the applicable wetland alteration permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS • Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Uses: Wetland Alteration Permits follow the Conditional Use Permit criteria. Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection PROPOSAL SUMMARY Carver County Parks is requesting a wetland alteration permit for wetland impacts as a result of the proposed TH 41 trail and underpass project. The proposed trail project is to be located along the east side of TH 41, extending from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The project will involve the construction of an underpass and installation of a box culvert at TH 41, immediately north of Ches Mar Drive, in order to provide access into Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. When finished, the trail project will complete a mile -long segment from TH 41 to the beach in the park, and a one -and -a -half mile trail segment along the east side of TH 41, between Chaska Road and Longacres Drive. Additionally, the trail will connect to Minnetonka Middle School West and to area neighborhoods. The project's objective is to provide a link to the region's proposed continuous trail system, which is intended to provide residents and recreationalists access and safe travel between residential areas, employment centers, and schools, as well as access and safe travel to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The project will complete key elements and links in the Carver County and City of Chanhassen transportation system that will improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to begin spring of 2011. In order to accommodate the trail construction, the applicant is proposing impacts to five wetlands totaling 12,415 square feet (see wetland location map on the next page). However, staff recommends that the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) cannot be avoided and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided prior to permitting these impacts. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits from wetland bank 1048, located in major watershed 19 (South Fork Crow). The replacement wetland is located within the same county as the impacted wetland; therefore, only a 2:1 replacement ratio is required. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp.7. C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 3 of 16 a'd Orchardla a o, y Rd 4h` y a a 41tei� Sande Q t11 St innetonka West M-ddl[School Project Location w-5 W-20 Propos WKt Oarbpe Retaining to Proposed Pedestrian Underpass Lakz Lake hta s / b 4 e gwn a l k cc a E w-8 w r -2 ER COUNTY � 'yu ntet E 3•Nc c Tr BACKGROUND A study was conducted by Carver County to identify high -priority pedestrian improvements within their system of parks and trails right-of-way. The Highway 41 underpass ranked very high in this study. On July 9, 2007, the City Council approved a letter of support and a resolution supporting Carver County's application for Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for the TH 41 bicycle/pedestrian underpass and trails. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 4 of 16 The application was approved to receive a maximum amount of $1,000,000 in federal funds. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park is a desirable destination for local and regional citizens. Accessing the park safely by trail has been a long-term goal for both the City and County. The successful construction of these proposed trails and underpass represents one of the remaining significant pedestrian improvements to be completed within the community. DISCUSSION Construction of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and TH 41 trail and underpass will consist of installing a box culvert underneath TH 41 and a 10-foot wide paved trail terminating at the beach facility located within the park, and a 10-foot wide paved trail on the east side of TH 41 between Chaska Road and Longacres Drive. These improvements will result in impacts to wetlands described and shown as follows: Wetland 20 (W-20): This wetland is classified as a Preserve wetland under the city's wetland classification system, and a Type 1 (Seasonally flooded basin) according to Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. It is located along the shore of Lake Minnewashta, just east of the beach area inside Minnewashta Regional Park. The predominant vegetation in the impacted area is Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis). The proposed impact to this wetland will be approximately 5,663 square feet. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 5 of 16 Wetland 22 (W-22): This wetland is classified as a Preserve wetland under the city's wetland classification system, and a Type 2 (Inland fresh meadow) according to Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. It is located just south of an inlet of Lake Minnewashta, within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The predominant vegetation in the impacted area is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). The proposed impact to this wetland will be approximately 436 square feet. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 6 of 16 wpm From 40 c�nw OMNVTH 41 L%dq =d 7hd Aapa W6 arrra.r��.rd� Wetland 8 (W-8): This wetland has not yet been classified under the city's wetland classification system. It is classified as a Type 2 (Inland fresh meadow) according to Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. This wetland is located immediately southwest of the proposed underpass, on the west side of Ches Mar Drive. The predominant vegetation species in the impacted area is Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The proposed impact area in this wetland is approximately 3,049 square feet. Wetland 2 (W-2): This wetland has not yet been classified under the city's wetland classification system. It is classified as a Type 1 L (Floodplain forest) according to Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. This wetland is located immediately east of the proposed underpass and TH 41. The predominant vegetative species in the impacted area are Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Spreading oval sedge (Carex normalis). The proposed impact area in this wetland is approximately 218 square feet. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 7 of 16 V r T.N. 41 TRAIL FI) F l F^t } ,.; �• Now wwwa R�■� IF il.. Wetland 5 (W-5): This wetland is classified as a Manage 2 wetland under the city's wetland classification system. It is classified as a Type 6 (Shrub swamp) according to Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39. This wetland is located along the west shore of Brenden Pond, between the pond and TH 41. The predominant vegetative species in the impacted area are Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Narrow leaf willow (Salix exigua). ALTERNATIVES The Wetland Conservation Act requires the applicant to list at least two alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing"). The applicant then must list and explain why the option described in the application was chosen over these alternatives. The following alternatives were presented in the Joint Notification Application submitted by the applicant: No -Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would result in the underpass and trails not being constructed. Without the underpass and trails, plans by the County and the City would not be implemented and the barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists wanting to access to the park would remain. Recreational and active transportation opportunities, including connections to the network of existing City and regional trails as well as safe biking and walking trails, would be lost. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 8of16 Reviewed Alternative A trail on the west side of TH 41 was considered based on suggestions received during the June 3, 2010 public open house. The perceived benefits of an alignment to the west of TH 41 included the use of an existing service road and avoidance of impacts to existing vegetation. This option was investigated and dismissed from further consideration because the west side alignment would require two underpasses in locations with steep slopes and the extensive grading needed to install the culverts would cause impacts to utilities and would greatly increase project cost. Impact Minimization The Wetland Conservation Act requires that if avoidance is not an option, the unavoidable impacts are minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Efforts have also been made by the applicant to minimize the proposed wetland impacts through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. Specific instances include the following: • Retaining walls were used to reduce impacts to wetlands. • The trail alignment was moved to avoid impacts to additional wetlands. • Trail embankment side slopes were steepened where practicable. • The trail was kept as low as possible on the landscape to avoid additional footprint impacts. Staff does not feel adequate sequencing and justification has been provided by the applicant in regards to both Wetland 8 and Wetland 22, within the submitted Joint Notification Application for Wetland Replacement, dated February 22, 2011 (attached). In regards to Wetland 8, the proposed alignment goes directly through the center of the wetland. It is likely that this alignment will result in impacts beyond the immediate footprint of the trail. Also, alternative alignments were not discussed. These should be reviewed and discussed within the Joint Notification Application. Wetland 22 is in a seep area, bisecting the wetland with a trail and has a strong likelihood of effecting hydrology and resulting in additional secondary impacts downstream. Impacts to this wetland should be avoided either through realignment of the trail or the use of a raised boardwalk. If these alternatives are not possible, a satisfactory explanation should be given. Therefore, staff does not feel the applicant has provided an adequate sequencing argument as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and does not recommend approval of these two impacts. Comments were submitted to the applicant by both City Staff and Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members on March 30, 2011 (attached). At the time of this report, a response has not been received but under MN Rules the applicant has until April 15 to respond to comments. Wetland Replacement In order to accommodate the trail construction, the applicant is proposing impacts to five wetlands totaling 12,415 square feet. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits from wetland bank 1048, located in major watershed 19 (South Fork TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 9 of 16 Crow). The replacement wetland is located within the same county as the impacted wetland; therefore, only a 2:1 replacement ratio is required. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp.7.C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). OTHER AGENCIES The applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals from the appropriate regulatory agencies and compliance with their conditions of approval. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall recommend a wetland alteration permit and the Council shall issue such wetland alteration permit only if it finds that: a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed wetland impacts that will occur with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass project have not been found to pose danger to public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare. The goal of the proposed project is to provide a safe travel route between residential areas, employment centers, and schools, as well as access and safe travel to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, improving safety and convenience for residents and recreationalists. b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and City Code. It complies with all city, state and federal requirements. The proposed trail is shown in the City's Future Park & Recreation Initiatives map. c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The appearance and character of the general vicinity will not change. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize impacts to wetlands through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. Currently, the proposed project is located within an area that includes single family residential neighborhoods, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, and Minnetonka Middle School. These neighborhoods and the park contain trails providing recreational opportunities. The proposed project would provide a connection to these existing trails, thus remaining compatible with and enhancing the existing and intended character and appearance of the area. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 10 of 16 d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The surrounding uses are zoned for single-family residential, public/semi-public, and parks and open space. The wetland impacts proposed as a result of the project are not foreseen to cause hazards or disturbance to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed project is considered an enhancement to neighboring uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, and businesses, by providing a safe pedestrian and non -motorized recreational route between all. e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Any changes to drainage structures or additional drainage structures needed as a result of the proposed wetland impacts will be designed and constructed by the applicant or the applicant's contracted consultant in compliance with city design standards. Proposed trails within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park will be maintained by Carver County Parks. Proposed trails east of the underpass will be maintained by the City of Chanhassen, and will be designed and constructed according to city standards. f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass Project will not create excessive need for public facilities and services. The trail project requires some additional services required by the city associated with trail maintenance. The trail west of the box culvert will be maintained by Carver County Parks. The trail east of the box culvert will be maintained by the city. Any maintenance or upkeep to the box culvert will be split 50150. In addition, the proposed trail project is foreseen as an enhancement to economic community welfare, by providing a safe pedestrian and biking access for residents and recreationalists to local businesses. g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed wetland alterations are not expected to be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 11 of 16 The proposed wetland impacts will not create nor interfere with traffic and surrounding public thoroughfares. When completed, the proposed trail will separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic which will create a safer atmosphere. i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the project will have no impact on solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize wetland impacts and retain aesthetical compatibility within the area. In addition, the proposed trail project will complement the area. k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values. The proposed wetland impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible, while still allowing for the trail project to occur. The proposed trail project will create a safer setting and will be an asset to the surrounding properties. 1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the City code. 20-410 (b) When a permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimize the impact on wetlands and vegetation through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 12 of 16 The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. With the exception of Wetland 8 and Wetland 22, the applicant has made a reasonable effort to limit the proposed wetland impacts to the minimum amount required in order to complete the trail project. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted During construction the contractor is required to follow approved plans to limit alterations to the minimum the project necessitates. (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas. The applicant and their contractor are prohibited from disposing of excess material within remaining wetland areas as well as any other activities which may negatively impact the remaining wetland areas. (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. The applicant and their contractor must submit a satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan, and comply with all applicable sections of Chanhassen City Code, the city's Surface Water Management Plan, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. The applicant and their contractor are required to refrain from any wetland altering activity during waterfowl breeding and fish spawning season. (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 13 of 16 The applicant has submitted a replacement plan as part of the Joint Notification Application for Wetland Replacement which was received on February 22, 2011. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits. The required replacement ratio is 2:1. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp. 7. C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules, and City Code, Chapter 20, Article VI. (9) Dedicated buffers in accordance with section 20-411. The applicant must comply with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010 The plan proposes that five wetlands be impacted as part of the project, totaling .285 acres or 12,415 square feet. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits from wetland bank 1048, located in major watershed 19 (South Fork Crow). The replacement wetland is located within the same county as the impacted wetland, therefore only a 2:1 replacement ratio is required. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp.7. C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules. The applicant must receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated received February 22, 2011, and based upon the included findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. 3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (1,049 5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011 shown in figure 4D below, prepared by SRF. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 14 of 16 x MUM hpacts CarveCcuMTH�1 Underpass endTralPropd / Y~ '1- AAAREA ti FLAND a i MPDX�TED AREA 0. MsAOMS FIglVA6dD 4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in figure 4C below, prepared by SRF. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 15 of 16 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7. The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to city prior to commencement of activity. TH41 Trail and Underpass Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case #2011-03 April 19, 2011 Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Joint Notification Application for Wetland Replat 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing L 5. Letter to SRF Consulting, dated March 30, 2011, g:\plan\201 I planning cases\11-03 th 41 trail & underpass wetland alteration pei CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Carver County Parks for a Wetland Alteration Permit for wetland replacement for proposed impacts to five wetlands totaling 12,415 square feet, as a part of the proposed TH 41 Trail & Underpass project. On April 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit to impact five wetlands. The total area proposed to be impacted is 0.285 acres or 12,415 square feet. However, staff recommends that the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) cannot be avoided and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided prior to permitting these impacts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the wetland alteration permit which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, Planned Unit Development -Residential, and Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Parks and Open Space, Residential Low - Density and Public/Semi-Public. 3. The proposed project is located within the right-of-way along the east side of TH 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road and within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, from the underpass to the west parking lot and beach area. The TH 41 underpass is located immediately north of the intersection of Ches Mar Drive and TH 41. The proposed completed trail project will connect Minnetonka Middle School with area neighborhoods as well as Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. 4. City code directs that a wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits and the additional requirement of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0230. Wetland alteration and Conditional Use Criteria: a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed wetland impacts that will occur with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass project have not been found to pose danger to public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare. The goal of the proposed project is to provide a safe travel route between residential areas, employment centers, and schools, as well as access and safe travel to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, improving safety and convenience for residents and recreationalists. b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and City Code. It complies with all city, state and federal requirements. The proposed trail is shown in the City's Future Park & Recreation Initiatives map. c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The appearance and character of the general vicinity will not change. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize impacts to wetlands through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. Currently, the proposed project is located within an area that includes single family residential neighborhoods, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, and Minnetonka Middle School. These neighborhoods and the park contain trails providing recreational opportunities. The proposed project would provide a connection to these existing trails, thus remaining compatible with and enhancing the existing and intended character and appearance of the area. d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The surrounding uses are zoned for single-family residential, public/semi-public, and parks and open space. The wetland impacts proposed as a result of the project are not foreseen to cause hazards or disturbance to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed project is considered an enhancement to neighboring uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, and businesses, by providing a safe pedestrian and non -motorized recreational route between all. e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Any changes to drainage structures or additional drainage structures needed as a result of the proposed wetland impacts will be designed and constructed by the applicant or the FA applicant's contracted consultant in compliance with city design standards. Proposed trails within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park will be maintained by Carver County Parks. Proposed trails east of the underpass will be maintained by the City of Chanhassen, and will be designed and constructed according to city standards. f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the TH 41 Trail and Underpass Project will not create excessive need for public facilities and services. The trail project requires some additional services required by the city associated with trail maintenance. The trail west of the box culvert will be maintained by Carver County Parks. The trail east of the box culvert will be maintained by the city. Any maintenance or upkeep to the box culvert will be split 50150. In addition, the proposed trail project is foreseen as an enhancement to economic community welfare, by providing a safe pedestrian and biking access for residents and recreationalists to local businesses. g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed wetland alterations are not expected to be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed wetland impacts will not create nor interfere with traffic and surrounding public thoroughfares. When completed, the proposed trail will separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic which will create a safer atmosphere. i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed wetland impacts associated with the project will have no impact on solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize wetland impacts and retain aesthetical compatibility within the area. In addition, the proposed trail project will complement the area. k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values. 3 The proposed wetland impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible, while still allowing for the trail project to occur. The proposed trail project will create a safer setting and will be an asset to the surrounding properties. 1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the City code. 20-410 (b) When a permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimize the impact on wetlands and vegetation through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steepening side slopes and use of retaining walls. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. The applicant must meet the included conditions for the proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. With the exception of Wetland 8 and Wetland 22, the applicant has made a reasonable effort to limit the proposed wetland impacts to the minimum amount required in order to complete the trail project. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (3,049 square feet) and impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted During construction the contractor is required to follow approved plans to limit alterations to the minimum the project necessitates. (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas. The applicant and their contractor are prohibited from disposing of excess material within remaining wetland areas as well as any 4 other activities which may negatively impact the remaining wetland areas. (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. The applicant and their contractor must submit a satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan, and comply with all applicable sections of Chanhassen City Code, the city's Surface Water Management Plan, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. The applicant and their contractor are required to refrain from any wetland altering activity during waterfowl breeding and fish spawning season. (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. The applicant has submitted a replacement plan as part of the Joint Notification Application for Wetland Replacement which was received on February 22, 2011. The applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland bank credits. The required replacement ratio is 2:1. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522., Subp.7. C. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules, and City Code, Chapter 20, Article VT (9) Dedicated buffers in accordance with section 20-411. The applicant must comply with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010 5. The planning report #2011-03, dated April 19, 2011 prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is incorporated herein. 5 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of Planning Case 2011-03. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19'h day of April, 2011. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 3. `6 Its Chairman T Mar,18. 2011 8:OOAM Carver County Public Works No. 8154 P. 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O_ Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION II-o3 Planning Case No. -"f— RECt MAR I 2 n C4TY0FC-iri : 1ASSEN PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Property Owners Name and Address: Carver County Parks Cit of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard 11360 Highway 212 West P O Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Krista Cologne, MN 55322 Spreiter: 952-2271173 Carver County Parks 11360 Highway 212 West Contact: Martin Walsh Cologne, MN 55322 Martin Walsh: 952-466-5252 Phone: 952-466-5252 Fax: Mlnnesota Department of Transportation Email: mwalsh co.carver.mn.us 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul MN 55155-1899 Scott McBride: 651-296-3000 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may appty) Variance (VAR) X Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost' $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Motes & Bounds $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be Invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/1" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital opy in TIFF -Group 4 (".tif) formal. "*Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Mar.18. 2011 8:OOAM Carver County Public Works No. 8154 P. 3 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Alteration Permit for proposed T H. 41 Trail & Underpass Project. LOCATION: Within Right -of -Way along T H 41 from Longacres Drive to MN T.H. 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Park. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: See Attached TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, Planned Unit Development Residential, Single Family Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: Same PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Parks and Open Space Single Family Residential, Public Semi Public REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Same REASON FOR REQUEST: Construction of the Trail will impact wetlands. FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Informatlon and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application, A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencles shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title. Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. //�// t, i( ) Signature of Appllcant Date 3 Slgna� f Fed Owner � Date g:\plan\2011 planning cases\I 1-03 lh 41 trail & underpass wetland alteration permit\devclopment review spplication. docx a 4 NA-026620-03B (V.2.02 for MS WORD) 9/17/2007 Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects USE THIS APPLICATION FOR ANY PROJECT AFFECTING A LAKE, RIVER, STREAM OR WETLAND, INCLUDING: Local Government Unit Approval Pursuant to Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Permit to Work in Public Waters Department of the Army Permit (33 CFR 325) Note: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) will forward application forms to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for processing if state water quality certification is required from the MPCA. You do not need to send this application to the MPCA. This application packet includes : Part 1: The BASIC APPLICATION and the COE APPLICATION to be filled out by all applicants (see Instructions). PART II: The REPLACEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT to be completed only for projects that impact wetlands and require a replacement plan for wetland mitigation. If you're not sure whether your project requires a replacement plan, call your Local Gov emment Unit (LGU) or Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office for guidance. Do not proceed with your project until you have received all required approvals from your LGU, the DNR and the COE. If you wish to confirm the status of your application at any time, contact the agencies directly (see Instructions, page 2). Proceeding with work before all required authorizations are obtained may result in fines or other penalties, and may include a requirement to restore the project site to original condition. If you have questions or need assistance with filling out these forms, contact your local SWCD office, your LGU, your Area DNR Waters office, or your COE field office (see Instructions, page 2). If you believe that your project may be subject to watershed district, local zoning, or any other local regulations besides those of your LGU, contact those office(s) directly. If you are a Federal Farm Program participant and your project affects a wetland or water body on agricultural land, your eligibility for USDA benefits may be affected. Contact a Natural Resources Conservation Service office for further information. A QUICK LOOK AT THE PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS Electronic files: Forms can be downloaded and filled out using Microsoft Word. Your input will be restricted to fill-in fields where users can enter text or check boxes. These areas appear gray on the screen, but not on the printed document. Send copies of these completed application forms to your LGU, your Area DNR Waters office, and your COE regulatory office. Any of the agencies may make initial contact with you to: a) inform you that it has no jurisdiction over your project, b) request additional information needed, or c) inform you of applicable fees. When your application is considered complete and appropriate fees have been received (if requested) it will be distributed for appropriate review. Following agencies' reviews, you will be informed if it has been approved, approved with changes or conditions, withdrawn, or denied. For information about state laws, rules and regulations that direct this process go to the web site www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us. For information on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations go to the web site www.mvp.usace.army.mil. Instructions for Part I HELP 1: Every applicant must fill out Section 1. The applicant is the person, agency, company, corporation, or other organization that owns, leases, or holds other legal rights to the land where the project is located. Indicate names of multiple applicants on a separate sheet. HELP 1A: Fill out Section IA only if you have designated an authorized agent. An authorized agent may be an attorney, builder, consultant, contractor, engineer, or any other person or organization designated by the applicant to represent him/her in this process. An agent is not required. HELP 5: Purpose, description and dimensions of project: State briefly (in a sentence or two) what you propose to do and why it is needed. Also, describe whether your project will involve any of the following: - Construction of structures, filling, draining, dewatering, removing, excavating or repair. - Construction of an access path, bridge, culvert, dam, ditch, dock, driveway, riprap, road, sand blanket, shore protection, or tile line. - Construction of any structures on fill, piles or a float -supported platform. If so, describe. - Dredging or discharging (placing fill material) into a wetland or other water body (including the temporary placement of material). If so, explain the specific purpose of the placement of the material (such as erosion control) and indicate how it will be done (such as with a backhoe or dragline). If dredged material is to be discharged on an upland site, identify the location of the site. Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Instructions, Page 1 Include an overhead view drawing showing the work to be undertaken and its relative location on the property. Show items such as property boundaries or lot dimensions; location and extent of shoreline, wetlands and water; location and dimensions and footprint of the proposed project, structure or activity (include length, width, elevation and other measurements as appropriate); points of reference such as existing homes, structures, docks or landscape features; indication of north; and location of spoil and disposal sites (if applicable). Hand drawn, computer generated or professionally prepared drawings are acceptable, as long as they contain all necessary information clearly, accurately, and in adequate detail. Please include specific dimensions whenever possible. You may also include photos, if you wish. Paper copies should be limited to maximum dimensions of I I" by 17". Computer files should be viewable in a PDF format; contact the agency for other usable formats. HELP 7: For information regarding adjacent landowners, contact the tax assessor where the project is to be developed. HELP 8: If any part of the work has already been completed, describe the area already developed. Include a description of structures completed; any dredged or fill material already discharged (including type of material and volume in cubic yards); acres or square feet filled (if a wetland or other water body); and whether the work was done under an existing permit (if so identify the authorization, if possible). HELP 9: Other permits, reviews or approval related to the project may include the following: conditional use permit; plat approval; zoning variance; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit; state disposal system permit (includes dredged material disposal); watershed district/watershed management organization permit (stormwater, erosion, floodplain); environmental assessment worksheet/environmental impact statement; hazardous waste site; feedlot permit; groundwater appropriation permit; or county/township driveway/road permit. Are you aware of any archeological or cultural resource determinations or surveys completed concerning the project or replacement site by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or others? If yes, please explain on a separate sheet or attach a copy of any determinations or surveys. Final Checklists (Part 1) ❑ Have you completed all of Part I (Page 1), plus the Federal application (Page 2)? ❑ Did you (and your agent, if applicable) sign Section 10 on page I? ❑ Have you signed the Application for the Department of the Army Permit (Page 2) to seek Federal authorization of your project? ❑ Have you included the necessary attachments for Part I? Attachments must include: ❑ Site Locator Map (Section 3) ❑ Type of Project (Section 4) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Overhead View of Project (Section 5 and HELP 5) ❑ Project Purpose, Description and Dimensions (Section 5) (if additional space was needed) Attachments may also include: ❑ Applicant Contact Information (HELP 1) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Project Location (Section 3) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Project Alternatives (Section 6) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Photographs ❑ Adjoining Property Owners (Section 7) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Work Already Completed Section (Section 8) (if you answered YES) ❑ State Historic Preservation Office determination or survey Submitting Your Application Make three copies of the entire application and all attachments. Keep the original, and mail a complete copy of your application to each of the local, state, and Federal entities listed below. Be sure to include Part I and all attachments with each application. LOCAL: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit (LGU). If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. STATE: Send to your Area DNR Waters office, attention Area Hydrologist. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the DNR website (www.dnr. state. mn.us) to locate the Area Hydrologist for your location, or contact a Regional DNR office: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: 2115 Birchmont Beach Road N.E. 1201 East Highway 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Highway 15 South Bemidji, MN 56601 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 Phone: 218-755-3973 Phone: 218-327-4416 Phone: 651-772-7910 Phone: 507 359-6053 FEDERAL: Send to the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory field office: Brainerd: St. Paul: La Crescent: Two Harbors: U.S. COE, Regulatory Branch U.S. COE, Regulatory Branch U.S. COE, Regulatory Branch U.S. COE, Regulatory Branch 10867 E. Gull Lake Drive N.W. Army Corps of Engineers Centre 1114 South Oak Street 1554 Highway 2, Suite 2 Brainerd, MN 56401-9051 190 51h Street East La Crescent, MN 55947-1338 Two Harbors, MN 55616 Phone: 218-829-8402 St. Paul, MN 55101-9051 Phone: 507-895-8059 Phone: 218-834-6630 Phone: 651-290-5375 WEB SITES: BWSR: www.bwsr.state.mn.us U.S. ACOE: www.mvp.usace.arrny.mil DNR: www.dnr.state.mn.us MPCA: www.pca.state.mn.us Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Instructions, Page 2 NA-026620-03B (V.2.02 for MS WORD) 9/17/2007 Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects For Internal Use Only Application No. Field Office Code Date Initial Application Received Date initial Application Deemed Complete PART I: BASIC APPLICATION "See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, Page 1. 1. LANDOWNER/APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See Help 1) Name: Mr. Martin Walsh Phone: 952 466 5252 E-mail: mwalsh@co.carver.mn.us Complete mailing address: Carver County Parks, 11360 Hwy 212 West, Cologne, N4N 55322 l A. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Help IA) (Only if applicable; an agent is not required) Name: Jeffrey W. Olson Phone: 763 249 6789 E-mail: jolson@srfconsulting.com Complete mailing address: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson parkway, Suite 150 Plymouth, MN 55447-4443 2. NAME, TYPE AND SIZE OF PUBLIC WATERS or WETLANDS IMPACTED (Attach Additional Project Area sheets if needed) Name or I.D. # of Waters Impacted (if applicable; if ]mown): Lake Minnewashta, 32W (Figure 4) (Check all that apply): ® Lake ❑ River ® Circular 39 Wetland type: ® 1, ® 1L, ® 2, ❑ 3, ❑ 4, [15, ® 6, ❑ 7, ❑ 8 Wetland plant community type': ❑ shallow open water, ❑ deep marsh, ❑ shallow marsh, ❑ sedge meadow, ® fresh meadow, ❑ wet to wet-mesic prairie, ❑ calcareous fen, ❑ open bog or coniferous bog, ® shrub-carr/alder thicket, ❑ hardwood swamp or coniferous swamp, ® floodplain forest, ® seasonally flooded basin Indicate size of entire lake or wetland (check one): ❑ Less than 10 acres (indicate size: ) ❑ 10 to 40 acres ❑ Greater than 40 acres 3. PROJECT LOCATION (Information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance): Project street address: Lake Minnewashta Regional Park 6900 Hazeltine Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55331 Fire #: Unknown City (if applicable): Chanhassen, MN '/. Section: Various Section: 9,4, and 3 Township #: 116N Range #: 23W County: Carver Lot #: NA Block: NA Subdivision: NA Watershed (name or #) 33 UTM location: N 4969841.47 E 453747.80 Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark, and provide distances from known locations. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. See Appendix B: Figures 1 and 2. 4. TYPE OF PROJECT: Describe the type of proposed work. Attach TYPE OF PROJECT sheet if needed. Regional Multi -Use Recreational Trail 5. PROJECT PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: Describe what you plan to do and why it is needed, how you plan to construct the project with dimensions (length, width, depth), area of impact, and when you propose to construct the project. This is the most important part of your application. See HELP 5 before completing this section; see What To Include on Plans (Instructions, page 1). Attach PROJECT DESCRIPTION sheet. See project description in Appendix A. Footprint of project: acres or square feet drained, filled or excavated. 6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters? List at least TWO additional alternatives to your project in Section 5 that avoid wetlands (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. Attach PROJECT ALTERNATIVES sheet if needed. See Appendix A 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list the complete mailing addresses of adjacent property owners on an attached separate sheet. (See HELP 7) See attached list of adjacent property owners (Appendix A). 8. PORTION OF WORK COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work in wetland or water areas already completed? ❑ Yes ®No. If yes, describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 8) 9. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that are either pending or have already been approved or denied on a separate attached sheet. See HELP 9. See Appendix A. 10. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part I is true, complete, and accurate. I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. n ignaturerifapplicant (Landowner) Date Hf ( 1/31/11 Signature of agent (if applicable) Date This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity and has the necessary property rights to do so. If only the Agent has signed, please attach a separate sheet signed by the landowner, giving necessary authorization to the Agent. 'See Ifettand Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin (Eggers and Reed, 1997) as modified by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Minnesota Local/State/Federat Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Page I APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003 Expires Dec 31, 2004 The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate ofinformation Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your forth to either of these addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location ofthe proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose. Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine uses- This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS 1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED I YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE ITEMS 6-10 and 12-25 in the SHADED AREAS. All applicants must complete non -shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid for use on1v when included as Dart of this entire state application Dacket. 5. APPLICANT'S NAME I 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Mr. Martin Walsh Jeffrey Olson, Associate Wetland Scientist 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS Carver County Parks, 11360 Hwy 212 West, Cologne, MN 55322 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS One Carlson Parkway North Suite 4150, Minneapolis, MN 55447 7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NO. 952-466-5252 10. AGENT'S PHONE No. 763-249-6789 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (if applicable; complete only if authori_ing an agent) I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to famish, upon request, supplemental information in support oftJs permit application. APPLICANT'SSIGN.4TURE::�.0 �)� / DATF. 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) -- 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) I5. LOCATION OF PROJECT 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE - 18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY 19. PROJECT PURPOSE 20, REASON(S) FORDISCHARGE 21. TYPES OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND TIIE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS 22. SURFACE, AREA IN ACRES OF IATTLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED 23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES NO- IF YES, DESCRIBE COMPLETED WORK. 24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, , 25. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALSID_ENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL; STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION. 26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authoriM agent of the appli ante G 7Ar 1/31/2011 /4Sgnatu ofappii ant Date n'�ty,� � Date Signature of agent (if any) The application must be signed by the person wfio desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 1 I has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner %%ithin the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false ATiting or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR) Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Page 2 FOR LGU USE ONLY: Determination for Part 1: ❑ No WCA Jurisdiction ❑ Exempt: No. _ (per MN Rule 8420.0122) ❑ No Loss: _ (AB,. . G, per MN Rule 8420.0220) ❑ Wetland Boundary or type ® Replacement required — applicant must complete Part 1I COMPLETE THE SECTION BELOW ONLY IF REPLACEMENT IS NOT REOUIRED: Application is (check one): ❑ Approved []Approved with conditions (conditions attached) ❑ Denied Comments/Findings: LGU official signature Date Name and Title For Agricultural and Drainage exemptions (MN Rule 8420.0122 Subps. l and 2B), LGU has received proof of recording of restrictions (per MN Rule 8420.0115): County where recorded Date Document # assigned by recorder LGU official signature Date Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Page 3 Instructions For Part li Complete those portions of Part II: Replacement Plan Supplement for which information is readily available (such as location, existing land use, size of impact area, etc.) A person certified in wetland delineation must determine items pertaining to specific wetland impacts (wetland type, predominant vegetation, watershed name, etc.) Contact the local soil and water conservation district (SWCD) office for further information on obtaining such items. What to Include on Plans Detailed overhead views of replacement site(s) (Part II), as well as profile view(s) of replacement site(s) (Part II), may be either hand drawn, computer generated or professionally prepared, as long as they contain all necessary information clearly, accurately, and in adequate detail. Please include specific dimensions whenever possible. You may also include photos, if you wish. Overhead views of Part II replacement site(s) should include the following items that pertain to your project: Property boundaries and/or lot dimensions. Location and extent of shoreline, wetlands and water. Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include length, width, elevation and other measurements as appropriate. Points of reference (such as existing homes, structures, docks or landscape features). Location of inlet and outlet structures. Indication of north. Location of spoil and disposal sites (if applicable). Areas of wetland and upland plants established. Profile views (side or cross -sectional views) should include the following items that pertain to your project: Location and dimensions of proposed project, structure or activity. Include elevation, depth, soil profile, side slope and other measurements as appropriate. Proposed water level elevation. Final Checklists Part II: Replacement Plan Supplement ❑ Have you completed all of Part II (pages 3-5)? ❑ Did you (or your agent) sign Section 19 on page 5? ❑ Have you included the necessary attachments for Part II? Attachments must include: ❑ If the project includes any wetland banking (complete or partial), include Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form (Section 14) ❑ If the project includes any project -specific replacements (complete or partial), include: Description of Replacement Wetland(s) Construction (Section 15) Copy of vegetation management plan (Section 15) Scale drawing of overhead view or replacement wetland (Section 18) Scale drawing of profile view of replacement wetland (Section 18) Attachments may also include: ❑ Additional description of Wetland Impact Charts (Section 11) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Additional Description of Replacement Wetlands charts (Section 17) (if additional space was needed) ❑ Additional soils information for created replacement wetland(s) (Section 18) (if available) Note: To deposit surplus wetland credits in the State Wetland Bank, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU (Section 16). Preparing Your Application for Mailing ❑ To apply for both state and Federal authorization, your application must include Part I (Page 1), the Federal application (Page 2), and attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part I (Instructions, Page 2). ❑ Your application must also include Part II (Pages 3-5) and additional attachments as indicated on Final Checklist for Part 11(above). ❑ Make three copies of the entire application and all attachments. Keep the original, and mail the three copies to the appropriate local, state, and Federal agencies (see Instructions for Part I for addresses). Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Fomrs for Water/Wetland Projects Instructions Page 3 PART II: REPLACEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT For assistance in completing Part A contact i our Local Government Unit or a professional consultant 11. DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS: Complete the chart below: 1) Use one row of boxes for each wetland impact; 2) If your project has more than one wetland impact, reference your overhead view (part of Section 5) to this chart by identifying and labeling "first impact" and "second impact" on your overhead view; 3) If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank; 4) If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area; 5) If you do not have access to some of this information, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (Photocopy chart for more impacts, if needed.) DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland impact (as noted on overhead view) Watershed name or number (if known) Watershed and Bank Service Area Wetland plant community type' Predominant vegetation in impacted wetland area Size of area impacted (in acres or square feet) Existing land use in project area (check all that apply) (W 20) 20 BSA 7 Type 1 (W-20) Poa pratensis 0.130 ac ® Housing ❑ Commercial - -------------- ------------------ -------------- ❑ Industrial W 22) BSA 7 Type 2 (W-22) Poa pratensis 0.010 ac ® Parks/recreation areas ® Highways and ----------- ---------------- ----------------- -- associated rights -of -way (W-8) BSA 7 Type 2 (W-8) Phalaris 0.070 ac ® Forested arundinacea ❑ Farmsteads/agricultural ❑ Vacant lands ® Public and semi-public (W 2) 20 BSA 7 Type 1L (W-2) Frax.penn.., 0.005 ac Carex (schools/gov't facilities) normalis ❑ Airports (W-5) ------------------ BSA 7 ----------------- Type 6 (W-5) -----•------------ Salix exigua, -------------- 0.070 ac ❑ Extractive (gravel Phalaris pits/quarries) — --------------- ---------------- arundinacea ------------------ ------- ........ Other: 'If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type with that impact area. TOTALS OF AREA(S) IMPACTED FOR EACH WETLAND TYPE ON CHART (indicate acres ® or square feet ❑ ) Wetland plant community type': Shallow open water: Deep marsh: Shallow Marsh: Sedge meadow: Fresh wet meadow: 0.08 ac Wet to wet mesic prairie: Calcareous fen: Open bog or coniferous bog: Shrub Carr or alder thicket: 0.07 ac Hard"ood swamp or coniferous swamp: Floodplain forest 0.005 ac Seasonally flooded basin 0.13 ac 12. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are you aware of any special considerations that apply to either the impact site(s) or the replacement site(s)? ❑ Yes ® No (Examples: the presence of endangered species, special fish and wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, or waste disposal site.) If YES, list and describe briefly. None. 13. SHORELAND IMPACT ZONE: Please identify each wetland impact site noted in Section 15 that is within 1000 feet of a lake or 300 feet of a river. All impacts are within 1,000 ft of a lake. See Weiland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin (Eggers and Reed, 1997) as modified by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Page 4 14. HOW PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED: Indicate how proposed replacement will be accomplished (check only one box below and continue as indicated): ® A. Wetland banking credits only SEE Appendix D for proposed credits to be used. Complete Application for Withdrawal of lfetland Credits Form and include with your application. Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us Skip to Section 19, page 6 (You do not need to complete Sections 15-18). ❑ B. Project -specific replacement only Continue with Section 15 below. ❑ C. A Combination of wetland banking and project -specific replacement. If using project specific replacement that will result in surplus wetland credits that you propose to deposit in the state wetland bank for future use, then you must submit a wetland banking application directly to your LGU before or concurrently with submittal of this form. Also, Complete Application for Withdrawal of Retland Credits Form and include with your application. Copies of this form and the wetland banking application is available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us Continue with Section 15 below. 15. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND(S) CONSTRUCTION (Complete this section only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 14 above): Describe in detail how replacement wetland(s) will be constructed. If several methods will be used, describe each method. Details should include the following: 1) type of construction (such as excavated in upland, restored by tile break, restored by ditch block or revegetated); 2) type, size and specifications of outlet structures; 3) elevations relative to Mean Sea Level or established benchmarks or key features (such as sill, emergency overflow or structure height); 4) what best management practices will be implemented to prevent erosions or site degradation; 5) proposed timetable for starting and ending the project; and 6) a vegetation management plan. Write this description on a separate sheet of paper labeled DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND CONSTRUCTIO.N. 16. SURPLUS WETLAND CREDITS: If using project -specific replacement (Box B or Box C in Section 14 above), will the replacement result in any surplus wetland credits that you wish to have deposited in the State Wetland Bank for future use? ❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, submit a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU before or concurrently with submittal of this form. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from w ww.bw sr. state.mn.us 17. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS: Complete the chart below: 1) Use one row of boxes for each wetland replacement site; 2) If your project has more that one wetland replacement site, reference your overhead view (part of Section 5) to this chart by identifying and labeling "first replacement site" and "second replacement site' on your overhead view; 3) If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given replacement site, use the first dotted line(s) and leave the others blank; 4) If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type in a given replacement site, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify type(s) of replacement credits and "restored or created" for each separate wetland type with that replacement site; 5) If you do not have access to some of the information, or if you do not know your replacement ratio, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. Photocopy chart for more wettand replacements, if needed ) DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Identify Watershed County Section, Wetland Type(s) of replacement credits Restored Wetland name or Township, Plant (in acres or square feet) or replacement number Community created? site (if known) Range Type' New Wetland Public Value Indicate (as noted on Bank Service Credits (NWC) Credits (PVC) R or C overhead view) Area Name of First--- ------------- replacement site----------------------- Name of ------------- replacement site--------------- ------------------ ----------- — ----------- ----------- If you are identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. If you have chosen to identify more than one TOTAL NWC TOTAL PVC wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for REQUIRED REPLACEMENT RATIO: each separate wetland type within that impact area. (If ktaox•tt) Wetland plant community type: Shallow open water: Deep marsh: Shallow Marsh: Sedge meadow: Fresh wet meadow: Wet to wet mesic prairie: Calcareous fen: Open bog or coniferous bog: Shrub Carr or alder thicket Hardwood swamp or coniferous swamp: Floodplain forest Seasonalh flooded basin * See Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of,bfinnesota and Wisconsin (Eggers and Reed, 1997) as modified by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Minnesota LocaVSmtce`Federal Application Forms for WaterfWetland Projects Page 5 18. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT (Required onhv if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 14): For projects involving at least some project -specific replacement, include the following additional information: ❑ Two drawings to scale of the replacement wetland. Include both overhead view and profile (side view or cross -sectional view). See What to Include on Plans (Instructions, Page 3) for a detailed description of what should be included in these drawings. Without drawings, your application will be considered incomplete. ❑ For created replacement wetlands, include additional soils information (if available) that indicates the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics. Note 1: For replacement wetlands located on pipeline easements, you need to receive endorsement of your project from both the easement holder and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Office of Pipeline Safety. Before start of construction, the owner of any utilities must be notified. The landowner or contractor is responsible for giving this notice by calling "Gopher State One -Call" at 652-454-0002 (Twin Cities Metro Area) or 1-800-252-1166 (all other locations). Note 2: For extensive or complex projects supplementary information may be requested at a later dated from one or more of the responding agencies. Such information may include (but not be limited to) the following: topographic map, water table map, soil borings, depth soundings, aerial photographs, environmental assessment and/or engineering reports. 19. SIGNED AFFIRMATION: FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING REPLACEMENT BY WETLAND BANKING ONLY. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part II is true, complete and accurate; and I affirm that the wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING EITHER PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT ONLY OR A COMBINATION OF WETLAND BANKING AND PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT: Part A: The replacement wetland. I affirm that the replacement wetland was not: Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit; AND Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; AND Restored using private funds, other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): ® The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. ❑ An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee successful completion of the wetland replacement. ® The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C. For projects involving any project -specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located; and I will at the same time submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part If is true, complete and accurate; and 1 affirm all statements in Part A and C, as well as checked assurance(s)in Part B. )4174).0-4- Signature or applicant or agent FOR LGU USE ONLY Replacement plan is (check one): ❑ Approved 1/31/11 Date []Approved with conditions (conditions attached) ❑ Denied LGU official signature Date LGU has receive evidence of title and proof of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland: County where recorded Date Document # assigned by recorder LGU official signature Date Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects Page 6 Appendix A Permit Additional Information Auuendix A Permit Addendum 5. Project Purpose, Description and Dimensions Project Purpose The project purpose is to provide a safe grade -separated pedestrian/bicycle link between Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the City of Chanhassen. The project will develop paved off -road multi -use trails within the park and along the east side of TH 41 to provide linkages between residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and recreational opportunities. The project will complete key elements and links in the Carver County and City of Chanhassen transportation system that will improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians. The benefit of this link will extend to the region's proposed continuous trail system, which is intended to provide residents and recreationalist's access and safe travel between residential areas, employment centers, and schools, as well as access and safe travel to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Description and Summary of Proposed Improvements The project will construct a pedestrian/bicycle underpass at TH 41, just north of Ches Mar Drive, and 10-foot bituminous off -road multi -use trails extending from the west parking lot in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park to the east side of TH 41 and along the east side of TH 41 from the proposed underpass location south to Longacres Drive and from the proposed underpass location north to Minnetonka West Middle School. Design Elements and Dimensions Trail (Off -Road Facility) Existing Proposed Type of Trail/Path n'a Multi -Use Trail/Path Width 10 feet Trail/Path Surfacing n/a Bituminous Design Speed 20 miles per hour Posted (Regulatory) Speed n/a Shoulder Width 2 feet minimum Shoulder Surfacing n/a Turf Lead-in Guardrail/Fencing n/a 20 feet at bridge approaches Maximum Grade n/a 5% typical, 8.33% maximum Vertical Clearance n/a 10 feet minimum to vegetation Clear Zone n/a 2 feet minimum In -slope n/a 2:1 max; 3:1 preferred TH 41 Underpass — From West of TH 41 to East of TH 41 (Off -Road Facility) Existing Proposed Bridge or Culvert Number n/a TBD Location (over/under) n/a Under TH 41 Bridge or Culvert Type n/a Box culvert Design Loading n/a n/a Bridge Roadway width, ft n/a 12 feet Sidewalk, ft n/a n/a Bridge Length, ft n/a 72 feet Bridge: Number of Spans n/a n/a Skew n/a n/a Guardrail n/a Yes Bridge Clear Width n/a n/a Vertical Clearance n/a 9 feet 10 inches 6. Project Alternatives No -Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would result in the underpass and trails not being constructed. Without the underpass and trails, plans by the County and the City would not be implemented and the barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists wanting to access to the park would remain. Recreational and active transportation opportunities, including connections to the network of existing City and regional trails as well as safe biking and walking trails, would be lost. Location Alternatives Reviewed Alternative A trail on the west side of TH 41 was considered based on suggestions received during the June 3, 2010 public open house. The perceived benefits of an alignment to the west of TH 41 included the use of an existing service road and avoidance of impacts to existing vegetation. This option was investigated and dismissed from further consideration because the west side alignment would require two underpasses in locations with steep slopes and the extensive grading needed to install the culverts would cause impacts to utilities and would greatly increase project cost. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative includes construction of a pedestrian/bicycle underpass at TH 41, just north of Ches Mar Drive, and 10-foot bituminous off -road multi -use trails extending from the west parking lot in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park to the east side of TH 41 and along the east side of TH 41 from the proposed underpass location south to Longacres Drive and from the proposed underpass location north to Chaska Road. Preferred Alternative Wetland Impact Avoidance Complete avoidance of wetland impacts was not possible with the preferred alternative. Preferred Alternative Wetland Impact Minimization Impacts to wetlands were minimized through a variety of measures, which included moving the trail alignment, steeping side slopes and use of retaining walls. Specific instances include the following bulleted list: • Retaining walls were used to reduce impacts to wetlands W-4 and W-5. • The trail alignment was moved to avoid all impacts to wetlands W-12 and W-13. • Trail embankment side slopes were steepened where practicable. • The trail was kept as low as possible on the landscape to avoid additional footprint impacts. Preferred Alternative Wetland Mitigation Wetland impacts that are a result of the trail project will be mitigated for using a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation will be accomplished through the use of wetland banking credits. See Permit Item #14 for additional information. 7. Adjoining Property Owners PIN BLDG_NUM STREETNAME STREETTPE ZIP ZIP4 TAX —NAME TAX ADD Ll TAX_ADD_L2 019-254530310 7260 HILLSDALE CT CT 55317 7548 AHMAD SHALABI 7260 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7548 019-250041300 CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318-2102 019-250091000 _ CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318.2102 019.253490510 6814 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 CHRISTOPHER C FITCH & 6814 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253370080 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-253480020 7001 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7572 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-253490550 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-250091800 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8036 DAVID 1 & STEPHANIE L SEWARD 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8036 019-253490010 2450 LAKE LUCY RD RD 55317 6707 E JEROME CARLSON PO BOX 554 WAYZATA, MN 55391-0554 019-251100100 6300 CHASKA RD RD 55331 8825 GEORGE & BEULAH G BAER 6300 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8825 019-253370010 7030 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 HURRELL LLC 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6400 019-250033000 6421 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8000 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 261 SCHOOL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-1987 019-254590050 6390 MELODY LN LN 55331 6402 JOHN T & ANNE C CARTER 6390 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6402 019-253490470 6872 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 JOSEPH P THULL & 6872 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253490530 6800 HIGHOVER OR DR 55317 7568 KRISTOPHER M GRIESE & 6800 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-254530420 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC PO BOX 542 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.0542 019.253490380 7014 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7572 MARK BERSON 7014 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 019-253490520 6810 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 MARY A BENTLEY 6810 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253490490 6842 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 PATRICK 1 & LISA M MCNULTY 6842 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019.253490480 6856 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 PHONG M LUONG & 6856 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-250091900 7305 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8038 THOMAS J DOLL & PO BOX 148 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0148 019-253490500 6818 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 WILLIAM D & MARY D HAWORTH 6818 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-254530300 7250 HILLSDALE CT CT 55317 7548 WILLIAM RYAN HURT & 7250 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7548 019-253360040 2585 HIGHCREST CIR CIR 55317 YOBERRY FARMS LLC 2575 HIGHCREST CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4708 9. Status of Other Approvals PERMIT AGENCY ACTION REQUIRED FEDERAL Categorical Exclusion FHWA Approval Section 106 Mn/DOT CRU Pending Project review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Completed STATE Section 401 Water Quality Certification' MPCA Pending NPDES/SDS Construction Site Permit (Phase II) MPCA Pending Section 106 (Historic / SHPO Pending Archeological) LOCAL Erosion control and stormwater Minnehaha Creek Watershed Pending plans District Erosion control and stormwater Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Pending plans Watershed District Appendix B Figures Noble Rd Wild Rosc c c m _J i 3 1 � r+ i 3 0 6 N�town Rd a MINNESOTA o Carver County Y,rtw t Lake Minnewashto 3 T/� 0 3 G � p a N Smith Town Rd Gillette C1 a 3 s � a � u —' Echo Rd o c 0 V Y 3 Yellowstone Tt !- �^ :1 vdood Or c �� o / � MNTH 7 th Dr a sh _s Orchard'-' a eaY RdTaoeh� i C G �a e` San dP Q west Parking tot Project Location Proposed Pedestrian i Underpass nnewashta anal Pare M-Sas Academy Ave Park St �asKa916 C M-354 O at"Hilt 5% c x inneton ka West ` Middle School erg Proposed / Retaining Walls pd Lakes CARVER COUNTY/ TanadO°na Cr /~ �ck O �a h ^� `so Mb `ongacres'.-. 9 , 0 1,000 2,000 O Proposed Trail Alignment Proposed Retaining Wall ■■■■■■l Existing Trail Feet Project Area Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project SP 10-090-30 Carver County, Minnesota Figure 1 Y., A 4-r e7e 11#1 0i"k, vy / �1.. —1 i r-`� -t_ (-,�`s).'tY � r; y ,,�OREIWOW -N Awk -YV Drk La ROW re 0� -2A F64 /4— jqnetonk-aWii T ii%�Iiuuii M aA Project Locat CJ A .+West cot Parking Drol osed P e d est r i rr, Ir —V Lake Y Underas0 etainihil; Walrsj I; s, ,Vinnewashto`(�p I I'-- 0Lake tviinnewashta ,—egi6inal'Park- WSW A Ott ZI Pi V N N- <; p C) 0, a t�o ZI, V.- I C A "T to 0 1,000 2,000 Proposed Trail Alignment seneez, Proposed Retaining Wall Feet 7777= Excelsior Quadrangle, Minnesota: 7.5 Minute Series Project Location - USGS Section 4, Range 23, Township 116 Figure 2 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project SP 10-090-30 Carver County, Minnesota ipJ � .r S'>��a1•. nt�;r�� xSpy _ S _ 014i�� � - ��.,_ r"1 .�_•�"�. il1,i.i•��i��; t' I' a ;. - ,p � •`7� ,�" R` .I t ,. , . w��;Sh 4�`.?F'•� :r;,..d0,:�p�+F�1 0 `c�� � y Y.�.. ' ' � r 5 li. I r J CfTT y,�.' t =11 ifr iG 1 •OVte � 'fir •Qy ,�,. ::�i"",� x- )ram '�►� 'f��{�- a. 1 � r� R� w �iR,7_wfrR ,:� ,44 /`' �• !r}! .. f 7r r _ sIIi-,&y Oc4� IrW "(� r�a.4 , ti � ✓'�,.f / � t .t. r a �.H'�hove`Tr,;isJV4df hl��, i c t y � � �a � � � `# �1� Lt"aI L � ,i�. kAw / s,� AcoW t y«w°I/�ry�7, y,r�. ,�:ri 'r •` ¢, r ���-�YJ1V7 �.+,t rN, 4 AV ; n Project Location JR • �yi �y'1°;.? Delineated Welland Boundaries t,_ � sty f ? . t7 Ta�rd� 9.'3 3 " Construction Limits _t3rM',� -,�, .,' ti ac *--.,`•,'� "�` �p'$q'.i,... �T+�?t+>v�.ti �2/l,, {"Y,c• -v— �b ` Carver County Parcels 'sr't o�Af.tb..rtio�"a roR�� Selected Carver County Parcels v�wOa'1+r t .I'9u. 7x� r Ta i Vk'T� j+2 1. j .S- .l f 1�, t•6 ► xytF N Soo Loon .. , fk X�h"wa ____ .:-, f�...'�: �.Rf"�'+`A~ .l`�•yf .:�a-.�� cs-e �� ;�; ,I. - _� ����.r mercer Parcel Locations — --- -- — -- __ -- Figure 3 Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota ,tl�iJt ?t'v •� t.�J♦ _v.. _ -+i. - 2-,3 + _ ,`I ciiff�l Vlt;. tfld a "'i3,ua Yip u 3. ¢[ �^�� Y r W ?) • LL r +Ec 7 1. 4yy WON y, 'Stt�t+ C.. f+• • ' � � rt� ,� � � � ���`? .+�• > : i, r , +lvlPln ytH�n sl • c^i'r x' Y . � , � � Ito�e,D r >(a.} �.wfi �• �t `' { ♦ t. tyiN� WM . � � .krr a _.. f�' .'{9.., ': ,.�"li .� P' r A Rrdq•- y � : a c !� 7-'a � Kir w�� `. d, 'Yt n �..., j r - � I Ui yt W _ 1�«�vd�• %'c ��it.., .»�2J.'.,�}�`"-�, C � '�� s I c�• r ,y`"� r �r'Y.i_,r, [tiny •! �� S � ' 3.i � ,,>,. •�° at or, .n r�.. `�� ti�+ F ;-St ry i .a o ^'��+�t� ib,QIr s#Gyt v. R'T . �--'_ - , >I� ( v d i! !•�� •Y i 1' J. �j w�.«"�"t r �/ � _ 1� Y-� t' .!'" #,t 7 .�` id ��, �; v'tM' i� ..� "5 i �g1''. r� ,•. 'It" }} SG.• r �.«'•«�, I. 1 �. rJ�' r r 77Y77-iF r"i�t(,�4btfly� a�. .viC1.. f �Y'��• ^ � '� y 1 ♦ D +fie Apr.• F , � r so fVIIIZI �. do �9ac es • r � ' � � � � a •t. �� +'r'.�r i e :�.+ i .+a ti ^p, ��, . o*roM",t h Project Location ��-��� a �! •'— •• Delineated Wetland Boundaries i t ��� , s - - - Construction Limits �. i 7 \Jfl �r� / ..•..•.- �� ^p :''.Ya, �i.• I �� T` veer N Public Waters Inventory Locations - -- — - — - ---- _Figure Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota LAKE MINNEWASHTA WETLAND 20 IMPACTED AREA = 0.13 ACRES 1 � PARK TRAIL WETLAND 21 NO IMPACT c m o x 0 N _U L d c0 01 e LEGEND WETLAND —�--� or • CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — - LIMITS N o ioo zoo WETLAND IMPACT 0 _a acc le In feet t Wetland Impacts Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Job # 12/812010 Figure 4A PARK TRAIL I r Ir rI l� r r !l r, / I Wetland Impacts „imG..P,W. Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Job N 12i812010 WETLAND 13 NOIMPACT r LEGEND WETLAND CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — - LIMITS WETLAND IMPACT Figure 4B X o '00 aoa 6Cale In idol WETLAND 11 NO IMPACT Wetland Impacts `fnuCarver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project uhine Group, I — Carver County, Minnesota Job # 12/812010 WETLAND 10 NO IMPACT WETLAND 9 NO IMPACT LEGEND WETLAND s d CONSTRUCTION LIMITS WETLAND IMPACT Figure 4C m 0 0 100 200 acme in teat 1 _ f� ) 610 \ \ 10 61 Wetland Impacts �1--�-� Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project l'onrnlrinR (�runp. Inr. Carver County, Minnesota Job # 1218/2010 t- i.,,. .1 1 11 1 1 1 L LEGEND WETLAND = ----- �x CONSTRUCTION LIMITS WETLAND IMPACT Figure 4D DI s/� 0 100 200 eagle In feet — " 625 630 61, 640 __--------- —3� --- _ --5 ann-----------------3�1L— , 34 AREA B T.H. 41 TRAIL• r A..:Ak .. _ �. • 1 LEGEND T 1 WETLAND —t _- `` a CONSTRUCTION ------- / LIMITS --'`` WETLAND IMPACT iml Wetland Impacts ........ Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Job # 121812010 Figure 4E X —' 0 too 200 • Boole In feet 4(J C,45 -- — ---- __— 345 -- - --- — ----------�� 38 34 2 �1 WETLAND 4 kr NOIMPACTS ®Wetland Impacts Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Job / 121812010 (� T.H. 41 TRAIL / 650 655 —---------------------- 5 9 3 0 351 352 35 4 AREA G WETLAND 5 IMPACTED AREA = 0.07 ACRES LEGEND WETLAND i CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — - LIMITS WETLAND IMPACT Figure 4F 0 100 200 •. scale In feet 1 , y � 5 !• � ' � , i _ gk44• , 5 a ' ,q 670 660 665 365 —_ --- ---_ ------ AREAH q .. m n AREA G STORM POND L� r O J CL 7 \ � f T. H. 41 TRAIL E Y" c ®Wetland Impacts Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Job # 12l812010 �y 64.5 AREA K WETLAND 7 NO IMPACTS LEGEND WETLAND CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — — LIMITS WETLAND IMPACT Figure 4G Appendix C Soils Maps Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (North)) 44' 53' 34' 44' 57 41' N Map Scale: 1:7,640 i ported on As¢e (S.S x 11') sheet. N N iMeters 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 300 600 1,200 1,800 44' 53' 35" 44' 57 41' USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (North)) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features V; Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot ♦ Closed Depression X Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill A Lava Flow ,,, Marsh or swamp V Mine or Quarry Q Miscellaneous Water p Perennial Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole 3� Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot Spoil Area Q Stony Spot (Z Very Stony Spot Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features Q Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation a ++ Rails �. Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads �y Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:7,840 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000 Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 7, Aug 2, 2010 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. I'S1i� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend TH 41 Trail (North) Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CW Cordova -Webster complex 1.6 3.2 10.8 0.8% 1.6% 5.5% GL Glencoe clay loam HM Hamel loam KB Kilkenny -Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 14.2 7.3% KB2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 7.1 3.7% KC Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 40.6 20.8% KC2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 14.5 7.4% KID Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 8.3 4.2% KD2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded 13.8 7.1 % KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded 29.5 15.1 % MK Houghton and Muskego soils 7.7 4.0% MP Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded 1.8 0.9% ND3 Lester -Kilkenny Gay loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded 6.7 3.4% NE3 Lester -Kilkenny day loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 3.2 1.6% PM Klossner muck 0.1 0.0% TB Terrill loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1.2 0.6% TC Terrill loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 2.7 1.4% YB Rasset-Lester-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes 12.2 6.2% YD FRawet-Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent pes 3.9 2.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 193.1 93.7% Totals for Area of Interest 195.4 100.0% Hennepin County, Minnesota (MN053) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L22D2 Lester loam, morainic, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded 0.2 0.1 % L22E Lester loam, morainic, 18 to 25 percent slopes 0.6 0.3% L24A Glencoe loam, depressional, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.3 0.2% L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes 0.1 0.1 % L41C2 Lester -Kilkenny complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 10.5 5.4% U1A Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 02 0.1 % U3B Udorthents (cut and fill land), 0 to 6 percent slopes 0.4 0.2% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 12.3 6.3% Totals for Area of Interest 195.4 100.0% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10126/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota, and Hennepin County, Minnesota TH 41 Trail (North) I SD4 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 imm Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH41Trail (South) Soils) 44' 57 55" 44' 57 11 Map Scale: 1:6,470 ( printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. � N N Meters 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 44° 57 55" 44' 52' 11" L'Sf):\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 iiIIIIIIIIIIIIMi Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features vj Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression }. Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot ® Landfill A Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry (]o Miscellaneous Water © Perennial Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot Spoil Area Q Stony Spot Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH41Trail (South) Soils) (� Very Stony Spot Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features O Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails N Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads �. Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:6,470 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AC I were mapped at 1:12,000+ Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. I",I)\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 'IIIIIll1ll111I Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend TH41Trail (South) Soils Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CO CW EX HM KB Cordova clay loam Cordova -Webster complex Essexville sandy loam 2.0 0.8% 1.8% 4.3 0.9 20.4 0.4% Hamel loam Kilkenny -Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8.4% 37.2 15.3% KB2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 9.0 3.7% KC Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 18.3 7.5% KC2 Lester -Kilkenny hams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 40.8 16.8% KD Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 8.7 3.6% KD2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded 11.5 4.7% KE2 Lester -Kilkenny foams, 18 to 25 percent sk)pes, eroded 25.7 10.6% LA Le Sueur-Lester loams, 1 to 4 percent slopes 22 0.9% MK Houghton and Muskego soils 4.7 1.9% NC3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 6.0 2.5% ND3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded 16.3 6.7% NO Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 12.8 5.3% PM Klossner muck 1.3 0.5% TB Terrill loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 18.5 7.6% W Water 2.4 1.0% Totals for Area of Interest 243.1 100.0% `M Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 011111111111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (West) Soils) 44' 52' 24" Map Scale: 1.10.300 if printed w A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. is 4 N Meters o ^ 0 100 200 400 600 m N Feel 0 500 1,000 2.000 3,000 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Page 1 of 3 44' 53' 11" 44` 52 25" MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features k.J Blowout ® Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression X Gravel Pit „ Gravelly Spot ® Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp R Mine or Quarry Qo Miscellaneous Water Di Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (TH 41 Trail (West) Soils) (� Very Stony Spot Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features O Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation i-+-+ Rails N Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads ti Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:10,300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000 Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 8, Aug 2, 2010 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 ;iiittim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map -Carver County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend TH 41 Trail (West) Soils Carver County, Minnesota (MN019) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI EX GL HM KB Essexville sandy loam 24.8 3.51 38.9 27.6 5.3% 0.7% 8.3% 5.9% Glencoe clay loam Hamel loam Kilkenny -Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes KB2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 8.3 1.8% KC Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 57.3 12.1 % KC2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 41.5 8.8% KD Lester -Kilkenny foams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 29.4 6.2% KD2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded 32.4 6.9% KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded 51.4 10.9% LA Le Sueur-Lester loams, 1 to 4 percent slopes 2.4 0.5% MK Houghton and Muskego soils 13.8 2.9% MP Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded 19.5 4.1 % NC3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 2.6 0.6% ND3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded 14.0 3.0% ND Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded 6.7 1.4% PM Klossner muck 3.1 0.7% TB Terri[ loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 23.8 5.0% TC Terril loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 2.2 0.5% W Water 68.3 14.5% Totals for Area of Interest 471.6 100.0% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Appendix D Proposed Wetland Credits APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF WETLAND CREDITS FROM THE MINNESOTA WETLAND BANK Return Original to BWSR — Transaction may not be processed without original signatures 1. PROPOSED USER OF CREDITS Name(s) Carver County Address: 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, MN 55318 City State ZIP Day Phone (952)466-5252 Other Phone (952)466-5250 3.OWNER / SELLER OF CREDITS Account No. 1048 Watershed No. 19 County: Carver Bank Service Area 7 Name of Seller: Paul Nesvold, Silas Tesch Tim Nesvold (Name of Authorized Representative) (Signature of Seller/Authorized Representative) 2. Impact Site Information County Carver Major Wtrshd No.20 Bank Service Area 7 Location: '/4 '/4 Sec 3,4, Twp.116N, Rge 23W Size of Wetland Impact:.285 acres Wetland Types2 Impacted: Fresh wet meadow, floodplain forest, seasonally flooded basin, shrub carr Wetland Plant Communities impacted3: 1, 1L, 2,6 d Replacement Ratio: 2:1 WCA / local / COE t to be replaced using Bank Credits:0.57 t replaced on site: 0 Name: TH 41 Trail Project S.P. 10-090-03 4. Regulating Authority(ies) Approving the Use of Wetland Bank Credits Replacement Plan approved by (check all that apply): ❑ Local WCA LGU: (Print agency name) Local Permit # ❑ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Permit # ❑ MN Dept. of Natural Resources: Permit # ❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service: Permit # ❑ Other authority involved: O Enclosed 6.5% transaction fee, payable to "Board of Water & Soil Resources." 5. CREDITS PROPOSED TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM ACCOUNT NO. Credit Acres Wetland Wetland Plant Community3 Cost Sub -Group' withdrawn Type` (per acre) E .58 SWC Upland buffer $20000 [pick one] [Pick One] [Pick One] Totals: 1 acre — 43,560 sq. ft. Fee Total (Total cost x 0.065 = s 754 'Letters signify credit sub -groups, which represent wetland areas with different wetland characteristics. 'Circular 39 types: 1, 1 L, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R, U (for Upland Buffer). ' Wetland plant community type: shallow open water, deep marsh, shallow marsh, sedge meadow, fresh meadow, wet to wet-mesic prairie, calcareous fen, open bog or coniferous bog, shrub-carr/alder thicket, hardwood swamp or coniferous swamp, floodplain forest, seasonally flooded basin, or upland buffer. See Wetland Plants and Plant Communities ojMinnesota and Wisconsin (Eggers and Reed, 1997) as modified by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Pagel of 2 BWSR Form: wca-bank-05-withdrawal.doc Revised 6/l/2010 6. CERTIFICATION OF USER OF WETLAND CREDITS The proposed user of credits hereby certifies that he/she: a) either owns the subject wetland credits or has entered into an agreement to purchase said credits, subject to the approval of all applicable regulatory authorities and b) has filed appropriate plans, specifications and application forms with all applicable regulatory authorities that describe the wetland or water resource impacts for which the subject wetland credits will be utilized for mitigation purposes. Authorized Signature of Proposed User of Credits PRINT Name Date 7. REGULATORY AUTHORITY APPROVAL(S) The following authorized representatives of the regulatory authority (ies) identified on page 1 of this application hereby certify that they have: a) verified that the subject wetland credits are deposited in the account of the owner / seller, b) approved a wetland replacement plan or other water resource impact under their jurisdiction, and c) approved the proposed use of the wetland bank credits described herein. PRINT Name of WCA LGU Official Signature of Authorized WCA LGU Official PRINT Name of Other Regulatory Official (if any) Signature of Other Authorized Official Agency Address of Other Regulatory Official Date Date 8. CERTIFICATION OF OWNER / SELLER OF CREDITS I am the holder of the aforementioned account in the State of Minnesota Wetland Mitigation Bank and hereby certify that: 1) the credits described in this application have either been sold to the user of credits or I will use them to mitigate wetland impacts for my own project, 2) I have received payment in full from the buyer (if applicable), 3) the credits have not been sold or used in any way to mitigate wetland losses other than for the project and location identified in the project site information block on the previous page, 4) the subject wetland credits should be withdrawn my account, 5) I will not have a negative balance of credits after the subject credits are debited from my account, and 6) the Annual Fee for this account has been paid (or will be with an enclosed check). Authorized Signature of Owner / Seller of Credits Date 9. BWSR APPROVAL AND DEBITING OF ACCOUNT I hereby certify that the credits have been properly debited from the subject account, effective the date of signature. Authorized Signature Date Upon approval by BWSR, a copy of this instrument will be mailed to the user of the credits, all regulatory authorities involved, the account holder and the Board Conservationist. A letter will also be sent to the account holder acknowledging the debit and new account balance. IMPORTANT REMINDERS The Owner / Seller of the credits is responsible for submittal of this form, containing original signatures, to the BWSR Wetland Bank Administrator so the affected account can be properly debited. No impacts to any wetland or other water resource may commence until the credits have been debited from the Minnesota Wetland Mitigation Bank and a copy of this approval has been mailed to the regulatory authority(ies), the account holder and the user of the credits. It is a criminal offense for a seller of wetland credits to sell credits more than one time. It is the responsibility of the account holder to report any credit sales that are not noted on the most current official BWSR account balance. Page 2 of 2 BWSR Form: wca-bank-05-withdrawal.doc Mail to: Bank Coordinator. Board of Water & Soil Resources Revised 6/1/2010 520 Lafavette Road North St. Paul. NIN 55155 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 7, 2011, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the TH 41Trail & Underpass Project Wetland Alteration Permit — Planning Case 2011-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2011. Notary Public Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within Proposal: TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Applicant: Carver County Parks Property Various — See map on reverse. Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/l1-03.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Krista Questions & Spreiter by email at kspreiter(@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within Proposal: TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Applicant: Carver County Parks Property Various — See map on reverse. Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/l 1-03.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Krista Spreiter by email at kspreiter(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. AARON W TOYE ALFONSO MARTINEZ ALFREDO L PENTEADO III 2378 HIGHOVER DR 2555 HIGHCREST CIR 10001 INDEGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4744 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4708 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1205 ANTHONY J MILLER 2444 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2644 BRUCE B & HOLLY H OLSON 2432 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6707 CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOWREY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 DAN V & CYNTHIA M SEEMAN 6673 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 DANIEL R BERG 7166 ARROWHEAD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4530 DAVID L & MELISSA A KITTELSON 6821 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 DON W & CHRISTINE A ANTHONY 6700 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7570 ERIC & NICOLE MCNULTY 4432 PLEASANT AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419-4938 BRANT H & KATHLEEN J ROSSMAN 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8041 CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318-2102 CHRISTOPHER C FITCH 6814 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 DANIEL MOE 7161 ARROWHEAD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4530 DAVID L & AMY M BUSCH 7011 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8039 E JEROME CARLSON PO BOX 554 W AYZATA, MN 55391-0554 ERIC M & PATRICIA E BURDON 6690 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 BRENT A CARRON 7059 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 CARVER COUNTY 11360 HIGHWAY 212 W COLOGNE, MN 55322-8016 CLEONE B FOSTER 2275 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6706 DANIEL P ENBLOM 10610 VALLEY VIEW RD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-3709 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7560 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8039 EDWARD & CYNTHIA A BARNOWSKI 2380 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7561 FRED W & MELISSA A BOEHLER 7027 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 GESTACH & PAULSON GREGORY L & NANCY L SCHMIDT HERBERT M & DONNA M HILLMAN CONSTRUCTION 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD 6716 BRENDEN CT 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8041 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7570 CHASKA, MN 55318-1920 HURRELL LLC IND SCHOOL DIST 276 J ROHS HOMES INC 3081 DARTMOUTH DR 5621 HIGHWAY 101 2155 CARRIAGE LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7850 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 WAYZATA, MN 55391-9423 JAMES R & DEBRA J REIFF JAMES S & CANDACE L WISELY JAY D COATTA 2353 HIGHOVER TRL 7048 HIGHOVER CT S 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4744 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7569 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7570 JEFFREY MARK ANDERSON JOHN G II & BARBARA K JACOBSON JOSEPH R COOK 6840 HAZELTINE BLVD 6719 BRENDEN CT 6672 BRENDEN CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8030 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7570 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 KATHLEEN E MACK KENNETH R & LISA MARIE PEITZ KIMBERLY K GOERS 6984 HIGHOVER DR 6811 HIGHOVER DR 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7567 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7570 KRISTOPHER M GRIESE MARC J & WENDY E TERRIS MARK S & SHARON S HEMANN 6800 HIGHOVER DR 2358 HIGHOVER TRL 6999 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4744 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7567 MARVIN P & BARBARA A MILLER MARY A BENTLEY MARY ANN OLSON 2340 LAKE LUCY RD 6810 HIGHOVER DR 2249 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7561 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6706 MATTHEW CHAMBERS MICHAEL E & ANNE M RYAN MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 7675 SOUTH SHORE DR 2595 SOUTHERN CT 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7547 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 MICHAEL MATTHIAS MICHAEL R ROSE PATRICIA REDMOND WEBBER 7014 HIGHOVER DR 5920 OXFORD ST #11 2735 CHES MAR FARM RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 SAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 55416-5169 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8041 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT PETER J MARTIN PING CHUNG 6636 BRENDEN CT 7091 HIGHOVER DR 7000 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA LLC ROGER & SUSAN MARTIN ROXANNE J YOUNGOUIST 12701 WHITEWATER DR 4300 6786 HIGHOVER DR 2575 HIGHCREST CIR MINNETONKA, MN 55343-4160 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4708 SALLY ANN BARQUIST STEPHEN M & HEATHER L PINT STEVEN J PROKOSCH 2360 LAKE LUCY RD 6750 BRENDEN CT 6732 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7561 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7570 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7570 SUSAN QUADY KENNEDI 7100 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8833 THOMAS J & REBECCA J HAGEN 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 TAMARA M PETERSON-CAMPBELL 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 THOMAS W ANDERSON 7075 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 THOMAS & MARY KUHN 6693 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7560 TROY A BADER 2244 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6706 WILLIAM & BARBARA JOHNSON REV WILLIAM O & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN YOBERRY FARMS LLC 7060 CHES MAR DR 6653 BRENDEN CT 2575 HIGHCREST CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8833 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7560 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4708 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us March 30, 2011 Jeffrey Olson SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Re: TEP Comments regarding WCA Replacement Plan Application for proposed T.H. 41Trail and Underpass Project Dear Mr. Olson: After review of your application for wetland replacement as associated with the proposed T.H. 41 Trail and Underpass Project, the City of Chanhassen has the following comments for your consideration and comment: • Please supply a purchase agreement for the wetland credits signed by both parties. At a minimum, a resolution passed by the County Commissioners or County Park Board. The purchase agreement for wetland credits states that the impacts and wetland bank to be drawn from are in different major watersheds. The Board of Water and Soil Resources shows a minimum of eight available wetland banks in the same major watershed. Please address the reason for not using these banks. • Wetland 5: This is a DNR Public Water. Please indicate the OHW relative to the fill being placed for trail construction. • Wetland 8: The proposed alignment goes directly through the center of the wetland. It is likely that this alignment will result in impacts beyond the immediate footprint of the trail. This should be reviewed and discussed. Wetland 8: Do alternate alignments exist? Based upon the presentation at the public review process for the trail alignment, the original preferred alignment involved entering Lake Minnewashta Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. • Wetland 22: Given that this wetland is a flow through seep, bisecting the wetland with a trail has a strong likelihood effecting hydrology and resulting in additional secondary impacts downstream. Impacts to this wetland should be avoided either through realignment of the trail or the use of a raised boardwalk. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Jeffrey Olson March 30, 2011 Page 2 In addition, the following TEP members have submitted comments to the City for consideration. We are passing these comments on to you for your consideration. The TEP members' comments may be redundant but have been included all the same as they would have been had the TEP convened to discuss. The comments, in no particular order, are as follows: Jack Gleason, Department of Natural Resources: I would like to reiterate that `wetland 5' is DNR Public Water Wetland 10-132W, and the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of it is 995.8 ft. It appears as if the alignment and work required to construct the trail will not occur below the OHWL. A retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to this wetland. Please be advised that if the retaining wall or associated fill is placed at or below the OHWL, a DNR Public Waters Work permit may be required. State rules do not allow placement of fill in Public Waters. The DNR Commissioner can waive this prohibition if a road or trail is proposed by a government agency, and the prohibition would prevent or restrict the project or create a major conflict with other public purposes or interest and there is no other feasible or practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact and the public need for the project rules out the no -build alternative. The County would have to provide compelling supporting documentation justifying any such Public Water Work application. Regarding the trail along Lake Minnewashta, the trail may increase runoff volumes. We encourage the City to request storm water management BMPs, such as buffer strips, to help mitigate for the increase in impervious surface coverage in the shoreland area in order to protect water quality. Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD: • Wetland 20: It seems very possible to shift the trail to the south to avoid impacts. We have at times taken into consideration the preservation of desirable trees as a valid sequencing discussion point. Further documentation of this should be noted. • Wetland 22: If I remember correctly, this area was originally missed on the delineation and included after our TEP review of the site. It appeared at the time of the review that this is a seep type area. If I am thinking of the correct area, I have some concerns of the functions of this area post construction. In particular the downstream leg. Potentially some design details at this area may be helpful (subcut depth, base materials, compaction, etc. etc.) Wetland 8: The replacement plan should include some additional discussion as to why the use of Ches Mar Farm Road couldn't be used. There may have to be some filling off of the ditch off the road to get down to a more level grade but it appears the grade of the trail behind the houses (looking at contours) will put the trail above the designed maximum of 8.33%. Once again it also appears that there may have to be a significant amount of desired tree removal to utilize this route. This is understandable but should be discussed. Mr. Jeffrey Olson March 30, 2011 Page 3 Ken Powell. BWSR: • Per previous TEP review and City approval, the wetland boundaries are appropriate for review of the replacement plan. • Project purpose and need has been adequately identified. • The no -build alternative explanation in the application is short on details. I would expect some discussion of the "master plan' or other document(s) that this project is in conformance with. There is a vague reference to "plans", but nothing specific is discussed. • In addition to the no -build alternative, WCA rules require a discussion of a second wetland avoidance alternative (not just any alternative). This should be an alternative that avoids wetland impacts. While this may not be entirely possible, I suspect that with some major rerouting and redesign that there is an alternative that would impact at least very little wetland. I also suspect that such an alternative probably creates problems related to park use, safety, costs, etc. Such a discussion should be part of the application and part of the argument for the proposed plan. The application does not discuss any specific wetland avoidance and minimization measures taken for areas where most of the impacts are proposed. For example, there is a fair amount of impact associated with Wetland 20 (Figure 4A). An obvious question would be why the trail cannot be shifted south to avoid or minimize wetland impact. For Wetland 8 (Figure 4D), there is no discussion of why the trail continues through the middle of the wetland rather than go to either side. I assume there are issues with existing homes, etc., but this needs to be explained. Also, how was the impact through this wetland minimized? Was a boardwalk or bridge considered? Were the side slopes steepened and how much? I support the use of wetland bank credits for the replacement, but I would note that technically the application is not complete unless it includes a signed (by both parties) purchase agreement or application for withdrawal. That provides the evidence for the commitment to use said wetland bank for replacement. The application in my copy is not signed by either party. • Minnewashta Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. Mr. Jeffrey Olson March 30, 2011 Page 4 Please respond to all comments and make any appropriate changes necessary to the application by April 15, 2011. A decision will be made at the April 25, 2011 Chanhassen City Council Meeting and Public Hearing. If you have any questions or should require additional information please contact Krista Spreiter at 952.227.1173 or via E-mail at kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or Terry Jeffery at 952.227.1168 or by E-mail: tjeffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician KS:ktm gAplan\2011 planning cases\I 1-03 th 41 trail & underpass wetland alteration permit\tep comments_2011}_29.docx CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Angie Kairies, Planner; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician TH 41 TRAIL & UNDERPASS PROJECT: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PAVED 10-FOOT, OFF -ROAD, MULTI -USE TRAIL WITHIN TH 41 RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM LONGACRES DRIVE TO TH 7 AND WITHIN PORTIONS OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK. APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING CASE 2011-03. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Jeffrey W. Olson Brent and Christen Carron Karen Weathers Tom Anderson Dennis Clark SRF Consulting Highover Drive 2600 Arrowhead Lane 7075 Highover Drive 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission. As stated an application has been submitted by Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit as part of the trail and underpass project. As a result of the project the applicant is proposing impacts to 5 wetlands totaling 15,028 square feet. Of these proposed., 5 proposed impacts staff believes that the applicant has followed the required procedures set forth in City Code for 3 of the impacts. However in regards to the remaining 2 impacts staff believes that further discussion is required as I will discuss in more detail throughout the presentation. To give some background on the project itself, the City Council approved a letter and resolution supporting the County's application for federal transportation enhancement grant funds in July of 2007. This application was approved and the grant was awarded to the County. If completed the trail project will provide a significant pedestrian improvement within the community and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland banking credits. The project is to be located along the east side of 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road. Pedestrian underpass is also to be constructed as part of the project just north of the intersection of Ches Mar Farm Road and 41. This will provide safe pedestrian and recreational access to Lake Minnewashta Park. Then from the proposed underpass the trail will continue through the Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 park terminating at the beach area. The proposed trail project is tentatively scheduled to begin Fall of 2011, however plans for the project have not been finalized at this time. This is a closer view of the proposed trail project in relation to the existing trail system. Existing trails are shown in orange with the proposed trail alignment shown in green. Retaining walls are denoted with a dash line. There are 2 proposed retaining walls. One to be installed on the west shore of Brenden Pond, as well as along a smaller wetland just to the south. Both were included as a means to minimize or avoid wetland impacts in these areas. The main objective of the project is to provide a link to the existing regional trail system and provide safe travel for both pedestrians and recreationalists between residential areas, business and commercial areas, schools as well as to Lake Minnewashta Park. You can see that the proposed trail provides a key link between northern and southern trail routes as well as linking the City's trail system to the east with the parks trail system on the west side of 41 and within the park. Now for the proposed impact locations which are denoted in red. Wetland 20 is located on the shore of Lake Minnewashta near the beach area. Wetland 22 just south of the lake access. Wetland 8 and Wetland 2 are located on either side of the proposed underpass and Wetland 5 is located on the west shore of Brenden Pond. I mentioned earlier that 3 of the 5 wetland impacts did not require further discussion so I'm going to begin with those. Wetland 20, again along the shore of Lake Minnewashta. This impact is proposed at 5,663 square feet. Wetland 5 is located along the west shore of Brenden Pond. A retaining wall is to be constructed between the trail and the ordinary high water level for Brenden Pond in order to eliminate impacts below this elevation. The impact here is 3,049 square feet. Wetland 2 is located just east of the proposed impact, or I'm sorry the proposed underpass and the impact would total 218 square feet. City Code requires compliance with the Wetland Conservation, or I'm sorry. City Code requires that the applicant must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that the applicant must first avoid impacts. Second minimize these impacts and finally replace the impacts. City staff and the Technical Evaluation Panel believe that the submitted WCA application should include further discussion on the impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22. Staff and the TEP have submitted comments to the applicant requesting either alternate to these impacts or an explanation as to why the impacts cannot be avoided. For the reasons discussed staff cannot recommend approval of impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22 based on the information that we have at this time. However a condition of approval allows for these additional impacts provided the applicant complies with the WCA process and either avoids these impacts or the arguments that are presented have, prove adequate to the satisfaction of the TEP. Since the time of the staff report the applicant has submitted a memorandum. This will serve as a supplement to the application in response to these comments. City staff and the TEP are actively reviewing the response at this time. I have provided a copy of the memorandum as well as the amended condition number 3 which reflect these changes. The wetland impacts in question. The first is Wetland 8 located just west of the proposed underpass. You can see that the current alignment bisects the wetland. It is agreed by both the applicant and the staff that this will likely result in secondary impacts. The applicant has increased the proposed impacts to include the entire wetland area as reflected in the memo provided bringing the impact amount to 5,662 square feet. Staff still believes an alternate alignment should be discussed under the WCA requirements as well as under the requirements of the City's wetland alteration permit process. Wetland 22 is located just south of the boat launch. It's a perch flow through wetland. The wetland receives hydrology through ground water which then flows to Wetland I 1 below. Staff believes that this may cause additional downstream impacts to Wetland 11 and a boardwalk or realignment option 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 should be presented in the WCA application. The proposed impact here is 436 square feet. In conclusion I would like to point out that the applicant has provided full cooperation throughout the application process and staff is confident that the applicant will make every effort to minimize impacts wherever possible, as well as comply with the application requirement. Thus staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion can be found on page 13. This concludes my presentation. At this time I would also like to respectfully reiterate to residents that may be in attendance for the public hearing that the hearing tonight is only for the wetland alteration permit. If there are questions on the trail project in general, those could be directed towards Carver County Parks or the representative Jeff Olson who is here tonight and I've included the contact information listed here for the Carver County Parks Director as well as their website. Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Thank you. Any questions from any commissioners at this point? Ellsworth: Yes Andrew. More on process just because I don't understand the whole process. Spreiter: Sure. Ellsworth: Four questions I guess. And maybe I can just read them off. The role of the Water Resources Coordinator. In the beginning it talks about and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign a joint notification and so on. I don't know what that role, that person is. And then the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and have they met and, is this some of the responses from the TEP that was on our, when we got here? And then what do they do and who are they and how are they appointed? Maybe I should know all this. Spreiter: No. Ellsworth: And then sequencing, what? In the context of this analysis that was put together, I couldn't quite interpret what that meant. It's probably very simple and I'll go duh when you tell me. And then maybe later a question for Carver Parks. Why is it paved and not gravel? Everything in that park is gravel except a small section of road. It just seems to really change the character and add to the load and maybe that's not a pertinent question for tonight. We're just talking about the wetlands. Spreiter: Okay, I will try to address those the best I can. The Wetland Resources Coordinator is the authorized representative for the City so the City is actually the LGU. They hold, they can approve or deny the application. Terry, our Wetland Resources Coordinator is just the one who is appointed to sign it so he has to have approval from the council first. Or authorization. Aanenson: I was just going to point out too, you know we are the LGU but in some instances it's the watershed district. We have the local control here so that's the part that they play in it. Spreiter: And then, I believe your next question was on. Ellsworth: The TEP. Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Spreiter: The Technical Evaluation Panel and who they are. They're basically a panel of representatives from applicable agencies that provide interpretations of the WCA process, laws, rules as well as provide technical data. Their role in this case as well would be to make a ruling on sequencing and I know that's a term that not everybody has heard but they help the LGU come to a determination or make a recommendation. They don't make the determination themselves. As far as sequencing goes, to my understanding it's just the process that the applicant has to follow in the application process for the Wetland Conservation Act. The response, the memorandum that you have in front of you, that's the applicant's response to the Technical Evaluation Panel's comments so I believe the original comments that were sent to the applicant are included in your packet but they also address them in that chart. I know the font is very small but they list the cities as well as the evaluation panel's comments on the left and then their response to each of those comments on the right. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just add to that. I think what's important, Krista said that there's a TEP panel but if you look at what she just said on who the commenters are, that would tell you who's on the TEP panel. It's someone from the DNR. Ellsworth: Exactly. Aanenson: Someone from the, a different conservation watershed district. So that gives you, BWSR who's over the, so you've had a lot of different input and that's kind of steering those comments. I know it's a little hard to read that font but. Ellsworth: And it's advisory in nature and then the recommendations are given to whom? Spreiter: To the LGU, so us. Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. Very helpful. Thomas: Actually I do have a question. I'm just kind of trying to read through the memorandum that we got today and I was just trying to, just kind of verify. Does the applicant believe that our recommendations for Wetland 8 and 22, that they should be able to meet like what we're kind of asking before next, the council meeting on Monday? Do we feel like they'll be able to, oh okay. Maybe I will save for the applicant. Spreiter: Sure, the applicant can, they have addressed each of our. Thomas: Concerns and issues? Spreiter: Concerns. We're still getting comments from some TEP members and so, and Terry's still kind of deciding what his position is on it as a member of the TEP so I guess. Thomas: I can wait. I'll wait til everybody else. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: I guess the big question is if we have that in the conditions though. If we make this motion this evening to move forward and present it to the council as approved it would contain the conditions that 8 and 22 be dealt with appropriately and under the code prior to their making a determination and final decision. Spreiter: Correct. Aller: Tom, anything? Doll: Basically this is 3/10 of an acre wetland that's going to be disturbed. Spreiter: Yeah. Doll: For the whole project. Spreiter: Yep, it is under an acre total even with the increased impacts so it's not a lot of impact. However the applicant still has to follow the process so. Doll: Okay. Aller: Mark. And then just to confirm, because we're using a bank that's in the same county we're going to be able to get a benefit from that? It's going to be a lower exchange rate? Spreiter: I'm sorry, would you repeat that last part. Aller: On the wetland bank that we're using, if we're going to be purchasing or the applicant's going to be purchasing, they're getting a benefit because it's within the same county. Spreiter: Yeah, they have to meet, in order to get the, yeah I guess the 2 to 1 replacement ratio. They have to follow a certain priority as well. The City has it's own priority but through the Wetland Conservation Act, that kind of has a separate priority so we can request that they follow our priority but at a minimum they need to follow the Wetland Conservation Act priority which basically just says in the same county, which they've done and provided. The applicant, go ahead. Jeff Olson: I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. We. Aller: Why don't we go ahead and come on up unless anybody has any other questions. And if you please, go ahead. The applicant's going to be represented by Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Sure, thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, it's a pleasure to talk to you tonight. One comment on mitigation. Typically whichever rules you look at, whether it's local rules or WCA rules, they prefer that you find mitigation that are as close to the impacts as possible so there's not a net kind of ushering away of the functions and services of those wetlands. We've looked for mitigation credits within Chanhassen and then we've looked at, we weren't able to find any. Then we looked within the major watershed, which is watershed 20, 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission -April 19, 2011 which is a fairly large watershed and there were 2 viable opportunities. Banking opportunities in those. You'll see in the memo that, in one the comments in our response to the comments, we explain that the 2 banks, approved banks that we found in watershed, major watershed 20 are actually in Hennepin County but in the same watershed as here and they're located in the city of Medina and we did, because it's in the same major watershed we did get a 2 to 1 ratio. If you go further afield sometimes it goes up to 2.25 or 2.5 to 1. We were able to get the 2 to 1 so we, in the memorandum that we submitted we asked for you know, if you would consider those banking opportunities within major watershed 20 to be a possibility for us. We're not aware of, there are opportunities that would be closer but not within the same watershed so. I don't know if this is an appropriate time to talk about a little additional information about Wetlands 8 and 22? Aller: That would be great. Jeff Olson: Wonderful. I'll roll out a map here and it'll I guess be projected right up there. If I do this correctly here. Maybe we could talk about Wetland 20 first. That's right where my finger is. Okay so right in the middle there. Aller: Mr. Olson, just not to rearrange your whole presentation but it might be helpful to us if we hear you go through the 3 requirements. Jeff Olson: Oh the sequencing? Aller: The sequencing so. Jeff Olson: Oh absolutely, sure. The 3 sequencing requirements are wetland impact avoidance, and if you can't completely avoid it's minimization and for what you can't avoid with proper minimization, then you move on to mitigation. Aller: And then how that applies to 8 and 22. Jeff Olson: Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Wetland 22 is a seep wetland that water kind of flows out of the hill to the, across the gravel road. Flows out of the hill and actually probably flows underneath the gravel road. Forms a seep so what we've done for Wetland 22 for minimization is, there's a, that's a section of the trail that has essentially almost no fill and no cut. The only fill would be the 6 inch gravel base and the bituminous cover but it's about as narrow, it's got the 10 foot trail with 2 foot clear zones on either side of the trail which is about as narrow as we can make it. Also the, so the profile's very low. That tends to keep the footprint very narrow. We also are impacting the skinniest portion of Wetland 22. There's kind of a thick part right up here and then it's got kind of a skinny tail that points down toward Lake Minnewashta. And so those are 2 examples of minimization. The third example of minimization is right where the trail goes currently, across that wetland, it's currently actually a dirt, a little dirt road that kind of cuts through the wetland right now. There's kind of two ruts that go through it and that's exactly what, there's essentially no vegetation right in that little part of the wetland where the trail crosses it so there's, that's 3 examples of minimization there. Let me talk about some of the difficulties of totally avoiding wetland impacts to that one. Back up a G Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 little bit. Okay so you might think that you can move the trail a little closer toward Lake Minnewashta. Up this way. The problem with that is when you get to the very end of Wetland 22, that skinny portion, it's already, it goes down a very steep hill into that lobe of Lake Minnewashta and it's already at the very end of Wetland 22, it's already kind of starting a little V cut. A little bit of gully erosion is already starting going down there so it would be, it would not be a good idea to minimize impacts by moving the trail closer to where that V cut is starting down the hill. So that option wouldn't work out so well. Now also, if we move the trail onto the gravel road that would present some real safety issues because that happens to be a very tight curve in the gravel road. Motorist sight distances are not good right there and it's not a good idea to put the trail right on a portion of the gravel road that has such poor, mostly horizontal sight distances there. As a matter of fact if you'll, if you look where the trail currently crosses the gravel road right here, it's, we chose a straight away to cross so there would be adequate sight distance for motorists to react to recreationists crossing the trail. In a previous version of the trail it actually crossed here but then we thought better of it and, because that had the same sight distance issues here, don't want recreationists crossing when motorists don't have really good horizontal sight distances. So the same thing is true here. If we move the trail onto this piece of gravel road, it would be the same thing. You'd have recreationists, it would be a safety issue with motorists not being able to see them as well as they should so that's, that kind of talks about how we've minimized and how we can't further avoid wetland impacts to Wetland 22. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Yes. Ellsworth: That must be a seasonal seep. It's dry in the summer isn't it? Jeff Olson: Yeah. It, there's not a lot of hydrology in it. There's not a lot of water in it but as you kind of hike through it you can kind of see mix of sedges and vegetation which, yeah. It is probably wetter right now and not so wet late in summer. Ellsworth: Thank you. Jeff Olson: Maybe I could briefly talk about Wetland 8. Aller: Please. Jeff Olson: It is close to the, where the underpass is. This is Wetland 8 right here. Here's where the underpass is and then this trail goes through this ravine between Ches Mar Drive and TH 41. We actually early on, you'll I think see in Figure 5 of your memo that you have in front of you, you'll see the 2 alternatives that we explored early on for this one. There's another, the current alternative goes, current alternative goes like this. And then the other alternative that we explored actually went like this and then cut up through these woods and then met up with this, h Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 with the trail again here. There were 2 problems with the other alternative. There's a severe erosion problem in this valley between Ches Mar and 41 right now. There's a little bit of surface water that kind of flows down a ravine here and then about right at this point it goes over about a, maybe a 10 foot cliff or so and it carries sediment with it. It's pretty severe and it flows in a culvert I think underneath Ches Mar and then this white area right here is actually the sediment delta in this wetland right here that has eroded out of this valley right here. So it's all kind of depositing right in here. So for that reason we didn't want to disturb those highly erodible soils further down in the valley because as this, as this issue keeps cutting back up the valley it could, it might ultimately affect the trail so we didn't want to disturb that. Another thing, we did not want to cut a 30 foot wide swath through this forest right here, which is composed of fairly mature trees. The 30 feet would be the 10 foot trail, 2 foot clear zones on either side and then whatever side slopes would be necessary to tie into existing elevations. So those are kind of the reasons why we chose to go where we did go. This wetland is, it's almost completely reed canary grass, which is an invasion wetland plant species, so it's not floristically very rich in there. It is still a wetland impact. We understand that and we did agree with members of the TEP that if you go right through the middle of the wetland there would be probably an additional .06 acres of wetland impact that aren't actually within the footprint but are immediately adjacent to it and so we agree that that would be a total take of that wetland. That's why on the first page of the memo we adjusted the impacts up from the original. Doll: Did MnDOT tell you this is where the crossing is going? I'm kind of wondering why it's not up closer to the entrance of the park where you wouldn't. Jeff Olson: I really can't answer that. I don't know that we had a directive from MnDOT to put it there. You know I'll just say having hiked the whole area and having done the delineations out there, I can tell you topographically this is probably about one of the only places that would support an underpass because they're, the road at that point where the underpass is proposed is on a lot of embankment and there's just not that amount of embankment if you go up closer to the entrance. There'd be, you'd have to tunnel a long way I think. But you know probably Mike McGarvey in our landscape architecture section, trail design section in our company would probably have some more information about that. Are there any other questions that I can help answer? Aller: Anyone? Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Why is it asphalt instead of a Class V? Jeff Olson: You know I guess I'm not prepared to answer that and I can get an answer to you. Ellsworth: Just curious more than anything. Jeff Olson: Yeah, absolutely. I can get that into you. I guess I would recommend given what I've mentioned about Wetland 8 and Wetland 22 and perhaps an answer to your question about why it's asphalt. Maybe if it would be okay with the Planning Commission and members of the TEP, if we can maybe just incorporate some of those comments and amend this supplement and answer those questions for you. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Ellsworth: That'd be great. Aller: Anything else? Thank you. With that we'll open the public hearing so anyone that would like to speak on the matter from the public that's here can step forward. State your name and let us know why you're here sir. Dennis Clark: My name's Dennis Clark and I live at 6651 Hazeltine which is across from the park. Aanenson: Can you put the map up there Krista? Spreiter: Sure. Dennis Clark: And I think I can answer a couple of your questions about the blacktop and a lot of those things. Aller: Great. Dennis Clark: I'm fairly involved with some of the things that go around the park. Let me see here so I can kind of. Aanenson: Do you have a better overview of just the neighborhood? Dennis Clark: The whole Highway 7 and probably page, Figure 4 would probably help and I can just point out... Okay. This is my property right here. This section, it's about 7 acres and the trail's going to run up in the, it looks like it's going to go to the school entrance and come down across the front, down in the park there. Now you asked a question why isn't the trail going across at the entrance. There was no public hearing on that so this is the first time I've heard about it. But the fact is, is that the trail is actually on the other side of the road already. The trail that goes around the rest of the lake and west of the metro area crosses right here where you see the L and I think that, you said it was in orange before on another map where the bike trail is and I guess is what I'm questioning is why didn't the trail come along on the other side of Highway 41 where there's already a public trail. There's a snowmobile trail there. It goes right past the dog part up to the entrance. Then you wouldn't have this disruption here and you can cross here at the school crossing which the traffic is slower because you've got a stop light down there and school crossing and what have you. Minnetonka School just spent $200,000 putting in a holding pond which you can barely see right there and a very extensive drainage system for all this blacktop coming off of this hill down into this pond. DNR made them dig up a lot of the silt and things like that that you're talking about that is over in this pond and put in a very sophisticated, what would I say? Ditch system for that runoff. So I'm questioning how they're going to even build this trail now on top of that. Now the other thing is all your utilities which this is all, by the way my property only goes to the middle of 41 so this is. Aller: Mr. Clark, we can't pick you up on the microphones so the public can't hear you. If you could step over to the podium that would be great. G] Chanhassen Planning Commission -April 19, 2011 Dennis Clark. Sorry. Aller: That's okay. Dennis Clark: Now the question is, I know we've got a little impact down there and by the way I've got to say this is a great deal. This bike trail. I bike all over Chanhassen so I like it. Love the park. The park is probably going to get paved. The roads. If they'd just move some of that money off of the other parks and that's coming back probably this year or next year because those clay roads in there are terrible. But the bike trails is basically this is going to be a bike trail, you want to be on pavement so that's good that it's on pavement. I think the impact on that one water area, I'd have to agree with you is minimal. Down by the boat ramps but you actually got people crossing the road 3 times down there. You've got to cross the road one way. Then you've got to cross the road the other way. Then you've got to cross 3 different places where you've got boats coming in. People going into the trails and then you've got to cross the road where people are coming down that road fairly fast. So again, I never heard of any input on this, this trail. Seems like putting a tunnel underneath Highway 7 can't be a cheap deal when again the trail's already on the other side of Highway 7. You're just going under and then going back across again. I cross roads all the time. I'll love the tunnel. Won't bother me. Just seems like it's an awful lot of money being spent to get under Highway 7 and then you're going back along Highway 7. Alley: Mr. Clark, is that 41? Dennis Clark: 41. What am I saying? 7. 41. I live on 41 and I'm calling it 7. You're going along Highway 41, and I know we're only here to talk about these 2 wetlands but I'm using that as an excuse. You basically just put a 300 foot public pier along that pond because that's what it's going to be, that's what that's going to become is because now the public right-of-way is going to be closer to the pond, which just means you can have 10 people fish that pond out, which everyone that lives around that pond has been stocking that pond because it's frankly a private pond at this particular point. You've now just made that, like I said, a 300 foot public pier for people that eat fish and have been known to take over their limits. But back to the wetland impact which is what the meeting's about, that trail does cross, the trail going into the park, 3 times so I just don't understand why it didn't come in on the west side of 41. Down the hill. Along the road. Was it ever, I guess the question would be, was that ever thought about? Aller: Why don't we wait for the questions. Why don't you finish, if you have additional questions then we'll take those and then we'll ask Mr. Olson to come back up and answer them. Dennis Clark: Okay, that'd be fine. That was pretty much my only curiousity in the meeting here of why aren't they just coming in at a different spot. Or making the road cross at the place where traffic has to slow down already for the entrance and, of the park and you're coming up the hill. The further you've got the crossing towards the stop light, the slower the traffic is and then maybe some day we can get the speed limit on 41 lowered to 50 like the rest of everyone else from here all the way through Chaska has done. I mean Bud Olson would recommend it. We've had I don't know, 3 or 4 near misses out there with bus accidents. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: Okay, thank you for your presentation Mr. Clark. Aanenson: Mr. Chair before we, the, Mr. Olson's here to talk about the wetlands so you know I just want to say that Carver County Parks and our City Parks and Rec Department, Park and Rec Director Todd Hoffman have been working on this project so we can't comment on the decisions that they've made based on their location, geometrics, all that stuff. I can't comment on that and if we can get that information out, we'd be happy to do that but what you recommend here would not go forward unless the project was to go forward. What we're looking for is the wetland. If your review of that and input to the City Council and obviously nothing would change out there if the project didn't go through, or they made some changes. Then it would have to come back through. Significant changes. I think the way that the wetland alteration permit is structured that there is some flexibility in there so some minor tweaking based on those comments so. What we're here tonight to decide is if it's appropriate based on the location that's been sited by others. If that makes sense so and again if the project does go forward. Aller: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify or ask questions? Then I just have one quick question of Mr. Olson, if you would. Would changing the crossing or coming up on the other side have any impact at all on the amelioration that we're requesting tonight? Jeff Olson: Would there be different wetland impacts? Aller: Yeah, would that change the request that we'd be making tonight? Jeff Olson: Well I think yeah. I think if the trail along the 41 section of the trail, if it did go along the west side of 41, I'm assuming the wetland impacts would be slightly different. There wouldn't be I believe 0.07 acres of impact at Brenden Pond. Trying to think. Is there one other one along 41 ? Aanenson: The question is if there's more impacts on the other side of the street or not, correct? Aller: Right. Aanenson: We don't have that information. Aller: Okay. Aanenson: I don't know if Krista knows off the top of her head. If there's more wetlands on the county side or not. Spreiter: I don't know. I can say that you know there has been other routes explored by the County. However this is the preferred route that they've come up with because of issues with alternate routes. Just you know I can't speak for, again I can't speak for the Carver County Parks Director. He would probably be the best one to contact regarding any of that information. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: In looking at the request for Wetlands 8 and 22, some of those issues would be best left to the amendment of the application so that you could put that in as an alternate route and make those discussions so that the City Council can review that and look at that and I think that would make the application that much more complete and I think that's what we're requesting in our conditions. Jeff Olson: Sure, sure. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, we can beef up the discussion of alternatives as to why. You know why we've selected the preferred alternative. Aller: Thank you. Karen Weathers: Can I make a comment or is it too late? Aller: I haven't closed it. You can step forward. State your name and. Karen Weathers: Real quick. Karen Weathers. I live in Highcrest and have been here 20 years. I remember some of the early conversations. The reason it is there is because of the embankment as I recall. You can verify but that's the only place feasible. The second thing, I think if you move it to the other side it doesn't feed where all the residents are. You know you'd only have one place. You have to go up by 7 to cross over and there's not much for residential feed the way the one flows now. So those are probably some of the considerations. Aller: Thank you. Okay, no one else stepping forward. I'm going to close the public hearing. Discussion by the commissioners. Commissioner Tennyson, what do you think? Tennyson: I'm a little concerned just being dropped into the middle of this, not having heard how it happened before. Just reading TEP panel recommendations tonight. I don't think I have any specific questions at this time. I guess I'd like to see what the rest of the commissioners think on this. Aller: Great, thanks. Commissioner Ellsworth: Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. I think that staff has done a very good job addressing the concerns that were raised and meeting the requirements for the various agencies and different rules and it appears to be well thought out and well put together. It is a park that I frequent probably twice a week. It's an awesome park and it's neat to see more access to it and I know the pavement issue's not a topic for tonight but I was surprised to hear that all the roads would be paved too. It is sloppy to drive in there sometimes but it's part of the character of the park for me but that's neither here nor there for tonight's conversation but, so I think it's well put together and all the issues that I had were, again were process related than necessarily the outcome. Aller: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: Yeah I too, I don't think I really have any, I didn't have any real questions for it. I just kind of, nice to see the updated motion for the additional stuff. That was really helpful and feel 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 like just looking at seeing what we can do for 8 and 22. Looks like it's well put together. We should be good. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: I have nothing. Undestad: No. Aller: Commissioner Hokkanen. Hokkanen: No, looks good. Aller: No further questions, okay. Then I'll entertain a motion if there is any. Undestad: I'll make a motion here. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to conditions I through 4. Thomas: I second that motion. Aller: Okay, having a motion and a second, any furtlier discussion? Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. 3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011, prepared by SRF. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in Figure 4C in the Joint Notification Application prepared by SRF dated January 31, 2011. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Mumehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7. The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to city prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aanenson: Thank you. Mr. Chair I just want to remind you that this does go to the City Council on the 25`h Aller: Yes, so those individuals who wish to follow this should, because it's fast tracked, it'll be next Monday the 25`h. Before the City Council in these chambers. 14 WHwetland impacts _ ('omullint Figure 4C (:ronp, Inc. Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Jab # 121WO10 7. Adjoining Property Owners BLDG_NUM STREETNAME STREETTPE ZIP ZIP4 TAX -NAME TAX_ADD_Ll TAX_ADD_L2 rPl -254530310 7260 HILLSDALE CT CT 55317 7548 AHMAD SHALABI 7260 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7548 -250041300 CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318-2102 -250091000 CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318-2102 019-253490510 6814 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 CHRISTOPHER C FITCH & 6814 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253370080 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-253480020 7001 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7572 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-253490550 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 019-250091800 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8036 DAVID 1 & STEPHANIE L SEWARD 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8036 019-253490010 2450 LAKE LUCY RD RD 55317 6707 E JEROME CARLSON PO BOX 554 WAYZATA, MN 55391-0554 019-251100100 6300 CHASKA RD RD 55331 8825 GEORGE & BEULAH G BAER 6300 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8825 019-253370010 7030 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 HURRELL LLC 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6400 019-250033000 6421 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8000 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 261 SCHOOL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-1987 019-254590050 6390 MELODY LN LN 55331 6402 JOHN T & ANNE C CARTER 6390 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6402 019-253490470 6872 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 JOSEPH P THULL & 6872 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253490530 6800 HIGHOVER DR DR 5S317 7568 KRISTOPHER M GRIESE & 6800 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-254530420 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC PO BOX 542 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0542 019-253490380 7014 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7572 MARK BERSON 7014 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7572 019-253490520 6810 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 MARY A BENTLEY 6810 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN SS317-7568 019-253490490 6842 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 1 7568 PATRICK J & LISA M MCNULTY 6842 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-253490480 6856 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 PHONG M LUONG & 6856 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-250091900 7305 HAZELTINE BLVD BLVD 55331 8038 THOMAS J DOLL & PO BOX 148 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0148 019-253490500 6818 HIGHOVER DR DR 55317 7568 WILLIAM D & MARY D HAWORTH 6818 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7568 019-254530300 7250 HILLSDALE CT CT 55317 7548 WILLIAM RYAN HURT & 7250 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7548 019-253360040 2585 HIGHCREST CIR CIR 55317 YOBERRY FARMS LLC 2575 HIGHCREST CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4708 rcf ® Parcel Locations Figure 3 Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesota Public Waters Inventory Locations Figure 4 C-,,wG4, Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County. Minnesota ENGINEERS Ll,�I PLANNERS D ESIGNERS Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 7068 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the TEP, Army Corps FROM: Jeffrey Olson, Associate Scientist, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. DATE: April 20, 2011 SUBJECT: TH 41 UNDERPASS TRAIL; CARVER COUNTY [ Note: This Memorandum, dated April 20, 2011, incorporates additional text concerning sequencing associated with Wetlands #22 as discussed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing held in the Council Chambers of the City of Chanhassen at 7:00 PM on April 19, 2011. Text added to this document after it was originally submitted on April 15, 2011 is in red bold font. 1 Dear Members of the TEP, Army Corps, and Associated, The purpose of this Memorandum is to address comments that have been gathered from Members of the TEP and the Corps concerning the TH 41 Underpass Trail Project. This Memorandum will serve as a Permit Application Supplement. Table 1 presents comments and responses to comments. Figures 1-5 (attached) show "screen shots" of portions of the trail that impact wetlands and call -out boxes that demonstrate instances of wetland impact minimization (side slope steepening, trail profile lowering, and alignment adjustments) and illustrate points made in Table 1. Appendix A, relevant to Comment #7 in Table 1 below, shows proposed MnDOT seed mixes for trail clear zones and side slopes. Per Comment#4 in Table 1, below, we agree that impacts to Wetland #8 would likely be a total take given the small amount of wetland that would remain outside of the trail footprint. We have added 0.06 ac of wetland impact to Wetland #8. The following bulleted points summarize impacts and required mitigation as presented in the permit application - and as amended per this permit application supplement: • Permit Application (previously submitted): Wetland Impacts 0.285 ac. Required mitigation 0.57 ac. • Revised Application (per this supplement): Wetland impacts 0.345 ac. Required mitigation 0.69 ac) www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkwav North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 1 763.475.0010 Fax: 763.473.2429 An Equal Opportunity Employer SCANNED Members of the TEP, Army Corps Table 1: Disposition of Comments: TH 41 Underpass Trail Project Comment Origin Comment Description Comment Response Comment #1: Please supply a purchase agreement for the wctland credits signed by both parties. See comment below. We have identified 2 mitigation banks in Major Watershed 20 and if City of Chanhassen At a minimum, a resolution passel by the County Commissioners or County Park withdrawal from one of these banks is acceptable to the TEP, will revise the purchase Board. agreement and process the transaction. Comment #2: The purchase agreement for wctland credits states that the impacts and wctland bank We have cxplorcd on -site mitigation and opportunities within the City of Chanhassen - and City of Chanhassen to be drawn from arc in different major watersheds. The Board of Water and Soil have thus far found nothing. We have cxplorcd mitigation opportunities in Major Watershed Resources shows a minimum of eight available wetland banks in the same major 20 (same Major Watershed as impacts). We found 2 banks that have available credits (Bank watershed. Please address the reason for not using these banks. accounts # 1346 and 1412). Both banks arc located in Hennepin County, near the City of Medina. If one of these opportunities would be acceptable to the TEP - we will process a purchase agreement for withdrawal of credits. Comment #3: Wetland 5: This is a DNR Public Water. Please indicate the OHW relative to the fill The OHW at Wetland #5, per Jack Gleason (DNR - Waters), is 995.8'. The elevation of the City of Chanhassen being placed for trail construction. lowest watcrward construction limit.-. are 997'. The lowest watorward construction is thus 1.2 feet above the 011W. See Figure 4 attached. Comment #4: Wetland 8: The proposed alignment goes directly through the center of the wctland. We agree that Wetland #8 would likely be a total take given the small amount of wetland that City of Chanhassen It is likely that this alignment will result in impacts beyond the immediate footprint would remain direct footprint impacts. Footprint impacts are 0.07 ac, total wctland size is of the trail. This should be reviewed and discussed. 0.13 ac. Thus we will report total impacts of 0.13 ac for Wetland #8 Comment #5: Wetland 22: Given that this wctland is a flow through seep, bisecting the wctland Designers are matching the existing grade from about Sta. 149+00 to 151+00 - so there is no City of Chanhassen with a trail has a strong likelihood effecting hydrology and resulting in additional cut and only minimal fill in the vicinity of Wctland #22. It should be noted that there will be a secondary impacts downstream. Impacts to this wetland should be avoided either gravel base and bituminous (enough for positive drainage on the trail). There arc currently no through realignment of the trail or the use of a raised boardwalk. culverts proposed on the trail section which bisects Weiland #22. There is a culvert around Sta. 148450 (just southwest of Weiland #22). Weiland #22 is fed hydrologically by subsurface flow from the hills to the cast underneath the Park gravel road. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed Trail (with no cut and very little fill) would affect sub -surface flow. One might think that construction of the Park gravel road would have cut off hydrology to Weiland #22 - but it didn't because the source of hydrology is sub -surface. Comment #6: 1 would like to reiterate that 'wctland 5' is DNR Public Water Wetland 10-132W, We agree that the work will not occur below the OHW. Jack Gleason, MnDNR and the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of it is 995.8 ft. It appears as if the alignment and work required to construct the trail will not occur below the OHWL. A retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to this wctland. Please be advised that if the retaining wall or associated fill is placed at or below the OHWL, a DNR Public Waters Work permit may be required. State rules do not allow placement of fill in Public Waters. The DNR Commissioner can waive this prohibition if a road or trail is proposed by a government agency, and the prohibition would prevent or restrict the project or create a major conflict with other public purposes or interest And there is no other feasible or practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact 8W the public need for the project rules out the no -build alternative. The County would have to provide compelling supporting documentation justifying any such Public Water Work application. Comment #7: Regarding the trail along Lake Minncwashta, the trail may increase runoff volumes. I Clear zones and side slopes out to the limits of construction will be planted with MnDOT Members of the TEP. Army Corps - 3 - April 20, 2011 Table 1: Disposition of Comments TH 41 Comment Origin I Comment Description Jack Gleason, MnDNR We encourage the City to request storm water management BMPs, such as b strips, to help mitigate for the increase in impervious surface coverage in the shorcland area in order to protect water quality. Comment #8: Greg Graczyk, SWCD Comment #9: Greg Graczyk, SWCD Comment #10: Greg Graczyk, SWCD Wetland 20: It seems very possible to shift the trail to the south to avoid impacts. We have at times taken into consideration the preservation of desirable trees as a valid sequencing discussion point. Further documentation of this should be noted. Wctland 22: If 1 remember correctly, this area was originally missed on the delineation and included after our TEP review of the site. It appeared at the time of the review that this is a seep type area. If I am thinking of the correct area, I have some concerns of the functions of this area post construction. In particular the downstream leg. Potentially some design details at this area may be helpful (subcut depth, base materials, compaction, etc. etc.) should include some additional discussion as to why the use of Ches Mar Farm Road couldn't be used. There may have to be some filling off of the ditch off the road to get down to a more level grade but it appears the grade of the trail behind the houses (looking at contours) will put the trail above the designed maximum of 8.33%. Once again it also appears that there may have to be a significant amount of desired tree removal to utilize this route. This is understandable but should be discussed. Comment Response seed mixes and will serve as buffer strips. Within the Park, MnDOT Seed Mix 350 (native mid to tallgrass prairie) will be used in clear zones adjacent to the trail and on side slopes out to the limits of construction. Once vegetation is established, clear zones will be kept fairly short with periodic mowing. Side slopes will not be mowed. Trail clear zones and side slopes along TH 41 will be planted with MnDOT Seed Mix 250 (a hardy mix able to withstand harsh roadside conditions). Appendix A presents the composition of MnDOT Seed Mixes 250 and 350. As the members of the TEP mentioned during the delineation walk through, it would not be desirable to have to take down some mature open grown white and bur oaks trees in order to further minimize wetland impact at Wctland #20, given that Wetland #20 is currently a turf trail dominated mostly by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Designers arc matching the existing grade from about Sta. 149+00 to 151+00 - so there doesn't appear to be either cut or fill in the vicinity of Wctland #22. It should be noted that there will be a gravel base and bituminous (enough for positive drainage on the trail). There arc currently no culverts proposed on the trail section which bisects Wctland #22. There is a culvert around Sta. 148+50 (just southwest of Wctland #22). Wctland #22 is fed hydrologically by subsurface flow from the hills to the cast underneath the Park gravel road. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed Trail (with no cut and very little fill) would affect Originally, two alternatives were studied in the vicinity of Wctland #8. Sec Figure 5. Several factors were considered in choosing a preferred alternative, i.e., erodible soils, and the amount of tree removal. The preferred alternative was chosen because it limits potential impact to erodible soils in the valley between TH 41 and Ches-Mar Famt Road. Currently the valley has a severe gully erosion problem. Further, the other alternative (Figure 5) would have required a swath of forest approximately 30 feet wide (10 foot trail, 2 feet of clear zone on each side, and side slopes) to be removed. Given that Wctland #8 is completely dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), an invasive species, it is the best decision minimize disturbances to erodible soils and mature unland forest. Comment #11: I Per previous TEP review and City approval, the wetland boundaries arc appropriate Comment noted Ken Powell. BWSR for review of the renlacement plan. Ken Powell, BWSR purpose and need has been adequately identified. The no -build alternative explanation in the application is short on details. I would expect some discussion of the "master plan" or other document(s) that this project is in conformance with. There is a vague reference to "plans", but nothing specific is discussed. noted Trunk Highway 41, which is the eastern boundary of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, forms a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists wanting to access the park. This high-speed (55 miles per hour limit) two-lane roadway carries 17,000 vehicles per day (2006 Mn/DOT volumes) past the park. The high traffic volume does not afford frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians crossing, especially during peak hours. From 2006 to 2009, the park averaged visitors tc Annual Use Estimate of the Mci Members of the TEP, Army Corps - 4 - April 20, 2011 Table 1: Disposition of Comments: TH 41 Underpass Trail Project Comment Origin Comment Description Comment Response Parks System for 2009. No pedestrianibicycle facilities presently link Lake Minnewashta Regional Park with the City of Chanhassen (City) and no safe pedestrian access to the park exists across TH 41. Potential conflicts between motorized and non -motorized travelers present a safety concern for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. A gap in the current trail network exists, isolating Lake Minncwashta Regional Park from population centers and other natural amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without this project, neighborhood residents, campers at Camp Tanadoona, middle school students, and recreational visitors to the area will continue to access Lake Minncwashta Regional Park via the only mode available, the automobile. In addition, the existing trail network does not provide a connection between the City of Chaska, located south of the project area, and Lake Minncwashta Regional Park. Comment #14: In addition to the no -build alternative, WCA rules require a discussion of a second A trail on the west side of TH 41 was considered based on suggestions received during the wetland avoidance alternative (not just any alternative). This should be an alternative Junc3, 2010 public open house. The steep embankments and dissected topography along the Ken Powell, BWSR that avoids wctland impacts. While this may not be entirely possible, I suspect that west side of TH 41 likely would have avoided wctland impacts. However, this option was with some major rerouting and redesign that there is an alternative that would impact investigated and dismissed from further consideration because the west side alignment would at least very little wctland. I also suspect that such an alternative probably creates require two underpasses in locations with steep slopes and the extensive grading needed to problems related to park use, safety, costs, etc. Such a discussion should be part of install the culverts would cause impacts to utilities and would greatly increase project cost. the application and part of the argument for the proposed plan. Comment #15: The application does not discuss any specific wetland avoidance and minimization Figures 1-5 show more details on instances of wetland impact avoidance and minimization. Ken Powell, B WSR measures taken for areas where most of the impacts arc proposed. For example, there The comment above describes mature open grown oaks to the south of the proposed trail is a fair amount of impact associated with Wetland 20 (Figure 4A). An obvious alignment in the vicinity of Wctland #20. Concerning Wetland #8 - we believe that wetland question would be why the trail cannot be shifted south to avoid or minimize wetland impacts to it could not be shifted to the north or south without increasing impacts to impact. For Wctland 8 (Figure 41)), there is no discussion of why the trail continues residences. As stated above, we believe that Wetland #8 will be a total take whether the trail through the middle of the wctland rather than go to either side. I assume there arc goes through the middle of it or to the side of it. Despite it being a total take, designers tried issues with existing homes, etc., but this needs to be explained. Also, how was the to minimize impacts to the extent practicable - side slopes of 1:3 were needed here. Slopes impact through this wctland minimized? Was a boardwalk or bridge considered? steeper than 1:3 would have required fencing along both sides of the trail - this was not an Were the side slopes steepened and how much? aesthetic that was desirable. Concerning the choice between a boardwalk or bituminous trail over Wetland #8, the board walk would be approximately 15-20 times more expensive per linear foot than the bituminous. Thus, boardwalk would be cost prohibitive. Details arc as follows: • b 108,000 for a 12' x 145' helical supported boardwalk. • This same distance (145') for a 3" bituminous 10' wide trail over 6" of class 5 would be less than $5,000. Comment # 16: 1 support the use of wetland bank credits for the replacement, but I would note that We have identified 2 mitigation banks in Major Watershed 20 and if withdrawal from one of Ken Powell, 13WSR technically the application is not complete unless it includes a signed (by both these banks is acceptable to the TEP will revise the purchasc agreement and process the Members of the TEP, Anny Corps Table 1: Disposition of Comments: TH 41 U Comment Origin parties) purchase agre evidence for the comr a lication in m co Comment #17: Minncwashta Paris no, Ken Powell, BWSR the park would not rcc Members of the TEP, Army Corps 6- April 20, 2011 additional Sequencing Test for N%etland #22 The following test summarizes wetland -related discussion points at the Planning Commission Public Hearing held on .April 19. 2011 in the Cite of Chanhassen Council Chambers. Sequencing for N%ctland 98 is described in the Memorandum above. V, ctland #22 • Wetland Impact Avoidance. Complete avoidance of impacts at Wetland #22 was not feasible. If the trail were to be realigned to be along the shoulder of the gravel park road, the trail section would be on a piece of road with a tight radius of curvature. The highly curved road has poor horizontal sight distances; thus, recreational use would be unsafe. Moving the trail toward the nearby lobe of Lake Minnewashta to avoid wetland impacts was also not feasible. The narrow tip of Wetland a22 is at the crest of a steep hillside which has already begun to erode. Placing the trail near this hillside would worsen erosion and require considerably wider side slopes. • Wetland Impact Minimization. Currently there is minimal fill at Wetland #22. The width of the impact is just the 10' trail with 2' side slopes on either side and no side slopes. The fill is just the 6" gravel base with bituminous pavement. Further the proposed impact occurs at the narrowest portion of Wetland #22. Where the trail crosses Wetland #22 is coincident with where a current dirt trail crosses the wetland - this dirt trail is currently unvegetated car tire ruts. • Wetland Impact Mitigation. As discussed above and at the Planning Commission meeting. Wetland impacts and proposed mitigation will occur within the same Major Watershed (Major Watershed #20). Mitigation will be accomplished at a 2:1 ratio (Mitigation acreage: Impact acreage). JWO/MM Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s) Figure 1 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project •OHW = 944.5' •1:2 slopes \ •Profile lowered t •Alignment adjusted •1:2 slopes I•Profile lowered Figure 2 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project e ,ival Figure 3 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project A $',� +� fir'• Sys s ' . ► t n t , •1:3 slopes "UL -Profile lowered• •1:2 slopes would require a fence on either side of the trail �l t )1• O I _ j-- -- _ ---- 14 Figure 4 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project -Retaining walls` •OHW = 995.8' •Lowest waterward ' construction limits are 997' --�—— R� 345 rj — l ft ('. d (ii �. t-x Appendix A: Seed Mixes for Clear Zones and Side Slopes Mixture: 250 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Brome grass, smooth 11.0 9.8 14.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky " Certified Park" 22.7 20.3 29.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.0 9.8 14.0 Switch grass 2.4 2.1 3.0 Wheat -grass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Rye-grass, perennial 16.5 14.7 21.0 Timothy 2.4 2.1 3.0 Redtop 2.4 2.1 3.0 Alfalfa, creeping 4.7 4.2 6.0 White Clover 2.4 2.1 3.0 GRAND TOTALS: 78.6 1 70 100.0 For. General Roadside excluding sandy sites Mixture: 260 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha Ib/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky "Certified Park" 35.8 32 32.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.2 10 10.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 30.0 Fescue, hard 9.0 8 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.4 20 20.0 GRAND TOTALS: 112 100 100.0 For. Commercial Turf I Any accepted low maintenance Kentucky Bluegrass EXCEPT "Park„ Mixture: 270 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component k ac lb/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky - Elite 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Improved 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 25.0 Red fescue, creeping 10.8 9.6 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.8 20.4 17.0 GRAND TOTALS: 134.4 120 100.0 -For. Residential Turf Mixture: 340 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component kg/ba lb/ac Bluestem, big 3.3 3.0 21.5 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Grama, sideoats 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 0.6 0.5 4.0 Dropseed, sand 0.6 0.5 3.5 Bluegrass, Canada 3.4 3.0 21.5 June grass 0.6 0.5 3.5 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals: 78.3 70 100.0 Dry Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted for spring plantings Application: Native mix for Sandy/Dry areas. Mid -height Mixture: 350 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component a lb/ac Bluestem,big 3.4 3.0 21.5 Indian grass 2.8 2.5 18.0 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Grams, sideoats 3.4 3.0 21.5 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 1.1 1.0 7.0 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component a lb/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals: 78.3 70 100.0 Mesic Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted forspring plantings Application: Native mix for general roadside areas. 11 I- c?3 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Angie Kairies, Planner, and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: TH 41 TRAIL & UNDERPASS PROJECT: REOUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PAVED 10-FOOT, OFF -ROAD, MULTI -USE TRAIL WITHIN TH 41 RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM LONGACRES DRIVE TO TH 7 AND WITHIN PORTIONS OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK. APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING CASE 2011-03. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Jeffrey W. Olson Brent and Christen Carron Karen Weathers Tom Anderson Dennis Clark SRF Consulting Highover Drive 2600 Arrowhead Lane 7075 Highover Drive 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission. As stated an application has been submitted by Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit as part of the trail and underpass project. As a result of the project the applicant is proposing impacts to 5 wetlands totaling 15,028 square feet. Of these proposed., 5 proposed impacts staff believes that the applicant has followed the required procedures set forth in City Code for 3 of the impacts. However in regards to the remaining 2 impacts staff believes that further discussion is required as I will discuss in more detail throughout the presentation. To give some background on the project itself, the City Council approved a letter and resolution supporting the County's application for federal transportation enhancement grant funds in July of 2007. This application was approved and the grant was awarded to the County. If completed the trail project will provide a significant pedestrian improvement within the community and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland banking credits. The project is to be located along the east side of 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road. Pedestrian underpass is also to be constructed as part of the project just north of the intersection of Ches Mar Farm Road and 41. This will provide safe pedestrian and recreational access to Lake Minnewashta Park. Then from the proposed underpass the trail will continue through the Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 park terminating at the beach area. The proposed trail project is tentatively scheduled to begin Fall of 2011, however plans for the project have not been finalized at this time. This is a closer view of the proposed trail project in relation to the existing trail system. Existing trails are shown in orange with the proposed trail alignment shown in green. Retaining walls are denoted with a dash line. There are 2 proposed retaining walls. One to be installed on the west shore of Brenden Pond, as well as along a smaller wetland just to the south. Both were included as a means to minimize or avoid wetland impacts in these areas. The main objective of the project is to provide a link to the existing regional trail system and provide safe travel for both pedestrians and recreationalists between residential areas, business and commercial areas, schools as well as to Lake Minnewashta Park. You can see that the proposed trail provides a key link between northern and southern trail routes as well as linking the City's trail system to the east with the parks trail system on the west side of 41 and within the park. Now for the proposed impact locations which are denoted in red. Wetland 20 is located on the shore of Lake Minnewashta near the beach area. Wetland 22 just south of the lake access. Wetland 8 and Wetland 2 are located on either side of the proposed underpass and Wetland 5 is located on the west shore of Brenden Pond. I mentioned earlier that 3 of the 5 wetland impacts did not require further discussion so I'm going to begin with those. Wetland 20, again along the shore of Lake Minnewashta. This impact is proposed at 5,663 square feet. Wetland 5 is located along the west shore of Brenden Pond. A retaining wall is to be constructed between the trail and the ordinary high water level for Brenden Pond in order to eliminate impacts below this elevation. The impact here is 3,049 square feet. Wetland 2 is located just east of the proposed impact, or I'm sorry the proposed underpass and the impact would total 218 square feet. City Code requires compliance with the Wetland Conservation, or I'm sorry. City Code requires that the applicant must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that the applicant must first avoid impacts. Second minimize these impacts and finally replace the impacts. City staff and the Technical Evaluation Panel believe that the submitted WCA application should include further discussion on the impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22. Staff and the TEP have submitted comments to the applicant requesting either alternate to these impacts or an explanation as to why the impacts cannot be avoided. For the reasons discussed staff cannot recommend approval of impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22 based on the information that we have at this time. However a condition of approval allows for these additional impacts provided the applicant complies with the WCA process and either avoids these impacts or the arguments that are presented have, prove adequate to the satisfaction of the TEP. Since the time of the staff report the applicant has submitted a memorandum. This will serve as a supplement to the application in response to these comments. City staff and the TEP are actively reviewing the response at this time. I have provided a copy of the memorandum as well as the amended condition number 3 which reflect these changes. The wetland impacts in question. The first is Wetland 8 located just west of the proposed underpass. You can see that the current alignment bisects the wetland. It is agreed by both the applicant and the staff that this will likely result in secondary impacts. The applicant has increased the proposed impacts to include the entire wetland area as reflected in the memo provided bringing the impact amount to 5,662 square feet. Staff still believes an alternate alignment should be discussed under the WCA requirements as well as under the requirements of the City's wetland alteration permit process. Wetland 22 is located just south of the boat launch. It's a perch flow through wetland. The wetland receives hydrology through ground water which then flows to Wetland 11 below. Staff believes that this may cause additional downstream impacts to Wetland 11 and a boardwalk or realignment option FA Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 should be presented in the WCA application. The proposed impact here is 436 square feet. In conclusion I would like to point out that the applicant has provided full cooperation throughout the application process and staff is confident that the applicant will make every effort to minimize impacts wherever possible, as well as comply with the application requirement. Thus staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion can be found on page 13. This concludes my presentation. At this time I would also like to respectfully reiterate to residents that may be in attendance for the public hearing that the hearing tonight is only for the wetland alteration permit. If there are questions on the trail project in general, those could be directed towards Carver County Parks or the representative Jeff Olson who is here tonight and I've included the contact information listed here for the Carver County Parks Director as well as their website. Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Thank you. Any questions from any commissioners at this point? Ellsworth: Yes Andrew. More on process just because I don't understand the whole process. Spreiter: Sure. Ellsworth: Four questions I guess. And maybe I can just read them off. The role of the Water Resources Coordinator. In the beginning it talks about and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign a joint notification and so on. I don't know what that role, that person is. And then the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and have they met and, is this some of the responses from the TEP that was on our, when we got here? And then what do they do and who are they and how are they appointed? Maybe I should know all this. Spreiter: No. Ellsworth: And then sequencing, what? In the context of this analysis that was put together, I couldn't quite interpret what that meant. It's probably very simple and I'll go duh when you tell me. And then maybe later a question for Carver Parks. Why is it paved and not gravel? Everything in that park is gravel except a small section of road. It just seems to really change the character and add to the load and maybe that's not a pertinent question for tonight. We're just talking about the wetlands. Spreiter: Okay, I will try to address those the best I can. The Wetland Resources Coordinator is the authorized representative for the City so the City is actually the LGU. They hold, they can approve or deny the application. Terry, our Wetland Resources Coordinator is just the one who is appointed to sign it so he has to have approval from the council first. Or authorization. Aanenson: I was just going to point out too, you know we are the LGU but in some instances it's the watershed district. We have the local control here so that's the part that they play in it. Spreiter: And then, I believe your next question was on. Ellsworth: The TEP. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Spreiter: The Technical Evaluation Panel and who they are. They're basically a panel of representatives from applicable agencies that provide interpretations of the WCA process, laws, rules as well as provide technical data. Their role in this case as well would be to make a ruling on sequencing and I know that's a term that not everybody has heard but they help the LGU come to a determination or make a recommendation. They don't make the determination themselves. As far as sequencing goes, to my understanding it's just the process that the applicant has to follow in the application process for the Wetland Conservation Act. The response, the memorandum that you have in front of you, that's the applicant's response to the Technical Evaluation Panel's comments so I believe the original comments that were sent to the applicant are included in your packet but they also address them in that chart. I know the font is very small but they list the cities as well as the evaluation panel's comments on the left and then their response to each of those comments on the right. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just add to that. I think what's important, Krista said that there's a TEP panel but if you look at what she just said on who the commenters are, that would tell you who's on the TEP panel. It's someone from the DNR. Ellsworth: Exactly. Aanenson: Someone from the, a different conservation watershed district. So that gives you, BWSR who's over the, so you've had a lot of different input and that's kind of steering those comments. I know it's a little hard to read that font but. Ellsworth: And it's advisory in nature and then the recommendations are given to whom? Spreiter: To the LGU, so us. Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. Very helpful. Thomas: Actually I do have a question. I'm just kind of trying to read through the memorandum that we got today and I was just trying to, just kind of verify. Does the applicant believe that our recommendations for Wetland 8 and 22, that they should be able to meet like what we're kind of asking before next, the council meeting on Monday? Do we feel like they'll be able to, oh okay. Maybe I will save for the applicant. Spreiter: Sure, the applicant can, they have addressed each of our. Thomas: Concerns and issues? Spreiter: Concerns. We're still getting comments from some TEP members and so, and Terry's still kind of deciding what his position is on it as a member of the TEP so I guess. Thomas: I can wait. I'll wait til everybody else. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Alter: I guess the big question is if we have that in the conditions though. If we make this motion this evening to move forward and present it to the council as approved it would contain the conditions that 8 and 22 be dealt with appropriately and under the code prior to their making a determination and final decision. Spreiter: Correct. Alter: Tom, anything? Doll: Basically this is 3/10 of an acre wetland that's going to be disturbed. Spreiter: Yeah. Doll: For the whole project. Spreiter: Yep, it is under an acre total even with the increased impacts so it's not a lot of impact. However the applicant still has to follow the process so. Doll: Okay. Alter: Mark. And then just to confirm, because we're using a bank that's in the same county we're going to be able to get a benefit from that? It's going to be a lower exchange rate? Spreiter: I'm sorry, would you repeat that last part. Alter: On the wetland bank that we're using, if we're going to be purchasing or the applicant's going to be purchasing, they're getting a benefit because it's within the same county. Spreiter: Yeah, they have to meet, in order to get the, yeah I guess the 2 to 1 replacement ratio. They have to follow a certain priority as well. The City has it's own priority but through the Wetland Conservation Act, that kind of has a separate priority so we can request that they follow our priority but at a minimum they need to follow the Wetland Conservation Act priority which basically just says in the same county, which they've done and provided. The applicant, go ahead. Jeff Olson: I'm song, I don't mean to interrupt. We. Alter: Why don't we go ahead and come on up unless anybody has any other questions. And if you please, go ahead. The applicant's going to be represented by Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Sure, thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, it's a pleasure to talk to you tonight. One comment on mitigation. Typically whichever rules you look at, whether it's local rules or WCA rules, they prefer that you find mitigation that are as close to the impacts as possible so there's not a net kind of ushering away of the functions and services of those wetlands. We've looked for mitigation credits within Chanhassen and then we've looked at, we weren't able to find any. Then we looked within the major watershed, which is watershed 20, 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 which is a fairly large watershed and there were 2 viable opportunities. Banking opportunities in those. You'll see in the memo that, in one the comments in our response to the comments, we explain that the 2 banks, approved banks that we found in watershed, major watershed 20 are actually in Hennepin County but in the same watershed as here and they're located in the city of Medina and we did, because it's in the same major watershed we did get a 2 to 1 ratio. If you go further afield sometimes it goes up to 2.25 or 2.5 to 1. We were able to get the 2 to I so we, in the memorandum that we submitted we asked for you know, if you would consider those banking opportunities within major watershed 20 to be a possibility for us. We're not aware of, there are opportunities that would be closer but not within the same watershed so. I don't know if this is an appropriate time to talk about a little additional information about Wetlands 8 and 22? Aller: That would be great. Jeff Olson: Wonderful. I'll roll out a map here and it'll I guess be projected right up there. If I do this correctly here. Maybe we could talk about Wetland 20 first. That's right where my finger is. Okay so right in the middle there. Aller: Mr. Olson, just not to rearrange your whole presentation but it might be helpful to us if we hear you go through the 3 requirements. Jeff Olson: Oh the sequencing? Aller: The sequencing so. Jeff Olson: Oh absolutely, sure. The 3 sequencing requirements are wetland impact avoidance, and if you can't completely avoid it's minimization and for what you can't avoid with proper minimization, then you move on to mitigation. Aller: And then how that applies to 8 and 22. Jeff Olson: Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Wetland 22 is a seep wetland that water kind of flows out of the hill to the, across the gravel road. Flows out of the hill and actually probably flows underneath the gravel road. Forms a seep so what we've done for Wetland 22 for minimization is, there's a, that's a section of the trail that has essentially almost no fill and no cut. The only fill would be the 6 inch gravel base and the bituminous cover but it's about as narrow, it's got the 10 foot trail with 2 foot clear zones on either side of the trail which is about as narrow as we can make it. Also the, so the profile's very low. That tends to keep the footprint very narrow. We also are impacting the skinniest portion of Wetland 22. There's kind of a thick part right up here and then it's got kind of a skinny tail that points down toward Lake Minnewashta. And so those are 2 examples of minimization. The third example of minimization is right where the trail goes currently, across that wetland, it's currently actually a dirt, a little dirt road that kind of cuts through the wetland right now. There's kind of two ruts that go through it and that's exactly what, there's essentially no vegetation right in that little part of the wetland where the trail crosses it so there's, that's 3 examples of minimization there. Let me talk about some of the difficulties of totally avoiding wetland impacts to that one. Back up a 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 little bit. Okay so you might think that you can move the trail a little closer toward Lake Minnewashta. Up this way. The problem with that is when you get to the very end of Wetland 22, that skinny portion, it's already, it goes down a very steep hill into that lobe of Lake Minnewashta and it's already at the very end of Wetland 22, it's already kind of starting a little V cut. A little bit of gully erosion is already starting going down there so it would be, it would not be a good idea to minimize impacts by moving the trail closer to where that V cut is starting down the hill. So that option wouldn't work out so well. Now also, if we move the trail onto the gravel road that would present some real safety issues because that happens to be a very tight curve in the gravel road. Motorist sight distances are not good right there and it's not a good idea to put the trail right on a portion of the gravel road that has such poor, mostly horizontal sight distances there. As a matter of fact if you'll, if you look where the trail currently crosses the gravel road right here, it's, we chose a straight away to cross so there would be adequate sight distance for motorists to react to recreationists crossing the trail. In a previous version of the trail it actually crossed here but then we thought better of it and, because that had the same sight distance issues here, don't want recreationists crossing when motorists don't have really good horizontal sight distances. So the same thing is true here. If we move the trail onto this piece of gravel road, it would be the same thing. You'd have recreationists, it would be a safety issue with motorists not being able to see them as well as they should so that's, that kind of talks about how we've minimized and how we can't further avoid wetland impacts to Wetland 22. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Yes. Ellsworth: That must be a seasonal seep. It's dry in the summer isn't it? Jeff Olson: Yeah. It, there's not a lot of hydrology in it. There's not a lot of water in it but as you kind of hike through it you can kind of see mix of sedges and vegetation which, yeah. It is probably wetter right now and not so wet late in summer. Ellsworth: Thank you. Jeff Olson: Maybe I could briefly talk about Wetland 8. Aller: Please. Jeff Olson: It is close to the, where the underpass is. This is Wetland 8 right here. Here's where the underpass is and then this trail goes through this ravine between Ches Mar Drive and TH 41. We actually early on, you'll I think see in Figure 5 of your memo that you have in front of you, you'll see the 2 alternatives that we explored early on for this one. There's another, the current alternative goes, current alternative goes like this. And then the other alternative that we explored actually went like this and then cut up through these woods and then met up with this, 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 with the trail again here. There were 2 problems with the other alternative. There's a severe erosion problem in this valley between Ches Mar and 41 right now. There's a little bit of surface water that kind of flows down a ravine here and then about right at this point it goes over about a, maybe a 10 foot cliff or so and it carries sediment with it. It's pretty severe and it flows in a culvert I think underneath Ches Mar and then this white area right here is actually the sediment delta in this wetland right here that has eroded out of this valley right here. So it's all kind of depositing right in here. So for that reason we didn't want to disturb those highly erodible soils further down in the valley because as this, as this issue keeps cutting back up the valley it could, it might ultimately affect the trail so we didn't want to disturb that. Another thing, we did not want to cut a 30 foot wide swath through this forest right here, which is composed of fairly mature trees. The 30 feet would be the 10 foot trail, 2 foot clear zones on either side and then whatever side slopes would be necessary to tie into existing elevations. So those are kind of the reasons why we chose to go where we did go. This wetland is, it's almost completely reed canary grass, which is an invasion wetland plant species, so it's not floristically very rich in there. It is still a wetland impact. We understand that and we did agree with members of the TEP that if you go right through the middle of the wetland there would be probably an additional .06 acres of wetland impact that aren't actually within the footprint but are immediately adjacent to it and so we agree that that would be a total take of that wetland. That's why on the first page of the memo we adjusted the impacts up from the original. Doll: Did MnDOT tell you this is where the crossing is going? I'm kind of wondering why it's not up closer to the entrance of the park where you wouldn't. Jeff Olson: I really can't answer that. I don't know that we had a directive from MnDOT to put it there. You know I'll just say having hiked the whole area and having done the delineations out there, I can tell you topographically this is probably about one of the only places that would support an underpass because they're, the road at that point where the underpass is proposed is on a lot of embankment and there's just not that amount of embankment if you go up closer to the entrance. There'd be, you'd have to tunnel a long way I think. But you know probably Mike McGarvey in our landscape architecture section, trail design section in our company would probably have some more information about that. Are there any other questions that I can help answer? Aller: Anyone? Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Why is it asphalt instead of a Class V? Jeff Olson: You know I guess I'm not prepared to answer that and I can get an answer to you. Ellsworth: Just curious more than anything. Jeff Olson: Yeah, absolutely. I can get that into you. I guess I would recommend given what I've mentioned about Wetland 8 and Wetland 22 and perhaps an answer to your question about why it's asphalt. Maybe if it would be okay with the Planning Commission and members of the TEP, if we can maybe just incorporate some of those comments and amend this supplement and answer those questions for you. N. Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Ellsworth: That'd be great. Alter: Anything else? Thank you. With that we'll open the public hearing so anyone that would like to speak on the matter from the public that's here can step forward. State your name and let us know why you're here sir. Dennis Clark: My name's Dennis Clark and I live at 6651 Hazeltine which is across from the park. Aanenson: Can you put the map up there Krista? Spreiter: Sure. Dennis Clark: And I think I can answer a couple of your questions about the blacktop and a lot of those things. Alter: Great. Dennis Clark: I'm fairly involved with some of the things that go around the park. Let me see here so I can kind of. Aanenson: Do you have a better overview of just the neighborhood? Dennis Clark: The whole Highway 7 and probably page, Figure 4 would probably help and I can just point out... Okay. This is my property right here. This section, it's about 7 acres and the trail's going to run up in the, it looks like it's going to go to the school entrance and come down across the front, down in the park there. Now you asked a question why isn't the trail going across at the entrance. There was no public hearing on that so this is the first time I've heard about it. But the fact is, is that the trail is actually on the other side of the road already. The trail that goes around the rest of the lake and west of the metro area crosses right here where you see the L and I think that, you said it was in orange before on another map where the bike trail is and I guess is what I'm questioning is why didn't the trail come along on the other side of Highway 41 where there's already a public trail. There's a snowmobile trail there. It goes right past the dog part up to the entrance. Then you wouldn't have this disruption here and you can cross here at the school crossing which the traffic is slower because you've got a stop light down there and school crossing and what have you. Minnetonka School just spent $200,000 putting in a holding pond which you can barely see right there and a very extensive drainage system for all this blacktop coming off of this hill down into this pond. DNR made them dig up a lot of the silt and things like that that you're talking about that is over in this pond and put in a very sophisticated, what would I say? Ditch system for that runoff. So I'm questioning how they're going to even build this trail now on top of that. Now the other thing is all your utilities which this is all, by the way my property only goes to the middle of 41 so this is. Alter: Mr. Clark, we can't pick you up on the microphones so the public can't hear you. If you could step over to the podium that would be great. E Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Dennis Clark. Sorry. Aller: That's okay. Dennis Clark: Now the question is, I know we've got a little impact down there and by the way I've got to say this is a great deal. This bike trail. I bike all over Chanhassen so I like it. Love the park. The park is probably going to get paved. The roads. If they'd just move some of that money off of the other parks and that's coming back probably this year or next year because those clay roads in there are terrible. But the bike trails is basically this is going to be a bike trail, you want to be on pavement so that's good that it's on pavement. I think the impact on that one water area, I'd have to agree with you is minimal. Down by the boat ramps but you actually got people crossing the road 3 times down there. You've got to cross the road one way. Then you've got to cross the road the other way. Then you've got to cross 3 different places where you've got boats coming in. People going into the trails and then you've got to cross the road where people are coming down that road fairly fast. So again, I never heard of any input on this, this trail. Seems like putting a tunnel underneath Highway 7 can't be a cheap deal when again the trail's already on the other side of Highway 7. You're just going under and then going back across again. I crossroads all the time. I'll love the tunnel. Won't bother me. Just seems like it's an awful lot of money being spent to get under Highway 7 and then you're going back along Highway 7. Aller: Mr. Clark, is that 41? Dennis Clark: 41. What am I saying? 7. 41. I live on 41 and I'm calling it 7. You're going along Highway 41, and I know we're only here to talk about these 2 wetlands but I'm using that as an excuse. You basically just put a 300 foot public pier along that pond because that's what it's going to be, that's what that's going to become is because now the public right-of-way is going to be closer to the pond, which just means you can have 10 people fish that pond out, which everyone that lives around that pond has been stocking that pond because it's frankly a private pond at this particular point. You've now just made that, like I said, a 300 foot public pier for people that eat fish and have been known to take over their limits. But back to the wetland impact which is what the meeting's about, that trail does cross, the trail going into the park, 3 times so I just don't understand why it didn't come in on the west side of 41. Down the hill. Along the road. Was it ever, I guess the question would be, was that ever thought about? Aller: Why don't we wait for the questions. Why don't you finish, if you have additional questions then we'll take those and then we'll ask Mr. Olson to come back up and answer them. Dennis Clark: Okay, that'd be fine. That was pretty much my only curiousity in the meeting here of why aren't they just coming in at a different spot. Or making the road cross at the place where traffic has to slow down already for the entrance and, of the park and you're coming up the hill. The further you've got the crossing towards the stop light, the slower the traffic is and then maybe some day we can get the speed limit on 41 lowered to 50 like the rest of everyone else from here all the way through Chaska has done. I mean Bud Olson would recommend it. We've had I don't know, 3 or 4 near misses out there with bus accidents. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: Okay, thank you for your presentation Mr. Clark. Aanenson: Mr. Chair before we, the, Mr. Olson's here to talk about the wetlands so you know I just want to say that Carver County Parks and our City Parks and Rec Department, Park and Rec Director Todd Hoffman have been working on this project so we can't comment on the decisions that they've made based on their location, geometrics, all that stuff. I can't comment on that and if we can get that information out, we'd be happy to do that but what you recommend here would not go forward unless the project was to go forward. What we're looking for is the wetland. If your review of that and input to the City Council and obviously nothing would change out there if the project didn't go through, or they made some changes. Then it would have to come back through. Significant changes. I think the way that the wetland alteration permit is structured that there is some flexibility in there so some minor tweaking based on those comments so. What we're here tonight to decide is if it's appropriate based on the location that's been sited by others. If that makes sense so and again if the project does go forward. Aller: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify or ask questions? Then I just have one quick question of Mr. Olson, if you would. Would changing the crossing or coming up on the other side have any impact at all on the amelioration that we're requesting tonight? Jeff Olson: Would there be different wetland impacts? Aller: Yeah, would that change the request that we'd be making tonight? Jeff Olson: Well I think yeah. I think if the trail along the 41 section of the trail, if it did go along the west side of 41, I'm assuming the wetland impacts would be slightly different. There wouldn't be I believe 0.07 acres of impact at Brenden Pond. Trying to think. Is there one other one along 41? Aanenson: The question is if there's more impacts on the other side of the street or not, correct? Aller: Right. Aanenson: We don't have that information. Aller: Okay. Aanenson: I don't know if Krista knows off the top of her head. If there's more wetlands on the county side or not. Spreiter: I don't know. I can say that you know there has been other routes explored by the County. However this is the preferred route that they've come up with because of issues with alternate routes. Just you know I can't speak for, again I can't speak for the Carver County Parks Director. He would probably be the best one to contact regarding any of that information. Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: In looking at the request for Wetlands 8 and 22, some of those issues would be best 1, the amendment of the application so that you could put that in as an alternate route and mak those discussions so that the City Council can review that and look at that and I think that w make the application that much more complete and I think that's what we're requesting in o conditions. Jeff Olson: Sure, sure. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, we can beef up the discussion of alternati as to why. You know why we've selected the preferred alternative. Aller: Thank you. Karen Weathers: Can I make a comment or is it too late? Aller: I haven't closed it. You can step forward. State your name and. Karen Weathers: Real quick. Karen Weathers. I live in Highcrest and have been here 20 years. I remember some of the early conversations. The reason it is there is because of the embankment as I recall. You can verify but that's the only place feasible. The second thing, I think if you move it to the other side it doesn't feed where all the residents are. You know you'd only have one place. You have to go up by 7 to cross over and there's not much for residential feed the way the one flows now. So those are probably some of the considerations. Aller: Thank you. Okay, no one else stepping forward. I'm going to close the public hearing. Discussion by the commissioners. Commissioner Tennyson, what do you think? Tennyson: I'm a little concerned just being dropped into the middle of this, not having heard how it happened before. Just reading TEP panel recommendations tonight. I don't think I have any specific questions at this time. I guess I'd like to see what the rest of the commissioners think on this. Aller: Great, thanks. Commissioner Ellsworth: Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. I think that staff has done a very good job addressing the concerns that were raised and meeting the requirements for the various agencies and different rules and it appears to be well thought out and well put together. It is a park that I frequent probably twice a week. It's an awesome park and it's neat to see more access to it and I know the pavement issue's not a topic for tonight but I was surprised to hear that all the roads would be paved too. It is sloppy to drive in there sometimes but it's part of the character of the park for me but that's neither here nor there for tonight's conversation but, so I think it's well put together and all the issues that I had were, again were process related than necessarily the outcome. Aller: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: Yeah I too, I don't think I really have any, I didn't have any real questions for it. I just kind of, nice to see the updated motion for the additional stuff. That was really helpful and feel 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 like just looking at seeing what we can do for 8 and 22. Looks like it's well put together. We should be good. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: I have nothing. Undestad: No. Aller: Commissioner Hokkanen. Hokkanen: No, looks good. Aller: No further questions, okay. Then I'll entertain a motion if there is any. Undestad: I'll make a motion here. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to conditions 1 through 4. Thomas: I second that motion. Aller: Okay, having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. 3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011, prepared by SRF. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in Figure 4C in the Joint Notification Application prepared by SRF dated January 31, 2011. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aanenson: Thank you. Mr. Chair just want to remind you that this does go to the City Council on the 251h. Aller: Yes, so those individuals who wish to follow this should, because it's fast tracked, it'll be next Monday the 251h. Before the City Council in these chambers. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN BP: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BP CONVENIENCE STORE, CAR WASH AND GAS PUMP/CANOPY ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES (BH) AND LOCATED AT 7905 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: KHALED ALOUL, PLANNING CASE 2011-04. Aller: Before we get going on that I just wanted to state the following. That conflicts of interest questions are part of a larger due process scenario with the Planning Commission and every party before us is entitled to a fair hearing and decision free from any bias or favor and having a conflict of interest can threaten that impartiality. Therefore it's critical that we disclose conflicts. That they be identified and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Ellsworth has indicated that his neighbor's the applicant in the next matter before the Planning Commission. They are neighbors and had social dealings together. 14 ENGINEERS 161,�I PLANNERS D E S I G N E R S Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 7068 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the TEP, Army Corps FROM: Jeffrey Olson, Associate Scientist, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. DATE: April 15, 2011 SUBJECT: TH 41 UNDERPASS TRAIL; CARVER COUNTY Dear Members of the TEP, Army Corps, and Associated, The purpose of this Memorandum is to address comments that have been gathered from Members of the TEP and the Corps concerning the TH 41 Underpass Trail Project. This Memorandum will serve as a Permit Application Supplement. Table 1 presents comments and responses to comments. Figures 1-5 (attached) show "screen shots" of portions of the trail that impact wetlands and call -out boxes that demonstrate instances of wetland impact minimization (side slope steepening, trail profile lowering, and alignment adjustments) and illustrate points made in Table 1. Appendix A, relevant to Comment #7 in Table 1 below, shows proposed MnDOT seed mixes for trail clear zones and side slopes. Per Comment#4 in Table 1, below, we agree that impacts to Wetland #8 would likely be a total take given the small amount of wetland that would remain outside of the trail footprint. We have added 0.06 ac of wetland impact to Wetland #8. The following bulleted points summarize impacts and required mitigation as presented in the permit application - and as amended per this permit application supplement: • Permit Application mitigation 0.57 ac. • Revised Application mitigation 0.69 ac) (previously submitted): (per this supplement) Wetland Impacts 0.285 ac. Wetland impacts 0.345 ac www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 1S0 I Minneapolis, MN iS117-44/3 1 763.475.0010 Fax: 763.175.2129 An Equal Opportunity Employer Required Required SCANNED Nfembers of the TEP, Army Corps April 15, 2011 Table 1: Disposition of Comments: TH 41 Underpass Trail Project Comment Origin Comment Description Comment Response Comment 01: Please supply a purchase agreement for the wetland credits signed by both parties. At a minimum, a See comment below. We have identified 2 mitigation batiks in Major Watershed 20 and if withdrawal from one City of Chanhassen resolution passed by the County Commissioners or County Park Board. of these banks is acceptable to the TEP, will revise the purchase agreement and process the transaction. Comment #2: The purchase agreement for wetland credits states that the impacts and wetland bank to be drawn from We have explored on -site mitigation and opportunities within the City of Chanhassen - and have thus far found City of Chanhassen are in different major watersheds. The Board of Water and Soil Resources shows a minimum of eight nothing. We have explored mitigation opportunities in Major Watershed 20 (same Major Watershed as available wetland banks in the same major watershed. Please address the reason for not using these impacts). We found 2 banks that have available credits (Bank accounts #1346 and 1412). Both banks arc banks. located in Hennepin County, near the City of Medina. If one of these opportunities would be acceptable to the TEP - we will process a purchasc agreement for withdrawal of credits. Comment #3: Welland 5: This is a DNR Public Water. Please indicate the OHW relative to the fill being placed for The OHW at Wetland 05. per lack Gleason (DNR - Waters), is 995.8'. The elevation of the lowest watenward City of Chanhassen trail construction. construction limits arc 997'. The lowest waterward construction is thus 1.2 feet above the OIIW. See Figure 4 attached. Comment #4: Wetland 8: The proposed alignment goes directly through the center of the wetland. It is likely that We agree that Wetland #8 would likely be a total take given the small amount of wetland that would retrain City ofClanhassen this alignment will result in impacts beyond the immediate footprint of the trail. This should be direct footprint impacts. Footprint impacts arc 0.07 ac, total wetland size is 0.13 ac. Thus, we will report total reviewed and discussed. impacts of 0.13 ac for Welland #8 Comment #5: Welland 22: Given that this wetland is a flow through seep, bisecting the wetland with a trail has a Designers are matching the existing grade from about Sta. 149+00 to 151+00 - so there is no cut and only City of Chanhassen strong likelihood effecting hydrology and resulting in additional secondary impacts downstream. minimal rill in the vicinity of Welland #22. It should be noted that there will be a gravel base and bituminous Impacts to this wetland should be avoided either through realignment of the trail or the use of a raised (enough for positive drainage on the trail). There are currently no culverts proposed on the trail section which boardwalk. bisects Welland #22. There is a culvert around Sta. 148+50 (just southwest of Wetland #22). Wetland #22 is fed hydrologically by subsurface Bow from the hills to the cast underneath the Park gravel road. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed Trail (with no cut and very little fill) would affect sub -surface flow. One might think that construction of the Park gravel road would have cut olT hydrology to Wetland #22 - but it didn't because the source of hydrology is sub -surface. Comment #6: 1 would like to reiterate that 'wctland 5' is DNR Public Water Wetland 10-132W, and the Ordinary We agree that the work will not occur below the OIIW. Jack Gleason, Mnl)NR High Water Lgvcl (OHWL) of it is 995.8 ft. It appears as if the alignment and work required to construct the trail will not occur below the OIIWL. A retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to this wetland. Please be advised that if the retaining wall or associated fill is placed at or below the OHWL, a DNR Public Waters Work permit may be required. State rules do not allow placement of fill in Public Waters. The DNR Commissioner can waive this prohibition if a road or trail is proposed by a government agency, and the prohibition would prevent or restrict the project or create a major conflict with other public purposes or interest and there is no other feasible or practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact grlii the public need for the project rules out the no -build alternative. The County would have to provide compelling supporting documentation justifyingany such Public Water Work application. Comment #7: Regarding the trail along Lake Minnewashts, the trail may increase runoff volumes. We encourage the Clear zones and side slopes out to the limits of construction will be planted with MnDOT seed mixes and will Jack Gleason, MnDNR City to request storm water management BMPs, such as buffer strips, to help mitigate for the increase serve as buffer strips. Within the Park, MnDOT Seed Mix 350 (native mid to tallgrass prairie) will be used in in impervious surface coverage in the shorcland area in order to protect water quality. clear zones adjacent to the trail and on side slopes out to the limits of construction. Once vegetation is established, clear zones will be kept fairly short with periodic mowing. Side slopes will not be mowed. Trail clear zones and side slopes along TH 41 will be planted with MnDOT Seed Mix 250 (a hardy mix able to withstand harsh roadside conditions). Appendix A presents the composition of MnDOT Seed Mixes 250 and 350, Comment #8: Greg Graczyk, SWCD Wetland 20: It seems very possible to shift the trail to the south to avoid impacts. We have at times taken into consideration the preservation of desirable trees as a valid sequencing discussion point. Further documentation of this should be noted. As the members of the TEP mentioned during the delineation walk through, it would not be desirable to have to take down some mature open grown white and bur oaks trees in order to further minimize wetland impact at Wetland #20, given that Wetland #20 is currently a turf trail dominated mostly by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa ratemis). Comment #9: Wetland 22: If I remember correctly, this area was originally missed on the delineation and included Designers are matching the existing de from about Ste. 149+00 to 151+00 -- so there doesn't appear to be Members of the TEP, Army Corps Comment Origin Greg Oraczyk, SWCD Comment #10: Greg Groczyk, SWCD Comment #11: Ken Powell, BWSR Comment #12: Ken Powell, BWSR Comment #13: Ken Powell, BWSR Comment #14: Ken Powell, BWSR i-omment rsir Ken Powell, BWSR -3- of Comments: TFi 41 Underpass Trail Project Comment Description aficr our I EP review of the site. It appeared at the time of the review that this is a step type area. I I I am thinking of the correct area, 1 have some concerns of the functions of this area post construction. In particular tie downstream leg. Potentially some design details at this area may be helpful (subcut depth, base materials, compaction, etc, eta.) Weiland 8: The replacement plan should include some additional discussion as to why the use of Ches Mar Farm Road couldn't be used. There may have to be some filling ofTof the ditch off ilic road to get down to a more level grade but it appears the grade of nhc trail behind the houses (looking at contours) will put tic trail above tic designed nmximum of 8.33%. Once again it also appears that there may have to be a significant amount of desired free removal to utilize this route. This is understandable but should be discussed. Per previous TEP review and City approval, tic wetland boundaries are rro)ccl purpose ana ncca nas ocen aaequately tdcnulica. The no -build alternative explanation in the application is short on details. 1 would expect some discussion of the "master plan' or other documcm(s) that this project is in conformance with. There is a vague reference to "plans but nothing specific is discussed. In addition to the no -build alternative, WCA rules require a discussion of a second wctland avoidance alternative (not just any alternative). This should be an alternative that avoids wctland impacts. While this may not be entirely possible, 1 suspect that with some major rerouting and redesign that there is an alternative that would impact at (cast very little wctland. I also suspect that such an alternative probably creates problems related to park use, safety, costs, etc. Such a discussion should be part of the application and part of flit argument for the proposed plan. The application does not discuss any specific wctland avoidance and minimization measures Laken for areas where most of the impacts are proposed. For example, there is a fair amount of impact associated with Weiland 20 (Figure 4A). An obvious question would be why the trail cannot be shifted south to avoid or minimize wctland impact. For Weiland 8 (Figure 4D), there is no discussion of wlhy the trail continues through the middle of the wctland rather than go to either side. I assume there are issues with existing homes, etc., but this needs to be explained. Also, how was the impact tvough this wetland minimized? Was a boardwalk or bridge considered? Were the side slopes steepened and how April 15, 2011 Comment Response either cut or fill in the vicinity of Wetland #22. It should be noted that there will be a gravel base and bnuninhous (enough for positive drainage on the trail). There arc currently no culverts proposed on the trail section which bisects Weiland #22. There is a culvert around SLa. 148450 (just southwest of Wctland #22). Welland #22 is fed hydrologically by subsurface flow from the hills to the cast underneath die Park gravel road. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed Trail (with no cut and very little fill) would affect sub -surface flow. Originally, two alternatives were studied in the vicinity of Weiland #8. See Figure 5. Several factors were considered in choosing a preferred alternative, i.c., erodible soils, and the amount of tree removal. The preferred alternative was chosen because it limits potential impact to erodible soils in the valley between TII 41 and Ches- Mar Farts Road. Currently the valley has a severe gully erosion problem. Further, the other alternative (Figure 5) would have required a swath of forest approximately 30 feet wide (10 foot trail, 2 feet of clear zone on each side, and side slopes) to be removed. Given that Weiland #8 is completely dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris anutdinurea), an invasive species, it is the best decision minimize disturbances to erodible soils and Comment noted Trunk Ilighway 41, which is the eastern boundary of Lake Minncwashta Regional Park, forms a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists warning to access lire park. This high-speed 155 miles per hour limit) two-lane roadway carries 17,000 vehicles per day (2006 Mn/DOT volumes) past tic park. The high traffic volume does not afford frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians crossing, especially during peak hours. From 2006 to 2009, the park averaged 124,300 visitors per year, according to die Annual Use Estimate of the Metropolitan Regional Parks System for 2009. No pedesfrian/bicycic facilities presently link Lake Minncwasha Regional Park with the City of Chanhassen (City) and no safe pedestrian access to the park exists across TII 41. Potential conflicts between motorized and non -motorized travelers present a safely concern for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. A gap in the current trail network exists, isolating Lake Minncwasha Regional Park from population centers and otter natural amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without this project, neighborhood residents, campers at Camp Tanadoona, middle school students, and recreational visitors to the area will continue to access Lake Minncwoshta Regional Park via the only mode available, die automobile. lit addition, the existing trail network does not provide a connection between tie City of Chaska, located south of the project area, and Lake Minncwasha Regional Park. A trail on the west side of TII 41 was considered based on suggestions received during tie June3, 2010 public open house. The steep embankments and dissected topography along the west side of Til 41 likely would have avoided wcilnnd impacts. However, this option was investigated and dismissed from further consideration because the west side alignment would require two underpasses in locations with steep slopes and to extensive grading needed to install the culverts would cause impacts to utilities and would greatly increase project cost. Figures 1-5 show more details on instances of wctland impact avoidance and minimization. The comment above describes mature open grown oaks to the south of the proposed trail alignment in the vicinity of Wetland #20. Concerning Weiland #8 - we believe that wctland impacts to it could not be shifted to the north or south without increasing impacts to residences. As stated above, we believe that Weiland 48 will be a total Lake whether the trail goes through the middle of it or to tic side of it. Despite it being a total take, designers tried to minimize impacts to the extent practicable - side slopes of 1:3 were needed here. Slopes steeper than 1:3 would have required fencing along both sides of die trail - this was not an aesthetic that was desirable. Concerning the Members of the TEP, Anny Corps 4 April 15, 2011 Table l: Disposition of Comments: TH Q Underpass Trail Project Comment Origin Comment Description Comment Response choice between a boardwalk or bituminous trail over Weiland 118, the board walk would be approximately 15-20 times more expensive per linear foot than the bituminous. Thus, boardwalk would be cost prohibitive. Details ate as follows: • S 108,000 for a 12' x 145' helical supported boardwalk. • This same distance (145') for a 3" bituminous 10' wide trail over 6" of class 5 would be less than $5,0()0. Comment #16: 1 support the use of wetland bank credits lot the replacement, but I would note that technically the We have identified 2 mitigation banks in Major Watershed 20 and if withdrawal from one of these banks is Ken Powell, BWSR application is not complete unless it includes a signed (by both parties) purchase agreement or acceptable to the TEP, will revise the purchase agreement and process the transaction. application for withdrawal. That provides the evidence for the commitment to use said wetland bank for replacement. The application in my copy is not signed by either party. Comment #17: Mumcwashte Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not On April 13, 2011, Matt Meyer (SRF) discussed this with Ken Powell for clarification. Ken was referring to Ken Powell, BWSR require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. avoidance of impacts at Weiland N8. Comment #15 (above) address two alternatives that were discussed early in the olannina process - and the reasons that the prcferred alternative was chosen. JWO/MM Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s) Figure 1 Carver CountyTH 41 Underpass and Trail Project DWi •OHW = 944.5' •1:2 slopes •Profile lowered •Alignment adjusted Figure 2 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project •j� WW"11 304 ` *x Iry •1:2 slopes -Profile lowered •10' trail width with 2' clear zone on each side �. Per MnDOT Bikeway Manual Figure 3 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project i, •1:3 slopes •Profile lowered •1:2 slopes would require a fence on either side of the trail �1 ` I •'tom , Aam W-MON I 325 --- >. Figure 4 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project :: , rr •. -Retaining walls �:.. .h g •OHW = 995.8'-- "�'� *Lowest waterward r construction limits are 997' , \ 55 T.H.i41 f --fir �; ice^ .. •: � f t l a; s _ • ,c,a.aa°"- 7 :.�:F. '$iA�' r ity�l� � � � � � to � i :, '�• •ice • • *. :� }�:m � �.. •, � • �. {air' .. •• _'S�� �, � ( !Il f • �� � , � k, �r l���yJ ; � t i � Appendix A: Seed Mixes for Clear Zones and Side Slopes Mixture: 250 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Brome grass, smooth 11.0 9.8 14.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky " Certified Park" 22.7 20.3 29.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.0 9.8 14.0 Switch grass 2.4 2.1 3.0 Wheat -grass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Rye-grass, perennial 16.5 14.7 21.0 Timothy 2.4 2.1 3.0 Redtop 2.4 2.1 3.0 Alfalfa, creeping 4.7 4.2 6.0 White Clover 2.4 2.1 3.0 GRAND TOTALS: 78.6 70 100.0 For: General Roadside excluding sandy sites Mixture: 260 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha Ib/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky "Certified Park" 35.8 32 32.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.2 10 10.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 30.0 Fescue, hard 9.0 8 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.4 20 20.0 GRAND TOTALS: 112 100 100.0 For: Commercial Turf i Any accepted low maintenance Kentucky Bluegrass EXCEPT "Park" Mixture: 270 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component k ac lb/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky - Elite 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Improved 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 25.0 Red fescue, creeping 10.8 9.6 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.8 20.4 17.0 GRAND TOTALS: 134.4 120 100.0 For: Residential Turf Mixture: 340 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha ►b/ac Bluestem, big 3.3 3.0 21.5 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Grama, sideoats 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 0.6 0.5 4.0 Dropseed, sand 0.6 0.5 3.5 Bluegrass, Canada 3.4 3.0 21.5 June grass 0.6 0.5 3.5 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals: 78.3 70 100.0 Dry Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted for spring plantings Application: Native mix for Sandy/Dry areas. Mid -height Mixture: 350 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Bluestem, big 3.4 3.0 21.5 Indian grass 2.8 2.5 18.0 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Grama, sideoats 3.4 3.0 21.5 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 1.1 1.0 7.0 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals: 78.3 70 100.0 Mesic Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 1 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted forspring plantings plication: Native mix or general roadside areas. Ap 11 Ll19 1 E NGINEERS PLANNER S D E S I G N F R S Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 7068 11131 Diu (ll7:7_hl 11U13 TO: Members of the TEP, Army Corps FROM: Jeffrey Olson, Associate Scientist, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. DATE: April 15, 2011 SUBJECT: TH 41 UNDERPASS TRAIL; CARVER COUNTY Dear Members of the TEP, Army Corps, and Associated, The purpose of this Memorandum is to address comments that have been gathered from Members of the TEP and the Corps concerning the TH 41 Underpass Trail Project. This Memorandum will serve as a Permit Application Supplement. Table 1 presents comments and responses to comments. Figures 1-5 (attached) show "screen shots" of portions of the trail that impact wetlands and call -out boxes that demonstrate instances of wetland impact minimization (side slope steepening, trail profile lowering, and alignment adjustments) and illustrate points made in Table 1. Appendix A, relevant to Comment #7 in Table 1 below, shows proposed MnDOT seed mixes for trail clear zones and side slopes. Per Comment#4 in Table 1, below, we agree that impacts to Wetland #8 would likely be a total take given the small amount of wetland that would remain outside of the trail footprint. We have added 0.06 ac of wetland impact to Wetland #8. The following bulleted points summarize impacts and required mitigation as presented in the permit application - and as amended per this permit application supplement: • Permit Application mitigation 0.57 ac. • Revised Application mitigation 0.69 ac) (previously submitted): (per this supplement): Wetland Impacts 0.285 ac. Wetland impacts 0.345 ac. 11 ,0L8 t5c-- www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 1 763.475.0010 Fax.70.475.2429 An Equal Opportunity Employer Required Required Members 01 Taber le 1: 1) Ct11r1111C1 I Comment # 1: City of Chmilt Comment #2: City of Chanh Comment #J: City of Chanh Comment #4: City ofChanh Comment #S: City of Chanhi Comment N61 Jack Gleason, Comment #7: Jack Gleason, Comment N8: Grcg Graczyk, Comment #9: Members of the TEP, Anny Corps - } . %pril 15. 2011 6'1:' `Disposition of Comments: T1141 Underpass Trail Project liniment Origin _ Cumment Description_ Co in men I, Iles tse Oren Uniczyk, SWCD after our TEP review of the site. It appeared at the time of the review that this is a seep type area. If I I either cut or fill in the vicinity of -Wetland #22. It should be noted that there will be a gravel base and bituminous am thinking of the correct area, I have some concerns of the functions of this area post construction. (enough for positive drainage on the trail). There are currently no culverts proposed on the trail section which In particular the downstream leg. Potentially some design details at this area may be helpful (subcul bisects Wetland #22. There is a culvert around Sit. 148+50 (just southwest of Wetland #22). Welland #22 is depth, base materials, compaction, etc. etc.) fed hydrologically by subsurface flow from the hills to the cast underneath the Park gravel road. As such, it is =likely that the proposed Trail with no cut and very little fill would affect sub -surface flow. Comment 010: Wetland 8: The replacement plan should include some additional discussion as to why the use of Ches Originally, two alternatives were studied in the vicinity of Wetland #8. See Figure 5. Several factors were Orel; Graczyk, SWCD Mar Farm Road couldn't be used. There may have to be some filling off of the ditch off the road to considered in choosing a dlefe rcd alternative, i.e., erodible soils, and the amount of tree removal. The preferred get down to a more level grade but it appears the grade of the trail behind the houses (looking at alternative was chosen because it limits potential impact to erodible soils in the valley between TI1 41 and Ches- contours) will put the trail above the designed maximum of 8.33%. Once again it also appears that Mar Farm Road. Currently the valley has a severe gully erosion problem. Further, the other alternative (Figure dare may have to be a significant amount of desired tree removal to utilize this route. This is 5) would have required a swath of forest approximately 30 feet wide (10 foot trail, 2 feet of clear zone on each understandable but should be discussed. side, and side slopes) to be removed. Given that Wetland 008 is completely dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris amndinacea), an invasive species, it is the best decision minimize disturbances to erodible soils and mature upland forest. Comment #11: Per previous TEP review and City approval, the wetland boundaries are appropriate for review of the Comment noted Ken Powell, BWSR replacement plan. Comment #12: Project purpose and need has been adequately identified. Comment noted Ken Powell, BWSR Comment # 13: The no -build alternative explanation in the application is short on details. 1 would expect some Trunk Ilighway 41, which is the eastern boundary of Lake Minncwashta Regional Park, forms a barrier to Ken Powell, BWSR discussion of the "master plan" or other document(s) that this project is in conformance with. There is pedestrians and bicyclists wanting to access the park. This high-speed (55 miles per hour limit) two-lane a vague reference to "plans", but nothing specific is discussed. roadway carries 17,000 vehicles per day (2006 Mn/DOT volumes) past the park. The high traffic volume does not afford frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians crossing, especially during peak hours. From 2006 to 2009. the park averaged 124,300 visitors per year, according to the Annual Use Estimate of the Metropolitan Regional Parks System for 2009. No pedestrian/bicycle facilities presently link Lake Minnewashia Regional Park with the City of Chanhassen (City) and no safe pedestrian access to the park exists across TH 41. Potential conflicts between motorized and non -motorized travelers present a safety concern for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. A gap in the current trail network exists, isolating Lake Minnewashta Regional Park from population centers and other natural amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without this project, neighborhood residents, campers at Camp Tanadoona, middle school students, and recreational visitors to the area will continue to access Lake Minnewashta Regional Park via the only mode available, the automobile. In addition, the existing trail network does not provide a connection between the City of Chaska, located south of the project area, and Lake Minncwashta Regional Park. Comment #14: In addition to the no -build alternative, WCA rules require a discussion of a second wetland avoidance A trail on the west side of TII 41 was considered based on suggestions received during the Junc3, 2010 public alternative (not just any alternative). This should be an alternative that avoids wetland impacts. While open house. The steep embankments and dissected topography along the west side of TI1 41 likely would have Ken Powell, BWSR this may not be entirely possible, 1 suspect that with some major rerouting and redesign that there is an avoided wetland impacts. Ilowcver, this option was investigated and dismissed from further consideration alternative that would impact at least very little wetland. I also suspect that such an alternative because the west side alignment would require two underpasses in locations with steep slopes and the extensive probably creates problems related to park use, safety, costs, etc. Such a discussion should be part of grading needed to install the culverts would cause impacts to utilities and would greatly increase project cost. the application and part of the argument for the proposed plan. Comment #1 S: The application does not discuss any specific wetland avoidance and minimization measures taken for Figures 1-5 show more details on instances of wetland impact avoidance and minimization. The comment above Ken Powell, BWSR areas where most of the impacts are proposed. For example, there is a fair amount of impact associated describes mature open grown oaks to the south of the proposed trail alignment in the vicinity of Wetland #20. with Wetland 20 (Figure 4A). An obvious question would be why the trail cannot be shifted south to Concerning Welland #8 - we believe that wetland impacts to it could not be shifted to the north or south without avoid or minimize wetland impact. For Wetland 8 (Figure 4D), there is no discussion of why the trail increasing impacts to residences. As stated above, we believe that Wetland #8 will be a total take whether the continues through the middle of the wetland rather than go to either side. I assume there are issues trail goes through the middle of it or to the side of it. Despite it being a total take, designers tried to minimize with existing homes, etc., but this needs to be explained. Also, how was the impact through this impacts to the extent practicable - side slopes of 1:3 were needed here. Slopes steeper than 1:3 would have wetland minimized? Was a boardwalk or bridge considered? Were the side slopes steepened and how required fencing along both sides of the trail - this was not an aesthetic that was desirable. Concerning the Cable 1: Disposition of Comments: I'll 41 underpass TraiI Project Comment Origin -- Cotrtrnutt Description April 15, 2011 i Comment Response choice between a boardwalk or bituminous trail over Wetland 98, the board walk would be approximately 15-20 times more expensive per linear foot than the bituminous. Thus, boardwalk would be cost prohibitive. Details are as follows: • S108,000 for a 12' x 145' helical supported boardwalk. • This same distance (145') for a 3" bituminous 10' wide trail over 6" of class 5 would be less than $5,000. Comment #16: 1 support the use of wetland bank credits for the replacement, but I would note that technically the We have identified 2 mitigation banks in Major Watershed 20 and if withdrawal from one of these banks is Ken Powell, BWSR application is not complete unless it includes a signed (by both parties) purchase agreement or acceptable to the TEP, will revise the purchase agreement and process the transaction. application for withdrawal. That provides the evidence for the commitment to use said wetland bank for replacement. The application in my copy is not signed by either party. Comment #17: Minnewmhta Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not On April 13, 2011, Matt Meyer (SRF) discussed this with Ken Powell for clarification. Ken was referring to Ken Powell, BWSR require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. avoidance of impacts at Wetland #8. Comment #15 (above) address two alternatives that were discussed early in die Plannin¢ nrocess - and the reasons that the Preferred alternative was chosen. JWO/MM Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s) V Figure 1 Carver CountyTH 41 Underpass and Trail Project f -Alignment adjusted i •1:2 slopes I Profile lowered ` J V � f . � � I i w• 49rumnn nua . Ind \06, ". � ,. '�'�. y .. "`1� � ... ,:5 ^ ', .lY �ii .:,..YlikS.�i. `'.•'SIki�"'G"�.la�:.�411 Yl'lY.•.M.��.. 4,,..:7.,'�.... .i:::',m� Figure o Carver County r*mUnderpass and Trail Project - .�. '.r'` , ^1:2dupes -Profile lowered � ' ^DYt,ai|width with ^^ Zclear zone oneach side �' PerK4nD�T2Vkeway[Nanua| �'_ —'-- __—' —__ �� Figure 3 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project 4 / •1:3 slopes -Profile lowered , r; •1:2 slopes would require aI y . • 1 EMI ,� � ' fence on either side of the trail I MR I F-7 .,,—.�,,._„�„ - � , .fib.'"' ,� _ry:�?!t- •- i I-- _ � `>•1- -- • .J-' — — —'- — "L __ —�.•-r ..- �r F, � 1 - ' — -� ���'�Tl. t �r �•J - ....�w...�A r.4----ggjj �_. t"!'� .. 1 . 1[ Figure 4 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project T.N. 43 f r Trio i tJ 4 r"�J , iy w f ' ,b a• �' �r t rt�,� M O t t isTA r fi ,i r rv'✓'- H"'^' p .y �,i,�'. i[ t/. AWN S i t � � te' ,� r �' 1 �jr �'•RY� pGAZ f r' 4' Appendix A: Seed Mixes for Clear Zones and Side Slopes Mixture: 250 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha Ib/ac Brome grass, smooth 11.0 9.8 14.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky " Certified Park" 22.7 20.3 29.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.0 9.8 14.0 Switch grass 2.4 2.1 3.0 Wheat -grass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Rye-grass, perennial 16.5 14.7 21.0 Timothy 2.4 2.1 3.0 Redtop 2.4 2.1 3.0 Alfalfa, creeping 4.7 4.2 6.0 White Clover 2.4 2.1 3.0 GRAND TOTALS: 78.6 70 100.0 For: General Roadside excluding sandy sites Mixture: 260 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky "Certified Park" 35.8 32 32.0 Bluegrass, Canada 11.2 10 10.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 30.0 Fescue, hard 9.0 8 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.4 20 20.0 GRAND TOTALS: 112 100 100.0 For: Commercial Turf I Any accepted low maintenance Kentucky Bluegrass EXCEPT "Park". Mixture: 270 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component k ac Ib/ac Bluegrass, Kentucky - Elite 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Improved 33.6 30 25.0 Bluegrass, Kentucky - Low Maintenance 33.6 30 25.0 Red fescue, creeping 10.8 9.6 8.0 Rye-grass, perennial 22.8 1 20.4 17.0 GRAND TOTALS: 134.4 1 120 100.0 For: Residential Turf Mixture: 340 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Bluestem, big 3.3 3.0 21.5 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Grama, sideoats 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 0.6 0.5 4.0 Dropseed, sand 0.6 0.5 3.5 Bluegrass, Canada 3.4 3.0 21.5 June grass 0.6 0.5 3.5 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha Ib/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals: 78.3 70 100.0 Dry Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted for spring plantings Application. Native mix for Sandy/Dry areas. blid-height. Mixture: 350 Common Name PLS Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha Ib/ac Bluestem big 3.4 3.0 21.5 Indian grass 2.8 2.5 18.0 Bluestem, little 2.8 2.5 18.0 Grama, sideoats 3.4 3.0 21.5 Wild -rye, Canadian 2.2 2.0 14.0 Switch grass 1.1 1.0 7.0 Grass Totals: 15.7 14.0 100.0 Common Name Bulk Rate % of Mix Component kg/ha lb/ac Winter Wheat* 62.7 56.0 80.0 Rye-grass, annual 12.5 11.2 16.0 Wheatgrass, slender 3.1 2.8 4.0 Cover Crop Totals. 78.3 70 100.0 Mesic Forbs Mixture 0.6 0.5 100.0 GRAND TOTALS: 94.6 84.5 100.0 *Oats to be substituted forspring plantings Application: Native mix or general roadside areas. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.11-03 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Wetland Alteration Permit in conjunction with the construction of a paved 10-foot, off -road, multi -use trail within TH 41 right-of-way from Longacres Drive to TH 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park — TH 41 Trail & Underpass Project. Applicant: Carver County Parks. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/seg/plan/I 1-03.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician Email: kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1173 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 2011) SCANNED �NNESo''. Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Ede OrTPN 500rWesgCounty Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 April 4, 2011 Krista Spreiter City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project Mn/DOT Review 9 P 11-012 West side of TH 41, just south of Ches Mar Farm Rd. City of Chanhassen/Carver County Control Section 1008 Dear Ms. Spreiter: Thank you for submitting the TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project plans for Mn/DOT comments concerning the alteration of the wetland. Mn/DOT has reviewed the wetland delineation and permit and currently has no issues. Mn/DOT is though reviewing the more detailed construction plans, which were submitted to our state -aid section. Additional Mn/DOT comments may be made following review of the construction plans. For questions concerning water resources issues, please contact Derek Beauduy (651-234-7522) in Mn/DOT's Water Resources Section. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651-234- 7794). �f Sincer Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor CC: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, City of Chanhassen Copy sent via a -Mail: Krista Spreiter, kspreitet:@ci.clianhassen.mn.rrs Derek Beauduy, Water Resoures Nancy Jacobson, Design E.Buck Craig, Pennits Dmitiy Tomasevich, State Aid Dale Matti, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Nicole Peterson, Area Engineer William Goff, Planning Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council An equal opportunity employer SCANNED Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 30, 2011 Jeffrey Olson SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 RE: TEP Comments regarding WCA Replacement Plan Application for proposed T.H. 41Trail and Underpass Project Mr. Olson, After review of your application for wetland replacement as associated with the proposed T.H. 41 Trail and Underpass Project, the City of Chanhassen has the following comments: • Please supply a purchase agreement for the wetland credits signed by both parties. At a minimum, a resolution passed by the County Commissioners or County Park Board. • The purchase agreement for wetland credits states that the impacts and wetland bank to be drawn from are in different major watersheds. The Board of Water and Soil Resources shows a minimum of eight available wetland banks in the same major watershed. Please address the reason for not using these banks. • Wetland 5: This is a DNR Public Water. Please indicate the OHW relative to the fill being placed for trail construction. • Wetland 8: The proposed alignment goes directly through the center of the wetland. It is likely that this alignment will result in impacts beyond the immediate footprint of the trail. This should be reviewed and discussed. • Wetland 8: Do alternate alignments exist? Based upon the presentation at the public review process for the trail alignment, the original preferred alignment involved entering Lake Minnewashta Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. • Wetland 22: Given that this wetland is a flow through seep, bisecting the wetland with a trail has a strong likelihood effecting hydrology and resulting in additional secondary impacts downstream. Impacts to this wetland should be avoided either through realignment of the trail or the use of a raised boardwalk. In addition, the following TEP members have submitted the comments listed below: Jack Gleason, Department of Natural Resources: • 1 would like to reiterate that `wetland 5' is DNR Public Water Wetland 10-132W, and the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of it is 995.8 ft. It appears as if the alignment and work required to construct the trail will not occur below the OHWL. A retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to this wetland. Please be advised that if the retaining wall or associated fill is placed at or below the OHWL, a DNR Public Waters Work permit may be required. State SCANNED rules do not allow placement of fill in Public Waters. The DNR Commissioner can waive this prohibition if a road or trail is proposed by a government agency, and the prohibition would prevent or restrict the project or create a major conflict with other public purposes or interest and there is no other feasible or practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact and the public need for the project rules out the no -build alternative. The County would have to provide compelling supporting documentation justifying any such Public Water Work application. • Regarding the trail along Lake Minnewashta, the trail may increase runoff volumes. We encourage the City to request storm water management BMPs, such as buffer strips, to help mitigate for the increase in impervious surface coverage in the shoreland area in order to protect water quality. Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD: • Wetland 20: It seems very possible to shift the trail to the south to avoid impacts. We have at times taken into consideration the preservation of desirable trees as a valid sequencing discussion point. Further documentation of this should be noted. • Wetland 22: If I remember correctly, this area was originally missed on the delineation and included after our TEP review of the site. It appeared at the time of the review that this is a seep type area. If I am thinking of the correct area, I have some concerns of the functions of this area post construction. In particular the downstream leg. Potentially some design details at this area may be helpful (subcut depth, base materials, compaction, etc. etc.) • Wetland 8: The replacement plan should include some additional discussion as to why the use of Ches Mar Farm Road couldn't be used. There may have to be some filling off of the ditch off the road to get down to a more level grade but it appears the grade of the trail behind the houses (looking at contours) will put the trail above the designed maximum of 8.33%. Once again it also appears that there may have to be a significant amount of desired tree removal to utilize this route. This is understandable but should be discussed. Ken Powell, BWSR: • Per previous TEP review and City approval, the wetland boundaries are appropriate for review of the replacement plan. • Project purpose and need has been adequately identified. • The no -build alternative explanation in the application is short on details. I would expect some discussion of the "master plan" or other document(s) that this project is in conformance with. There is a vague reference to "plans", but nothing specific is discussed. • In addition to the no -build alternative, WCA rules require a discussion of a second wetland avoidance alternative (not just any alternative). This should be an alternative that avoids wetland impacts. While this may not be entirely possible, I suspect that with some major rerouting and redesign that there is an alternative that would impact at least very little wetland. I also suspect that such an alternative probably creates problems related to park use, safety, costs, etc. Such a discussion should be part of the application and part of the argument for the proposed plan. • The application does not discuss any specific wetland avoidance and minimization measures taken for areas where most of the impacts are proposed. For example, there is a fair amount of impact associated with Wetland 20 (Figure 4A). An obvious question would be why the trail cannot be shifted south to avoid or minimize wetland impact. For Wetland 8 (Figure 4D), there is no discussion of why the trail continues through the middle of the wetland rather than go to either side. I assume there are issues with existing homes, etc., but this needs to be explained. Also, how was the impact through this wetland minimized? Was a boardwalk or bridge considered? Were the side slopes steepened and how much? • I support the use of wetland bank credits for the replacement, but I would note that technically the application is not complete unless it includes a signed (by both parties) purchase agreement or application for withdrawal. That provides the evidence for the commitment to use said wetland bank for replacement. The application in my copy is not signed by either party. • Minnewashta Park north of the currently proposed alignment. This alignment into the park would not require any wetland impacts. Please discuss this alternative. Please respond to all comments and make any appropriate changes necessary to the application by April 151h, 2011. A decision will be made at the April 25, 2011 Chanhassen City Council Meeting and Public Hearing. If you have any questions or should require additional information please contact Terry Jeffery at 952.227.1168 or by E-mail: tiefferyPci.chanhassen.inn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Meuwissen, Kim From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:47 PM To: tod.sherman@dot. state. mn.us; 'ggrazcyk@co.carver.mn.us'; 'john.gleason@dnr.state. mn.us'; 'pmoline@co.carver.mn.us';'schristopher@minnehahacreek.org'; 'mvp-reg- inquiry@usace.army.mil' Cc: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Spreiter, Krista; Jeffery, Terry Subject: City of Chanhassen Referral Request for TH 41 Trail & Underpass Project Wetland Alteration Permit - Planning Case 2011-03 TO: Tod Sherman, MnDOT Greg Grazcyk, Carver Soil & Water Conservation District Jack Gleason, MN DNR, Metro Region Waters Paul Moline, Carver County Planning and Water Management Steve Christopher, Minnehaha Creek Watershed Army Corps of Engineers Referral Agencies: Chanhassen City code requires a Wetland Alteration Permit for any alteration of a wetland of any size or type not subject to an exemption under section 20-417 of Chanhassen City Code. The approval process for this permit requires review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits, in addition to, and regardless of, WCA regulatory procedures. These procedures require the following notification and referral process in which you have been included. The referral documents can be viewed on the City of Chanhassen's FTP site. To access the FTP site, please click on the following link and log in with the username and password listed below. ftp://67.217.224.16/ Username: FTP CHN_PLAN Password: Plan!8076 All of the documents are in PDF format and can be viewed with Adobe Reader. After review of the documents, please respond with any comments to Krista Spreiter at 952- 227-1173 or kspreiterC@ci.chanhassen.mn.us by April 1, 2011. If you have any questions or are experiencing difficulty accessing the documents on the City's FTP site, please feel free to contact me for assistance. SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: March 23, 2011 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: April 1, 2011 By: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician 952-227-1173 Subject: T.H. 41 Trail & Underpass Project — Request for Wetland Alteration Permit for proposed paved 1 Oft. off -road, multi -use trails project within the Right -of -Way along T.H. 41 from Longacres Drive to MN T.H. 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. Planning Case: 2011-3 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on March 17, 2011. The review period ends on June 21, 2011. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 1, 2011. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. I. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District - Greg Grazcyk 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services -Paul Moline 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek -Steve Christropher 9. Telephone Company (Qwest) 10. Electric Company (MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and TH 41 Trail and Underpass An underpass at TH 41 is planned to be installed for access into Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. When finished, the trail project will complete a mile -long segment from TH 41 to the beach in the park, and a one -and -a -half mile trail segment along the east side of TH 41, between Chaska Road and Longacres Drive. Additionally, the trail will connect to Minnetonka Middle School West and to area neighborhoods. Construction of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and TH 41 trail and underpass will consist of installing a box culvert underneath TH 41 and a 10-foot wide paved trail terminating at the beach facility located within the park, and a 10-foot wide paved trail on the east side of TH 41. These improvements will result in impacts to wetlands in the areas identified below (Also see the Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects). a * i O d.Y i 4 4aY. M ' Shorewood ^^„ MINNESOTA ! f wr.r�• IL*V�4 Carver Courrc4 . _ v r.✓ • +.ti o.rra r it 1 S r ect ocation ` x_s N- 0 �+.e wrar Lake Propos dPedestrian MinnewoShro Underpass �W.2 N-• ! i - a ER COU Viay�iass �n a � ors tip` �I r0 Low 7.0w O row+ee T.Y + ►roeoiM n,t,,,.,! wM t ••••••• a.ww� Tra/ " fte0d Am Cww Cmx y TH 41 Urdwpm o d Tad Rajiv! 1 1p 100M3o Carte c4urk tfn la 7:59AM Carver County Public Works CARVER COUNTY PARKS 11360 Highway 212 West, P.O. Box 330 Cologne, Minnesota 55322-0330 Phone (952) 466-5250 Fax (952) 466-5223 www.co.carver.mn.us/parks To: /% 5 k • �J � ,e , From: Martin Walsh Fax: J �Z — c� pZ 7 — l ( �t� Pages: Phone:952-466-5252 Date: Re: 04"I'do Qiv" . /`!ter/%G (., / cc, /-T Ptd 1,-6 -- f� No. 8154 P. 1 Division of Public Works 11360 H%vy. 212 West. P.O. Box 300 Colognq Mianesorr, 55322-0300 Phone (952) 466-5200 Pnx (952) 466-5223 p5quat MI orrujuryEmployer Primed on 30% Posr-Comumer Recycled Paper SCANNED IF iGar.18. 2011 8:OOAM Carver County PubIis Works No.8154 P. 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Carver County Parks 11360 Hipjhway 212 West Cologne, MN 55322 Contact: Martin Walsh Phone: 952-466-5252 Fax: Email: mwalsh co. carver. mn.us 1 I — 03 Planning Case No.1-- REV MAR 1<<o11 C17YOK-i,- : ASSEN Property Owners Name and Address: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P O Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Krista Spreiter: 952-22 11173 Carver County Parks 11360 Highway 212 West Colo�ne MN 55322 Martin Walsh: 952-466-5252 Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd St, Paul MN 55155-1899 cc�tt vicRride: 651-296-3000 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permlt (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development" Rezoning Sign Permits Slgn Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)• Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) X Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $_fees wgI k jp,�—T(� C- r An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be Invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plains must be submitted, including an 8°/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 03NNVOS V1ar. 18. 2011 8:OOAM Carver County P u b I is Works No. 8154 P. 3 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Alteration Permit for proposed T.H. 41 Trail & Underpass Project. LOCATION: Within Right -of -Way along T.H. 41 from Longacres Drive to MN T.H. 7 and within portions of Lake Minnewashta Park. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: See Attached TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, Planned Unit Development Residential, Single Family Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: Same PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Parks and Open Space Single Family Residential, Public Semi Public REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Same REASON FOR REQUEST: Construction of the Trail will impact wetlands, FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees and new employees: 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 Ordinanca provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deflciencles shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to thls application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study, The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. U 1>l iG-4� 3-1�-11 Signature of Appllcant Date Slgnqa�ture of Fe Owner Date g:\p1an\2011 planning cases\1 1-03 th 41 (tall & underpass wetland alteration permiddevelopment review a ppIication. daex 0 CITY OF CHANAASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard March 17, 2011 PO Box 147 Mr. Martin Walsh Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver County Parks 11360 Highway 212 West Cologne, MN 55322 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.111 a Re: Planning Case No. 11-03: Wetland Alteration Permit for TH 41 Trail and Underpass Extension Building Inspections Phone' 952.227,1180 Dear Mr. Walsh: Fax: 952.227.1190 The City will be unable to meet the 60 day review deadline of the original Engineering submittal (April 22, 2011). This letter is to formally notify you that the City is Phone: 952.227.1160 taking the additional 60 day extension to process this request as permitted under Fax:952.227.1170 MN STAT. 15.99. Finance Phone:952.227.1140 This application has been scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission Fax:952,227.1110 on April 19, 2011. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1173 or e-mail kspreiter&ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Park &Recreation Phone:952,227.1120 Sincerely, Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: Fax: 952.227.1404 � —, L Krista Spreiter Planning & Natural Resources Natural Resources Technician Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 c: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952,227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us \\cfsl\cfsl\shared_data\plan\101 I planning cases\11-03 th 41 trail & underpass wetland alteration permit\extension.doc Chanhassen is a Community for life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Noble Rd 0 ¢ o m A 3 c C = n 3 0 � N wa Rd N ESOTA Ca Carver County O Lake Minnewashto yr o 3 A n N SmithTown Rd Gillette C' s V 3 A u a 'm Eclf u o Rd o �f O Shorewood yellowstone it e a gHood Dc a P v MNTH 7 mouth Dr �shr�; a orchard�a eaY Rd �h� y SandP�P Project Location West Parking S Proposed Pedestrian Underpass Lake Minne\vasnta Regional Park `b Academy Avel Park St Fa 3 M-3S4 L dl St c x ka west [ School le "-- Proposed Retaining Walls pd <y \ 4P hd C M-588 ac p` ;' DER COUNTY tanadoona D. `y LL �D a � Z V C \ongacrc'p' GUnt\in Chanhass� � D .t m hunter D� Qa�c � or U Tr Bin ker St 0 1,000 2,000 O Proposed Trail Alignment Proposed Retaining Wall ■■■■■■r Existing Trail Feet Project Area Figure 1 Carver County TH 41 Underpass and Trail Project SP 10-090-30 Carver County, Minnesota SCANNED Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Carver County TH 41 Underpass Trail Application Number 11/18/2010 2010-02 Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan 1 echnical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (it ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: November 18, 2010 ®Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): The City of Chanhassen has reviewed the delineation report prepared and provided by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Sixteen wetlands were originally delineated and identified as wetlands on site, as a part of this report. After the TEP reviewed the delineation, three of these originally identified wetlands were confirmed by the TEP to be stormwater ponds constructed in wetlands, and redefined as `areas', and not within the scope of the Wetland Conservation Act. One of the remaining 13 identified wetlands was also later demarcated as two cells; the northernmost cell confirmed as wetland, and the southern cell identified as a stormwater pond constructed in uplands. As the LGU responsible for administration of Minnesota R. 8420, we concur with the delineated boundaries as shown and described within the report. As LGU, we concur with the wetland types identified in section 5.0 of the wetland delineation report submitted by SRF dated November of 2010 and given the project number: SRI #: 7060'. This concludes our review, and the delineation is to be considered approved. The City does require that all delineated boundaries be submitted as an electronic file in either *.slip or *.dwg format. This review applies only to that area defined by a potential trail corridor and is not intended to imply that this is the full extent of wetland within Carver Park. SCANNED BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 1 of For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: ❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name I Title Terry Jeffery Water Resources Coordinator Date Phone Number and E-mail 11/18/2010 1 952-227-1168 Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: LJ Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send LJ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $ fee (if applicable) to: petition and $500 filing fee to: Executive Director Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 2 of 3 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Greg Graczyk ® BWSR TEP member: Ken Powell ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP member: John "Jack" Gleason ❑ DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) ® WD or WMO (if applicable): Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ® WD or WMO (if applicable): Riley -Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District ❑ Applicant and Landowner (if different) ® Members of the public who requested notice: Jeffrey Olson, SRF Consulting Martin Walsh, Parks Director, Carver County Parks and Recreation ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan decisions 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.udf ➢ Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 Bemidji, MN 56601 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: httl2://files.dnr.state.nin.us/aboutdnr/dnr-regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www.myp.usace.g=.miUregulatoa/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: ® Figures 2A — 3B of SRF Report ® Section 5.0, Table 3 of SRF Report BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 3 of 3 Noble Rd 3 WRd Rose o �° c pa4 Sr cc 3 ° v a ° t RdN 6 J Sn.,ithtOwn Rd A Gi{lette C' Smithtown U1 Echo Rd 3 3 010 Academy Ave O Shorewood Parkst MINNESOTA a � r � d A f A N 0 Yellowstone Tr p 1 o wlea O tE Carver County �P ,...'�\ lyaSh . pcchacd la r ae ay M•354 Rd Minnet ka West Middlf school Project Location t� Proposed West Parking � /Retaining Walls Lake Proposed Pedestrian Minnewashto Underpass Lake Minnewasht,i o y 'Regional Park oR a M-5a6 � E pt LL �� A s u t V e�ER COUNTY 7anad0ona pr t Ou�itn�� Chary%'bass 9 a m "rune` 0 �Occ.L. 4^ �� lr I 0 1,000 2,000 O Proposed Trail Alignment �� Proposed Retaining Wall Existing Trail � Feet Project Area Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project SP 10-090-30 Carver County, Minnesota Figure 1 mi Delineated Wetland Boundary - Figure 2A Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver CourNy, Mnneuma ®Delineated Wetland Boundary Figure 2B Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Courvy, Mnnesm ® Delineated Wetland Boundary _ Figure 3A Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver County, Minnesda ® Delineated Wetland Boundary —Figure 3B Carver County TH41 Underpass and Trail Project Carver Courxy. Mmewa 5.0 Conclusions We conclude that during the field delineation effort conditions were on the wet side of normal based on analysis of three months of antecedent precipitation data and longer data sets (-180 days antecedent). Table 3, below, summarizes our assertions concerning potential jurisdiction of WCA, DNR (Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands), and the Army Corps (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Confirmed jurisdictions will be verified during the permitting process. Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) W-1 See "Area A" -- -- -- -- - below. W-2 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 1L/ (hydrologically PF01A and connected to PEMA/ W-9 and Floodplain ultimately to Forest and Lake Seasonally Minnewashta Flooded Basin) via surface water conveyances) W-3 No (isolated No No (ditch Yes -- hydrologically, constructed in ditch uplands) constructed in uplands) W-4 No (isolated No Yes(northern Yes (Type 3/PEMC/ hydrologically) cell); No Shallow (southern cell - Marsh) stormpond constructed in uplands) W-5 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes (Type 6/ small body of OHW elevation PSS1C/ Shrub- open water) of 995.8 feet Carr) (NGVD 1929) W-6 No (stormpond No No (stormpond Yes -- constructed in constructed in uplands) uplands) W-7 No (isolated No Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 16 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 11- and hydrologically) 2/ PF01A and PEMB/ Floodplain Forest and Wet Meadow) W-8 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-9 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 6/ (hydrologically PSS1A/ Shrub- connected to Carr) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-10 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB/ Wet Meadow) W-11 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ (hydrologically PEMB/ Wet connected to Meadow) Lake Minnewashta via surface water conveyances) W-12 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) W-13 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 2/ hydrologically) PEMB? Wet Meadow) W-20 Yes (fringe of Yes, below Yes Yes TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 17 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) (Type 1L and Lake OHW elevation 1/ PF01A and Minnewashta) of 944.5 feet PEMA/ (NGVD 1929) Floodplain Forest and Seasonally flooded basin) W-21 No (isolated No Yes Yes (Type 6/ hydrologically) PSS1C/ Shrub - Carr) W-22 Yes No Yes Yes (Type 2/ PEMB/ wet meadow) Area A No (ditch No No (created in No -- created in uplands) uplands) Area B No (ditch No No (created in No -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area C No (ditch No No (created in No -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area D No (ditch No No (created in No -- - created in uplands)s uplands) Area E No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area F No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area G No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) Area H No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- - created in uplands) uplands) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 18 Table 3 Summary of Potential Jurisdiction and Impacts for "Delineated Wetlands" and "Areas" Wetland # Likely Corps DNR Within Scope Meets criteria Wetland (Wetland Jurisdictional? Jurisdiction? of WCA? for 3 wetland footprint Type*) (Assumes Final parameters? Impacts (ac) Corps Jurisdictional Determination) Area I No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area J No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) Area K No (ditch No No (created in Yes -- -- created in uplands) uplands) * Wetland Type: (Circular 39/ Cowardin/ Eggers and Reed) TH 41 Underpass Trail Page 19 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application Local Government Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd., PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Carver County Parks and LakeviewTH 41 Underpass Application Number Recreation Trail 11/18/2010 2010-04 Type of Application (check all that apply): ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Summary and descrintion of monosed nroiect (attach additional sheets as necessa SRF Consulting Group at the direction of Carver County Parks and Recreation, has performed a wetland determination and boundary delineation for a property located in Chanhassen, MN. This review evaluated 27 potential wetland areas. Of these areas 13 were identified as wetland and the boundary was defined and delineated. The study area includes the west right-of-way for MN T.H. from Longacres Drive to MN T.H. 7 and portions of Lake Minnewashta Park. 2. APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Comments must be received by (minimum 15 Terrance Jeffery, WDC business -day comment period): Water Resources Coordinator 12/13/2010 Address (if different than LGU) Date, time, and location of decision: 12/13/2010 4:30PM Chanhassen City Offices Phone Number and E-mail Address Decision -maker for this application: 952.227.1168 ® Staff tjeffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us ❑ Governing Board or Council Signature: Da.e: Na.4 az. zo,o SCANNED BWSR Forms 7- - Page 1 of 2 1. Project/Site Information Project/Site Name: TH 41 Underpass Trail Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen Location (address and/or T, R, Sec.): T116N R23W Section 4, Section 9, Section 3, Section 5 2. Applicant Information Applicant Name: Mr. Martin Walsh, Parks Director Carver County Parks and Recreation Address: 11360 Hwy 212, Suite 2 City, State, Zip: • Chaska, MN 55318 E-mail: mwalsh@co.carver.mn.us Phone: 952 466-5252 3. Agent/Consultant Information Company Name (if applicable): SRF Consulting Group Address: One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 E-mail: jolson@srfconsulting.com Contact Person: Jeffrey W. Olson City, State, Zip: Plymouth, MN 55447 - 4443 Phone: 763 475 2429 4. Description of Request Check all that apply: 0 Wetland Boundary (must attach wetland delineation report) (]Wetland Type (Eggers & Reed and/or Circular 39 type) 5. Signature By signature below, the applicant requests a determination from the Local Government Unit under Minnesota Rules 8420.0225 on the submitted wetland boundary and type information in this application. The applicant also affirms that they are the owner of the subject property or have permission from the landowner to pursue this determination. H(�7 November 18 2010 Applicant or Authorized Agent Signature Date Important Notes: • The applicant may be required to submit multiple copies of the report/information to the LGU. The LGI 1 may require the applicant to submit copies directly to Technical Evaluation Panel Members. Check with your LGU regarding their submittal requirements. • The LGU decision must be made in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99. For LGU use only Date Received: ram. 3,2u�o 2 Page 1 of 1 BWSR Wetland Boundary/Type Application Form 11/10/08 3. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Greg Grazcyk ® BWSR TEP member: Ken Powell ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP member: John Gleason ❑ DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable): ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): Carver County Parks and Recreation ❑ Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only) Michael Setering ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only) 4. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/contact/WCA—areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.ndf ➢De artment of Natural Resources Re ional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Bemidji, MN 56601 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: hn://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr reatons.odt ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www myp usace army miUregulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 5. ATTACHMENTS In additiur, to the application, list any other attachments: ® MN WCA Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary ® Wetland Delineation Report prepared by SRF, dated November, 2010 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 2 1. Project/Site Information Project/Site Name: TH 41 Underpass Trail Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen Location (address and/or T, R, Sec.): T116N R23W Section 4, Section 9, Section 3, Section 5 2. Applicant Information Applicant Name: Mr. Martin Walsh, Parks Director Carver County Parks and Recreation Address: 11360 Hwy 212, Suite 2 City, State, Zip: • Chaska, MN 55318 E-mail: mwalsh@co.carver.mn.us Phone: 952 466-5252 3. Agent/Consultant Information Company Name (if applicable): SRF Consulting Group Address: One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 E-mail: jolson@srfconsulting.com Contact Person: Jeffrey W. Olson City, State, Zip: Plymouth, MN 55447 - 4443 Phone: 763 475 2429 4. Description of Request Check all that apply: I] Wetland Boundary (must attach wetland delineation report) OWetland Type (Eggers & Reed and/or Circular 39 type) 5. Signature By signature below, the applicant requests a determination from the Local Government Unit under Minnesota Rules 8420.0225 on the submitted wetland boundary and type information in this application. The applicant also affirms that they are the owner of the subject property or have permission from the landowner to pursue this determination. H�7 November 18, 2010 Applicant or Authorized Agent Signature Date Important Notes: • The applicant may be required to submit multiple copies of the report/information to the LGU. The LGU may requin- the applicant to submit copies directly to Technical Evaluation Panel Members. Check with your LGU regarding their submittal requirements. The LGU decision must be made in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99. For LGU use only Date Received: Page 1 of 1 BWSR Wetland Boundary/Type Application Form 11/10/08 SCANNED