The URL can be used to link to this page

Appendix 2 Wetland Permit ApplicationChanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 50 APPENDIX 2—WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION: AVIENDA Report is available and will be provided upon request Avienda A Healthy Way of Life Village City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application Prepared for Level 7 Development, LLC by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2015-130) January 12, 2017 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................1 2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need ......................................................1 2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined ..................................................................1 2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need ........................2 2.4 Geographic Area of Review .................................................................................3 3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS ..........................................................................3 3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements ..........3 3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination ..................5 3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination .....................................................6 3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ..................8 3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ...........................................................10 4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................11 4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas ..........................................12 4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics .............................................12 4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths ..................................................14 5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................15 5.1 Project Goals and Requirements ........................................................................15 5.2 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................17 5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative ............................................................17 5.4 Minimization Alternative ...................................................................................20 5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project ..............................................................21 5.6 Proposed Project Impacts ...................................................................................23 5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization ...........................................................................24 5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification .............................................................................24 5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time ......................................24 5.10 Sequencing Flexibility ......................................................................................24 6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN ......................................................................25 6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement .........................................25 6.2 Replacement Plan Overview ..............................................................................26 6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit .................................................................................27 7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................28 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................29 FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Wetland Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas TABLES 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage 2. Alternative Sites Comparison Matrix for Practicability Determination 3. Environmental Factor Matrix for LEDPA Determination 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands 5. MnRAM Summary 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered 7. Net Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered 8. Wetland Impact Summary 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement APPENDICES A. Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Alternative Sites Analysis Figures C. Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision D. Wetland Delineation Addendum E. Historic Photos and Topographic Maps F. MnRAM Analysis Output Results G. Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans H. Grading Plan I. Rare Species Information 1 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application 1. PROJECT SUMMARY Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre site in the City of Chanhassen as Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments to service an existing trade area population of more than 400,000 residents within and surrounding the City of Chanhassen. As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Approximately 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway will also be impacted with project grading. Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. The following narrative describes the Project Purpose and Need and provides an alternatives analysis addressing practicability, and LEDPA identification including an assessment of site alternatives, a description of the proposed project, a wetland sequencing discussion, and a proposed wetland replacement plan. Figures and appendices referenced are attached. The Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota is included as Appendix A. 2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need To provide a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City of Chanhassen that will meet local and regional demand and need for the provided uses and implement the City’s vision and intent for property based on the current land use guidance plan. 2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined Mixed use lifestyle centers are developed as a single cohesive project that provide a variety of uses/services to the local and regional population within a thoughtfully designed and meaningful layout that is largely walkable. A well thought out, integrated plan with complementary and Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 2 supporting uses that meets local and regional market demands is the driving factor for project viability. A project is typically considered mixed use if it has two or more uses that are both meaningful in scale and well thought out as independent parts. A viable project must have a centrally located retail hub (specialty shopping and restaurants) that creates consumer draw with immediately surrounding uses of anchor retail, support retail, office, and residential. The mix of complementing uses and users is critical to create the synergy for sustained activity (i.e., businesses to support daytime use, residential to support evening use; destination shopping and hospitality to support weekend/seasonal use) for project viability. The formula for percentages allocated to each use always includes retail as the anchor in a mixed use development as it creates the overall energy of the project and attracts outside visitors. The percentages/acreages of each use within the proposed project are dictated by local demand factors. With the exception of larger format retail and offices on the periphery where the user is more likely to drive, all other multiple uses/components must be in an inviting, walkable environment so as to contribute to the overall diversity and viability of the project. This includes communities where residents of an apartment building are able to walk to the retail and restaurant components. 2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need The City of Chanhassen (Carver County, Minnesota) is located in a rapid growth area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro Area (Figure A – Appendix B). By the year 2008, the City was 65% developed, and is expected to be fully developed by 2030. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, and the influx of younger and middle-aged individuals and families, the City will experience steady growth in the coming years resulting in continued demand for housing for all stages of life as well as support services such as retail, restaurants, office, medical, and hospitality. The City completed the “Chanhassen Retail, Office, and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential” dated June 2006 to evaluate the effect of new retail commercial development within the City and found that the existing Central Business District (i.e., “Downtown Chanhassen”) (Figure A) would “remain healthy even with the additional commercial and office opportunities provided outside of the downtown core, including a lifestyle center”. The need for a mixed-use Regional/Lifestyle Center (i.e., a mixed-use development) project within the City of Chanhassen was first identified with the adoption of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, which included updated development information, including the new Trunk Highway 212 (TH 212) corridor. Market studies were also initiated by the City and others to verify consumer support for the identified need. Market studies conducted by McComb Group, Ltd. in 2006 for the City and in 2014 for Level 7 Development detail existing unmet demand for the proposed development services and further support the need for the proposed development as the population of the City Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 3 of Chanhassen and neighboring rural areas continues to grow. Specific to supporting the need for a mixed-use development, the studies found that “the existing trade area economic attributes, population, and upper income households would provide support for retail stores, restaurants, and key services and that the need for these services will only grow as the population within the City and surrounding area grows”. 2.4 Geographic Area of Review The City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center within the City limits to service the existing and rapidly increasing population within this overall rapid growth, yet underserved, area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro. Undeveloped sites outside the City of Chanhassen were not explored for project feasibility or practicability as they failed to meet the stated Project Purpose and Need. Cities to the north and east are already highly developed with little to no large-tracts of appropriate, undeveloped land remaining. Cities to the west and south have yet to demonstrate the need or market support for the proposed project. The defined geographic area of the City of Chanhassen for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center is therefore appropriate and consistent with local planning and need. 3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS Alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were explored for their potential practicability to meet project goals and requirements, and to verify that the Proposed Site and design represent the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements According to Section 2.7.4 of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the definition/vision for the “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial” is as follows: “A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system.” Specific standards and guidelines identified by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance drive the need for services/uses, project scale, and end layout of the proposed project. These guidelines require: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 4  Inclusion of medium and high-density residential components of which the location should provide a visual transition from adjacent offsite single-family homes to onsite commercial uses. Onsite housing density will help the City achieve its goal of providing a variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle and is a PUD requirement.  Inclusion of retail/medical/professional/entertainment/hospitality space to provide a self-sustaining pattern of land use (i.e., businesses to support daytime commercial/use, residential to support evening commercial/use; destination entertainment to support weekend/seasonal commercial/use). Inclusion of the proposed range of services will help the City achieve its goal of providing regional shopping/medical/etc. options for existing and new residents in an underserved area of the City and southwest Twin Cities metro area while complementing existing Chanhassen businesses.  A site design/layout that includes a pattern of buildings orientated around a centrally located promenade that connects to existing intersections (i.e., a retail hub) and includes a comprehensive traffic circulation system. A centrally located retail hub that is immediately adjacent to, and within walking distances from housing, medical/professional, and entertainment/hospitality will provide project synergy and will be the key factor for project viability.  Property/project that is under single ownership and developed under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Single ownership will allow the project to be designed with one theme/architectural style and a coordinated landscaping plan, which will result in a timeless character and enhance the pedestrian experience. A thoughtfully planned, cohesive development is required to meet both the City’s and the developer’s visions for the site. In order to meet the City’s vision for the site and generate a viable project, the selected site must include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area based on the following use acreages detailed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage Required Component (Service/Use) Minimum Acres Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 High Density Residential (approximately 300 units) 12 Medium Density Residential (approximately 55 units) 6 Stormwater Treatment Varies with site Roadways (circulating traffic system plus collector streets) 13 Total 90 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 5 Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. 3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination In order to evaluate alternative sites (offsite locations) for practicability, project specific site selection screening criteria that would meet the stated Project Purpose and Need for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center in Chanhassen that meets the City’s vision were first defined and are listed below.  Final site boundary comprised of a single parcel or conglomeration of available parcels that are wholly or partially within the City of Chanhassen and that is/are: (1) primarily undeveloped, or (2) shown on the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory Map. Mixed-use projects require large, open (undeveloped) land to lessen site restrictions and allow for a cohesive project to be carefully designed. Undeveloped land within the City Chanhassen zoned for public/semi-public use (e.g., Minnesota Landscape Arboretum) was excluded from the analysis. Undeveloped land located primarily within a shoreland zone (e.g., land surrounding Lake Ann and Lake Lucy) was excluded from the analysis due to shoreland restrictions on site density and impervious surface coverage which are not compatible with the proposed high density uses.  Tract of contiguous land 90+ acres in size. As described previously, in order to provide the City-required services/uses and generate a viable project, the selected site needs to include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area.  Located within one-half mile of the intersection of a 4-lane highway/freeway and an existing arterial road. To allow services to be conveniently accessed the project must be located near a highway/freeway interchange. A distance of one-half mile from an interchange to the site is the maximum allowable distance for a viable project: (1) meeting traffic requirements, and (2) creating project visibility.  Accessible from at least two locations via existing arterial roads, and with potential for internal connections to existing (or potential future) collector streets. Arterial road connections allow for adequate site service/capacity from the surrounding area, while collector streets supplement internal flow. Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan: “Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect the central business districts of the two central cities with each other and with other regional business concentrations in the metropolitan area. These roads also connect the Twin Cities with important locations outside the metropolitan area.” Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 6 “Collector streets are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighborhoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads.”  Consistent with City planning and zoning efforts (or with the ability to be rezoned), and compatible with density/impervious restrictions. Land use designations are fixed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and are rarely revised on a project by project basis. Rezoning requires City Council approval followed by an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable environmental documents (e.g., AUAR). Because of the high density and high impervious cover associated with mixed-use regional lifestyle center developments, the site should lack significant shoreland area which restricts site density and impervious surface coverage. A project area that is generally square/rectangular in shape. A rectangular/square shaped boundary is required for providing a viably designed plan that flows between uses and amenities within walkable distances. Odd shaped parcels divide/segregate the project, isolate uses, and discourage or impede site walkability due to transportation or other barriers, and lengthened walking distances. 3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination Potential alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were identified by reviewing aerial photography, a city basemap, the city Land Use Plan map, the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory map, and the City Road Classification map. Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated for practicability using the project specific site selection screening criteria described previously. The following paragraphs provide a summary of each site’s ability to meet the site screening criteria. Table 2 on the following page provides a condensed summary of the practicability determination, and for reference:  Figure B – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on an aerial photograph.  Figure C – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on a map of the City of Chanhassen.  Figure D – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen Land Use map.  Figure E – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City Available Land Inventory map.  Figure F – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen City Road Classification map. Alternative Site 1 (Figure G) is 58 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to but cannot be accessed from Trunk Highway (TH) 5 (arterial road), but has the potential for site access via two collector streets (Audubon Road and Coulter Blvd). The site is Pr a c t i c a - b i l i t y Ca t e g o r y Fa c t o r / S c r e e n A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 1 ( F i g u r e G ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 2 ( F i g u r e H ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 3 ( F i g u r e I ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 4 ( F i g u r e J ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 5 ( F i g u r e K ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 6 ( F i g u r e L ) P r o p osed Site (A pp licant's Preferred Project Site) - Figure M Ye s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Ow n e r s 1 B u s i n e s s P a r t n e r s & 1 c h a r i t y la n d o w n e r 1 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r 3 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s 2 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s 1 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r 1 A s s o c i a t i o n l a n d o w n e r ( p r i v a t e developed land, with potential for redevelopment)1 private landowner No N o N o N o Y e s Y e s Y e s To t a l p a r c e l P a r c e l = 5 8 a c P a r c e l = 5 0 a c P a r c e l = 7 0 a c P a r c e l = 4 0 a c P a r c e l = 1 1 7 a c P a r c e l = 2 2 6 . 5 a c P a r c e l = 1 1 6 a c We t l a n d s a n d Ot h e r W a t e r s We t l a n d s = 2 . 1 5 a c ; W a t e r w a y s 1 = 1, 5 2 5 f t We t l a n d s = 2 . 3 5 a c ; W a t e r w a y s = 1, 7 7 0 f t We t l a n d s = 1 3 . 8 4 ; W a t e r w a y s = 1, 1 0 0 f t We t l a n d s = 1 1 . 7 5 a c ; D N R Wa t e r c o u r s e 1 = 8 3 0 f t We t l a n d s = 3 7 . 2 3 a c W e t l a n d s = 3 . 3 1 ; D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = 3,565 ftWetlands = 5.65; Waterways = 383.5-ft & 331-ft Ye s N o N o N o Y e s Y e s Y e s In t e r c h a n g e di s t a n c e , r o a d w a y co n n e c t i o n s , vi s i b i l i t y . Ad j a c e n t t o T r u n k H i g h w a y ( T H ) 5 in t e r c h a n g e , b u t n o d i r e c t a c c e s s v i a ar t e r i a l r o a d . S i t e a c c e s s v i a t w o co l l e c t o r r o a d s . V i s i b l e . 1 m i l e t o T H 5 , 1 . 7 5 m i l e s t o T H 2 1 2 . On e p o t e n t i a l s i t e a c c e s s p o i n t v i a ar t e r i a l i n t e r s e c t i o n , n o c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n s . N o t v i s i b l e . 1 m i l e t o T H 2 1 2 , 1 . 5 m i l e s t o T H 5. S i t e a c c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l ro a d s , a n d o n e c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n . N o t v i s i b l e . Ad j a c e n t t o T H 2 1 2 i n t e r c h a n g e . Si t e a c c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l r o a d s , no c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t c o n n e c t i o n s . Vi s i b l e . Ad j a c e n t t o T H 2 1 2 i n t e r c h a n g e . S i t e ac c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l r o a d s . L o w po t e n t i a l f o r f u t u r e c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n . M i n i m a l l y v i s i b l e . ~0.5 mile to TH 212 interchange. Site access via on arterial road. Low potential for future collector street connections. Minimally visible.Adjacent to TH 212 interchange. Site access via two arterial roads, and two future collector streets. Visible. No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; Y e s (l a c k s s h o r e l a n d ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; N o (s h o r e l a n d i s p r e s e n t ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; No ( s h o r e l a n d i s p r e s e n t ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / re s i d e n t i a l ) ; N o ( s h o r e l a n d i s pr e s e n t ) Ye s 3 ( N o - b u t h a s l o w p o t e n t i a l t o be c h a n g e d ) ; Y e s ( l a c k s s h o r e l a n d ) Yes 3 (No - but has low potential to b e changed); Yes (sufficient buildable area even with significant shoreland)Yes; Yes (lacks shoreland) Of f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l O f f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w. r . t . s h o r e l a n d . Of f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w. r . t . s h o r e l a n d . Of f i c e . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w . r . t . sh o r e l a n d . Re s i d e n t i a l L o w D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l L o w D e n s i t y D u a l g u i d e d f o r O f f i c e o r R e g i o n a l Commercial/Lifestyle Center Ye s N o Y e s N o Y e s Y e s Y e s Re c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . T r i a n g u l a r s h a p e O n e s q u a r e n o r t h a r e a , a n d o n e sq u a r e s o u t h a r e a . Ir r e g u l a r s h a p e . R e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . R e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . O n e r e c t a n g u l a r n o r t h a r e a , a n d o n e square south area. No t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e Fa i l e d s i z e a n d a c c e s s s c r e e n s . Z o n i n g is p a r t i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e ( l a c k i n g co m m e r c i a l , r e s i d e n t i a l ) . A l s o , s i t e i s bi s e c t e d b y a t r i b u t a r y t o B l u f f C r e e k bo r d e r e d b y s t e e p s l o p e s l i m i t i n g u s e i n th e w e s t t h i r d o f t h e s i t e . Fa i l e d s i z e , a c c e s s , v i s i b i l i t y , z o n i n g , im p e r v i o u s , a n d s h a p e s c r e e n s . S o u t h ha l f o f s i t e s u b j e c t t o s h o r e l a n d 5 im p e r v i o u s r e s t r i c t i o n s . P e a t s o i l s ~ 2 5 ac r e s a n d r e q u i r i n g c o r r e c t i o n ; fi n a n c i a l i m p e d i m e n t . Fa i l e d s i z e , v i s i b i l i t y , z o n i n g , a n d im p e r v i o u s s c r e e n s . L a n d a l o n g t h e so u t h w e s t p r o p e r t y b o u n d a r y su b j e c t t o s h o r e l a n d i m p e r v i o u s re s t r i c t i o n s . Fa i l e d s i z e , a c c e s s , z o n i n g , im p e r v i o u s a n d s h a p e s c r e e n s . Al s o , s i t e i s b i s e c t e d b y B l u f f Cr e e k f l o o d p l a i n , s e p a r a t i n g t h e si t e i n t o t w o s m a l l e r a n d s e p a r a t e pa r c e l s . Si t e i n C h a n h a s s e n , o f s u f f i c i e n t si z e , w i t h s i t e a c c e s s , p o t e n t i a l vi s i b i l i t y , l a c k i n g s h o r e l a n d , a n d re c t a n g u l a r . P o t e n t i a l f o r r e - z o n i n g an d c o l l e c t o r c o n n e c t i o n l o w b u t po t e n t i a l l y f e a s i b l e . Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, potential visibility, compatible shoreland limits, and rectangular. Potential for re-zoning and collector connection low but potentially feasible.Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, visible, appropriate zoning, lacking shoreland, and generally square. 1 W a t e r w a y = U S A C E j u r i s d i c t i o n a l w a t e r w a y / d r a i n a g e w a y / d i t c h ( f l o w > i n t e r m i t t e n t ) . D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = p e r D N R P W I d a t a . W a t e r w a y s a n d W a t e r c o u r s e s a r e n o t w e t l a n d , b u t a r e r e g u l a t e d a s a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s b y U S A C E . 2 S h o r e l a n d e x t e n d s 1 0 0 0 - f t f r o m D N R P W I O H W L ( o r d i n a r y h i g h w a t e r l e v e l ) . 3 L o w p o t e n t i a l t o b e r e z o n e d , b u t c o n s i d e r e d f e a s i b l e f o r p r a c t i c a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s . Lo c a t i o n , A c c e s s i b l e , a n d V i s i b l e La y o u t R e l a t i v e l y S q u a r e / Re c t a n g u l a r Pr a c t i c a b l e S i t e ( a n d o t h e r co n s i d e r a t i o n s ) Ap p r o p r i a t e Z o n i n g / L a n d U s e ; Co m p a t i b l e w i t h De n s i t y / I m p e r v i o u s R e s t r i c t i o n s (i . e . , l a c k s s i g n i f i c a n t s h o r e l a n d 2 ) Ta b l e 2 . A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e s C o m p a r i s o n M a t r i x f o r P r a c t i c a b i l i t y D e t e r m i n a t i o n - A v i e n d a M i x e d U s e L i f e s t y l e C e n t e r P r o j e c t , C h a n h a s s e n , M N Av a i l a b l e f o r A c q u i s i t i o n i n t h e Ci t y o f C h a n h a s s e n Lo g i s t i c s ( P a r c e l S i z e = 9 0 + a c ) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 7 visible from TH 5. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 1 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, and layout screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by a tributary to Bluff Creek and bordered by steep slopes, isolating and limiting use in the western third of the site. Alternative Site 2 (Figure H) is 50 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 1 mile of TH 5, has only one potential site access point at the intersection of two arterial roads (Galpin Blvd and Lyman Blvd intersection), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets. The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, and the south half of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. The site is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is triangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 2 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, visibility, impervious, and shape screens. Futhermore, the site is comprised of approximately 25 acres of mapped peat soil which would require correction (i.e., removal and replacement) prior to site use and is a financial impediment to developing the entire site. Alternative Site 3 (Figure I) is 70 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5-mile of TH 212, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Lyman Blvd and Audubon Road), and connection with one existing collector street (Audubon Road). The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is comprised of two generally square sections. The southwest portion of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 3 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, visibility and impervious screens. Alternative Site 4 (Figure J) is 40 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Pioneer Trail), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets, and is visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Office use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is irregular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 4 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable site. The site also fails Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 8 zoning, access, impervious, and shape screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by Bluff Creek, its floodplain/wetlands, and adjacent steeply sloping topography which divides the site into two smaller and separate development parcels. Alternative Site 5 (Figure K) is 117 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Great Plains Blvd), with a low potential for connection to a future collector street. The western portion of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. The site lacks shoreland and is generally rectangular in shape. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low but feasible, Alternative Site 5 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. Alternative Site 6 (Figure L) is 226.5 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5 mile of a TH 212 interchange, is accessible via one arterial road (Pioneer Trail), with a low potential for connection to future collector streets. The northwest corner of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, is not shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. Although the site contains significant shoreland area, the remaining portion of land outside of shoreland meets size requirements. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low, Alternative Site 6 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) (Figure M) is 116 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, and site access can be provided by two existing arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Lyman Blvd), one existing collector street (Bluff Creek Blvd), and one future internal collector street (see Figure F). The site is visible from TH 212. The site is dual-guided for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center use, is shown as available land on the City Available Land Inventory map, lacks shoreland, and is generally square. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) meets size, access, visibility, zoning, impervious, and shape screens and was therefore considered to be a potentially practicable alternative site for the proposed project. 3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination The potential for impacts on aquatic resources and other environmental impacts that would result from construction of the proposed project on a No Action Site, the two identified potentially Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 9 practicable alternative sites, and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated using the environmental factors defined below.  Waterway/Watercourse Impacts and Changes in Waterway/Watercourse Function – Waterways/Watercourses provide drainage for connected water features (e.g., adjacent wetlands), adjacent upland, and the upstream watershed. Filling or removing a waterway represents a decrease in function; no change to a waterway represent no change in function, and improving a waterway (e.g., deepening or widening) represents an increase in function.  Wetland Impacts and Loss in Wetland Function – Natural/intact, non-degraded (e.g., not excavated, not drained) wetlands surrounded by undisturbed upland represent wetland functions at their highest level, so impact to non-degraded wetland represents a high loss in wetland function. Wetlands that are annually farmed, excavated, or drained/partially drained and/or are surrounded by annually managed or disturbed upland represent wetland functions at the lowest level, so impact to degraded wetland represents a low loss in wetland function.  City of Chanhassen Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Impacts and BCOD Gain or Loss in Function –The BCOD is a contiguous conservancy zone for preservation and enhancement of the natural resources of Bluff Creek. Disturbance or alteration to onsite BCOD is considered to be a loss in function, avoidance without log-term protection of onsite BCOD is considered to maintain the function, and preservation (i.e., avoidance with permanent protection) of onsite BCOD is considered a gain in function.  Cultural Resources – The known presence/absence or the potential for cultural resources to be impacted by the proposed project is stated as Yes, No, or Unknown based on available information and experience on similar sites.  Potential to Negatively Impact Downstream Water Quality/Impaired Waters – The potential to negatively impact downstream water quality with site development is High when impaired waters are closer and/or when treated stormwater discharge is direct, and Low when impaired waters are further away and/or treated stormwater discharge is indirect.  Viewshed Impacts – The Bluff Creek corridor (BCOD), the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Minnesota River are all significant visual, environmental, and recreational amenities within the City of Chanhassen. A project that is highly visible from any of these resources has a high (i.e., negative) impact on these resources. Projects that are screened from these resources have a Low impact on these resources.  Impacts to Existing, Perennial Vegetation Cover – Disturbance of land that is under permanent/perennial vegetation cover has a higher potential for increasing negative impacts (untreated runoff, erosion and sediments) to onsite and downstream water resources. Disturbance of land that is bare or planted annually has a lower potential for increasing negative impacts to downstream water resources. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 10  Project Area Size and/or Configuration Meets Project Goals – The applicant has determined that the minimum buildable area for the proposed project is ≥ 90 contiguous acres in a square or nearly square/rectangular configuration. The ability of the site to meet this requirement is stated as Yes or No. 3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination Table 3 on the following page summarizes the assessment of the environmental factors defined above for each previously identified potentially practicable alternative site. Reference figures are provided as Figures N, O, and P – Appendix B. Development of Alternative Site 5 would likely result in at least 7.07 acres of non-degraded wetland impacts, with a corresponding high loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site requires at least 14.50 acres of direct impact to the BCOD (79% of the onsite BCOD) with a corresponding high loss in BCOD function, has moderate potential to negatively impact downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is minimally visible from a principle highway. Although the external site boundary is generally rectangular, internal buildable area is irregular resulting in a non-walkable layout that lacks synergy. There are no waterways or Watercourses onsite, the potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible), and impacts to the local viewshed would be minimal. As shown on Figure N, the draft layout is short over 13 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing. To meet Project Purpose and Need, a significant amount of additional wetland impacts to non-degraded wetlands plus impact to the entire area of the BCOD would be required. Impacts to the large wetland in the east portion of the property are unlikely to be approved, as this is a DNR Public Wetland. After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 5 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of Alternative Site 6 would likely result in at least 2.77 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, and 1.35 acres of offsite non-degraded wetland impacts for roadway upgrading, with a corresponding medium loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site has high potential to negatively impact nearby downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to the local viewshed, high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is not visible from a principle highway. There are no direct impacts to onsite BCOD with a corresponding maintenance in function as the area is too large for permanent preservation by the developer. The potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible). As shown on Figure O, the draft layout is disconnected, and is short 5 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing to meet Project Purpose and Need due to topographic changes and irregular internal development boundaries. Additionally, it is unlikely that the potential future collector streets would be approved by the City due to Fa c t o r s No A c t i o n Al t e r n a t i v e Al t e r n a t i v e S i t e 5 Co m m e n t s Al t e r n a t i v e S i t e 6 Co m m e n t s Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred)Comments Qu a n t i t a t i v e W a t e r w a y / W a t e r c o u r s e 1 Im p a c t s ( l i n e a r f e e t ) No n e N A No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t li m i t s o r t h e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NA No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t l i m i t s o r th e s i t e b o u n d a r y . 383.5-ft W a t e r w a y i m p a c t e d b y d e v e l o p m e n t o f s i t e . Qu a l i t a t i v e C h a n g e s i n W a t e r w a y / Wa t e r c o u r s e F u n c t i o n ( o n s i t e a q u a t i c re s o u r c e ) No n e N A No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t li m i t s o r t h e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NA No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t l i m i t s o r th e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NAWaterway is currently providing wetland drainage/outlet. If upstream wetlands are filled with development, waterway function no longer needed. Qu a n t i t a t i v e W e t l a n d I m p a c t s ( a c r e s ) N o n e 7 . 0 7 - a c 7. 0 7 a c n o n - d e g r a d e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s . We t l a n d s n o t d r a i n e d o r f a r m e d , u n d i s t u r b e d up l a n d . 4. 1 2 - a c 2. 7 7 - a c o n s i t e d e g r a d e d ( e x c a v a t e d w e t l a n d w i t h ma n a g e d u p l a n d ) w e t l a n d i m p a c t s ; 1 . 3 5 o f f s i t e n o n - de g r a d e d ( u n d r a i n e d w e t l a n d w i t h u n d i s t u r b e d u p l a n d ) we t l a n d s i m p a c t s . 4.00-ac 4.00-ac degraded wetland impacts. Wetlands are partially- drained, farmed, and surrounded by disturbed upland. Qu a l i t a t i v e L o s s i n W e t l a n d F u n c t i o n s (o n s i t e a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e ) No n e H i g h Im p a c t e d w e t l a n d s a r e g e n e r a l l y n o n - g r a d e d by n u r s e r y / h a y i n g a n d a r e s u r r o u n d e d b y na t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n . Me d i u m Im p a c t e d w e t l a n d s a r e d e g r a d e d d u e t o ex c a v a t i o n / f r e q u e n t m o w i n g , a n d a r e s u r r o u n d e d b y ma i n t a i n e d g o l f c o u r s e o r r o a d w a y . LowImpacted wetlands area generally degraded due to excavation, drainage, and/or farming and are surrounded by agricultural fields. Qu a n t i t a t i v e I m p a c t s ( a c r e s ) t o B l u f f Cr e e k O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t ( B C O D 2 ) No n e 1 4 . 5 0 - a c 1 4 . 5 0 - a c i m p a c t e d , 3 . 7 5 - a c p r e s e r v e d 0 0 - a c i m p a c t e d ; 1 0 0 - a c a v o i d e d 2 . 6 4 - a c 2 . 6 4 - a c i m p a c t e d , 1 9 . 3 6 - a c a v o i d e d a n d p r e s e r v e d . Qu a l i t a t i v e G a i n o r L o s s i n B C O D Fu n c t i o n No n e Lo s s 79 % o n s i t e B C O D i m p a c t e d ; 2 1 % p r e s e r v e d . Mi n i m a l p r e s e r v a t i o n . Ma i n t a i n e d Pe r m a n e n t p r e s e r v a t i o n b y a p p l i c a n t n o t f e a s i b l e d u e t o si z e ( 1 0 0 - a c ) . Gain 12% BCOD impacted; 88% preserved. Significant permanent preservation. Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s N/ A Un k n o w n Pr o x i m i t y t o D N R / o p e n w a t e r w e t l a n d s , v i e w s fr o m B C O D a n d k n o l l w o o d l a n d i n d i c a t e s t h e po t e n t i a l f o r c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . Un k n o w n Pr o x i m i t y t o D N R W a t e r c o u r s e , p r e s e n c e o f B C O D wi t h w o o d l a n d a n d b l u f f a r e a s i n d i c a t e s t h e p o t e n t i a l fo r c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . No 2016 survey indicates no resources within project area. Po t e n t i a l t o N e g a t i v e l y I m p a c t Do w n s t r e a m W a t e r Q u a l i t y / I m p a i r e d Wa t e r s ( o f f s i t e a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s ) N/ A Mo d e r a t e In d i r e c t t r e a t e d s t o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e t o do w n s t r e a m B l u f f C r e e k ( i m p a i r e d n a t u r a l st r e a m ) v i a p i p e a n d w e t l a n d ( 1 0 0 0 - f t di s t a n c e ) . I n d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e t o d o w n s t r e a m La k e R i l e y ( i m p a i r e d w a t e r ) v i a w e t l a n d ( 2 0 0 0 - ft d i s t a n c e ) . Hi g h Di r e c t t r e a t e d s t o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e t o B l u f f C r e e k v i a st e e p t o p o g r a p h i c f l o w p a t h s ( 5 0 0 t o 1 0 0 0 - f t d i s t a n c e ) , pl u s d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e t o B l u f f C r e e k v i a p i p e ( 1 1 0 0 - f t di s t a n c e ) . LowIndirect treated stormwater discharge to Lake Susan (impaired lake) via existing treatment pond and wetland complexes (5,400-ft distance). Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek (impaired stream) via wetland 1200-ft. Vi e w s h e d I m p a c t s N / A L o w Si t e i s s l i g h t l y l o w e r t h a n a d j a c e n t B C O D a n d is t h e r e f o r e s c r e e n e d f r o m i t s v i e w s h e d . T h e si t e i s n o t v i s i b l e f r o m M N r i v e r v a l l e y t o so u t h . Hi g h Si t e i s h i g h l y v i s i b l e f r o m o n s i t e B C O D a n d d i s t a n t lo c a t i o n s , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e M N R i v e r N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Re f u g e / M i n n e s o t a R i v e r b l u f f s . Low Woodland on high topography screens view from primary BCOD. Di s t u r b a n c e t o E x i s t i n g , P e r e n n i a l Ve g e t a t i o n C o v e r N/ A H i g h En t i r e s i t e h a s p e r m a n e n t v e g e t a t i o n c o v e r ; si t e d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d c a u s e d i s t u r b a n c e t o pe r e n n i a l v e g e t a t e d a r e a s . Hi g h En t i r e s i t e h a s p e r m a n e n t v e g e t a t i o n c o v e r ; s i t e de v e l o p m e n t w o u l d c a u s e d i s t u r b a n c e t o p e r e n n i a l ve g e t a t e d a r e a s . LowNearly 60% of site is currently bare ground/cropland/non-perennial vegetation. Site development would disturb 20% of perennial vegetated areas. Pr o j e c t A r e a S i z e a n d / o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n (m e e t s p r o j e c t d i m e n s i o n s / g o a l s ) N/ A N o Al t h o u g h e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r y i s g e n e r a l l y re c t a n g u l a r , i n t e r n a l d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a i s ir r e g u l a r , a n d d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a d o e s n o t m e e t pr o j e c t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . No Al t h o u g h e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r y i s g e n e r a l l y r e c t a n g u l a r , in t e r n a l d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a i s i r r e g u l a r , a n d d e v e l o p a b l e ar e a d o e s n o t m e e t p r o j e c t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . Yes Project area is generally square and developable area meets project purpose and need. LE D P A No - D o e s n o t m e e t pr o j e c t n e e d No Si t e h a s g r e a t e s t p r o j e c t e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s an d d o e s n o t m e e t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . No Si t e h a s g r e a t e r p r o j e c t e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s t h a n t h e Pr o p o s e d S i t e a n d c a n n o t m e e t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d d u e to o t h e r f a c t o r s . Yes Site has the least projected wetland impacts compared to alternative sites and meets project purpose and need. 2 B l u f f C r e e k O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t ( B C O D ) . A c o n t i g u o u s c o n s e r v a n c y z o n e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s o f B l u f f C r e e k . 1 W a t e r w a y = U S A C E j u r i s d i c t i o n a l w a t e r w a y / d r a i n a g e w a y / d i t c h ( f l o w > i n t e r m i t t e n t ) . D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = p e r D N R P W I d a t a . W a t e r w a y s a n d W a t e r c o u r s e s a r e n o t w e t l a n d , b u t a r e r e g u l a t e d a s a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s b y U S A C E . En v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r s Ot h e r Q u a l i t a t i v e F a c t o r s Ta b l e 3 . E n v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r M a t r i x f or L E D P A D e t e r m i n a t i o n - A v i e n d a M i x e d U s e L i f es t y le C e n t e r P r o j ec t , C h a n h a s s e n , M N Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 11 alignment and adjacent land use (single-family residential). After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 6 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) would likely result in 4.00 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, with a corresponding low loss in wetland function. Although approximately 384 linear feet of waterway impacts would occur, waterway function (drainage of upstream wetlands) would no longer be required. Development of the site has a low potential to negatively impact downstream water quality, low impacts to the viewshed, and low impacts to perennial vegetation cover. The site and its components are visible from a principle highway. Although development of this alternative site may require 2.64 acres of direct impact to the BCOD, there is a corresponding gain in function due to 19.36 acres of permanently preserved and protected BCOD. There are no cultural resources within the project area. As shown on Figure P, the draft layout provides sufficient services to meet the Project Purpose and Need. This alternative site also results in less direct impacts to wetlands than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6, and results in less direct/indirect impacts to other environmental factors than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6. The City of Chanhassen has established its goal for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City based on the described need and demand. The developer conducted a thorough search to identify the most appropriate location for a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that meets City requirements and ensures project viability by providing all required project components. Based on Table 3 and the above alternative site summaries, locating the project on the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) according to the design described in more detail below that includes wetland avoidance and minimization considerations is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the Applicant’s stated Project Purpose and Need. There are no alternative sites where a viable project could be located that do not affect special aquatic sites, and locating the project on other potentially practicable alternative sites would have more adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems and other environmental factors. 4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project is located on 119.88-acres in Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. More specifically, the site is primarily located southwest of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (Figure 1) and west of the trunk Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard intersection. The property corresponds to Carver County PIDs 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300. Currently, no development is proposed on the small, 1.66-acre parcel that is part of PID 250230500 located east of Powers Boulevard (Figure 1). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 12 The project is located in an area of the City of Chanhassen which is in transition from what was once primarily agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and office uses. The property is currently bordered by MnDOT ROW (Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way) to the east and southeast, and single-family residential development to the north, west, and southwest (Figure 1). 4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas Land cover on the site consists of approximately: 68.53 acres of cropland, 22.78 acres of woodland, 9.02 acres of non-cropped grassland, 5.12 acres of former farmstead area, 3.20-acres of shelterbelt, and 5.65 acres of wetlands scattered throughout the site. Approximately 1.70 acres of recently upgraded Lyman Boulevard right of way (ROW) is within the property boundary (Figure 2). Specific to the City of Chanhassen land use requirements, approximately 20 acres in the southwest portion of the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) boundary (Figure 2). The very northwest corner of the property boundary also contains a very small area of mapped BCOD. The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) covers the Bluff Creek watershed area with the intent of protecting the resource through guided development by: preserving natural conditions, establishing a primary protection zone, requiring structure setbacks and buffers, connecting open areas, and providing public access and education. More information can be found at (http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/323). Land cover on the site is largely a function of existing topography. Topography throughout cropped portions of the site is moderately undulating, while meadows and woodland are generally moderate to steeply sloping, and wetlands are located at the base of localized depressions, swales, or confluences. Figure 3 shows site topography and highlights the main topographic changes present throughout the site. The site is located within the Lower Minnesota River major watershed (Watershed #33), and also within two minor watersheds. The west/southwest part of the site drains to west/southwest and eventually to Bluff Creek; the northeast part of the site drains to the north/northeast and eventually to Lake Susan and Riley Creek. Figure 4 illustrates the minor watershed divide. Figure 5 illustrates existing onsite drainage areas based on LiDAR contours and site observations. 4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics Ten wetlands have been identified and delineated on the property as illustrated on Figure 6 and as summarized in Table 4 on the following page. Eight of the wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of the reports/memos are available upon request. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 13 Wetland 9 and Wetland 10 were both identified during a fall 2016 site visit by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) and Appendix D includes an addendum to the 2015 approved delineation for documentation of these wetlands. The addendum also discusses historic Wetland 9 versus 2016 delineated Wetland 9. Also during the fall 2016 KES site visit, the boundary of the MnDOT wetland located along the southeast site boundary was located with a Trimble T41 GPS unit (Figure 6) for application of City and Watershed District required buffer. Table 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (sf) Size (ac) Circular 39 Cowardin Classification Eggers & Reed Wetland Plant Community Wetland 1 47,922 1.1001 Type 3/1 PEMCd/PEMAd Partially-drained shallow marsh and fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 1/2 8,102 0.1860 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 2 98,310 2.2569 Type 5/2/1 PUBGx/ PEMBd/PEMAd Excavated shallow, open water and partially-drained fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 3 29,169 0.6696 Type 1 PEMA Fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 4 5,456 0.1253 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 5 15,172 0.3483 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 6 34,045 0.7816 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 7 654 0.0150 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 8 3,677 0.0844 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 9 4,291 0.0985 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 10 3,223 0.0740 Type 1 PFO1A Seasonally Flooded Basin Total 250,021 5.7397 1 Circular 39, Cowardin Classification, and Wetland Plant Community verified and approved as part of RPBCWD review of MnRAM results. All wetlands, except for Wetland 10 which is 0.0740 acres, on the site have been disturbed/degraded by either excavation, drainage, and/or farming. Except for Wetland 10, wetlands not dominated by crops or annual agricultural weeds are dominated by invasive species (e.g., reed canary grass). Except for the central portion of Wetland 2 where the water table has been exposed through deep excavation, all wetlands onsite are hydrologically supported by surface runoff, which under existing conditions is largely untreated agricultural runoff. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 14 A number of drainage features are present onsite which affect wetland characteristics.  Wetlands 1,1/2, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are drained by defined waterways/ditches located within the wetland boundary and extending downstream of the wetland boundary.  Wetland 1/2 appears to be comprised of a sediment plume from upslope agricultural erosion, or material from the excavation of Wetland 2.  Wetland 5 appears to be drained by agricultural tile as evidenced by field observation of a tile outlet discharging to Wetland 4 from the slopes in which Wetland 5 is located (Figure 6). Additional agricultural tile may be located onsite.  Wetland 8 is a sloping roadway ditch.  Wetland 9 is drained by an incised and back-cutting gully. Wetlands 3 and 10 are the least altered wetlands onsite. Although an outlet was installed on the west end of Wetland 3 when single-family development to the west occurred, the outlet does not appear to drain the wetland. Wetland 10 has a natural outlet and is located within the southwest woodland. The center of Wetland 2 was excavated sometime between 1980 and 1984 (Appendix E). Prior to excavation, Wetland 2 appeared to be managed as a hayfield, with wetland hydrology/wetland signatures (e.g., inundation, saturated soil) rarely observed other than altered pattern. A January 4, 2017 site visit was completed to assess the water depths in the excavated portion of the Wetland 2 using an ice auger and staff gauge. At the time of the site visit, the wetland was completely frozen over, as was the entire length of the waterway that drains the wetland. No flowing water or open water areas were observed. It appears that cattail has not been able to colonize the center of the wetland due to water level depths in excess of 4 feet (maximum water depth = 5.5-ft). Open water in the center of the wetland is a function of water table exposure due to deep excavation conducted by a previous landowner. 4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths For the purposes of applying City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) wetland buffer rules, a MnRAM 3.4 analysis was completed for each wetland on the site as well as the offsite MnDOT mitigation wetland located along the southeast site boundary. Full MnRAM output results are included in Appendix F. With project development, Wetland Management Classification and applied buffer widths for the City of Chanhassen should follow those outlined in Section 20-411 (https://www.municode.com/library/mn/chanhassen/ codes/code_of_ordinances) of the City Code. Wetland Rating and applied buffer widths for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) should follow Rule D (http://rpbcwd.org/files/2114/1687/3382/Rule_D_-_Final_- _5_Nov_2014.pdf) of watershed rules. City and RPBCWD wetland management classification/rating and applied buffer widths are summarized in Table 5 on the following page. Ta b l e 5 . M n R A M S u m m a r y - A v i e n d a , C h a n h a s s e n , M N We t l a n d I D W e t l a n d Ma n a g e m e n t Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n (C i t y R a t i n g ) Mn R A M Cr i t i c a l / H i g h e s t R a t e d Fu n c t i o n Ci t y A p p l i e d Mi n i m u m B u f f e r Wi d t h ( f e e t ) RP B C W D 1 We t l a n d R a t i n g Ru l e D - C r i t i c a l / H i g h e s t Ra t e d F u n c t i o n RPBCWD Applied Buffer Width (feet) Mn D O T W e t l a n d M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y a n d o t h e r fu n c t i o n s 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 1 M a n a g e 2 L o w f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 2 M a n a g e 2 L o w f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 3 M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t a n d S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 4 M a n a g e 1 M o d e r a t e f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 25 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t a n d S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 5 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m S t o r m w a t e r S e n s i t i v i t y (R P B C W D d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 6 M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r A e s t h e t i c s AN D L o w f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r A e s t h e t i c s AN D L o w f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 7 a n d 8 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 9 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m S t o r m w a t e r S e n s i t i v i t y (R P B C W D d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 1 0 P r e s e r v e H i g h f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 40 E x c e p t i o n a l E x c e p t i o n a l f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y a n d M e d i u m f o r Ve g e t a t i v e D i v e r s i t y 80 average; 40 minimum 1 R P B C W D - R i l e y P u r g a t o r y B l u f f C r e e k W a t e r s h e d D i s t r i c t Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 15 5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION Alternative project designs were evaluated in an attempt to completely avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent possible in compliance with WCA and Section 404 requirements, while satisfying the above goals and requirements. The following discussion addresses wetland avoidance, wetland impact minimization, and wetland impact reduction over time. The following onsite alternatives analysis demonstrates that there are no feasible and prudent alternative project designs available that would completely avoid or further minimize wetland impacts while meeting the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements. 5.1 Project Goals and Requirements Creating a viable project that will meet Project Purpose and Need requires that the project design be driven by project scope and City vision considerations while meeting other applicable environmental regulations. The Avienda project plan must meet all of the following goals and requirements to be considered feasible and prudent, and well as reasonable and practicable. 1. Provide a mixed use development within the City of Chanhassen of community and regional scale integrated with retail and business uses to serve local residents and a regional market; 2. Provide housing alternatives for all stages of life; 3. Create a pattern of land uses that are compatible and supportive by providing a mix of cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping, and social components; 4. Provide a development design that serves pedestrian/walking use, mass transit use, and automobile traffic with vehicle and pedestrian access that is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system including a pedestrian promenade; 5. Create a layout design that is planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between uses of commercial and residential and to share parking; 6. Connect all structures and spaces with compatible pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, and trails and provide connections to existing pedestrian walkways and corridors; 7. Provide effective drainage for the overall site while capturing and treating stormwater runoff in a manner consistent with local, state, and federal standards (see Stormwater Requirements description on the following page); 8. Be consistent with the updated AUAR. The City is currently updating the AUAR, which will reflect the proposed development plan. The AUAR update is expected to be completed in early 2017. 9. Be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views); 10. Avoid and minimize alteration to the Bluff Creek Overlay District bluff area, high quality woodland, and cultural resources; 11. Avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and water resources to the extent practicable; 12. Maintain the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands (see City Code Requirements on the following page); Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 16 13. Replace unavoidable wetland impacts with compensatory wetland mitigation that has wetland functions equal to or exceeding those of the impacted wetlands; and 14. Designate/establish buffers adjacent to avoided wetlands, and establish easements over the remaining wetlands, wetland buffers, and avoided/preserved areas of the Bluff Creek Overlay District to ensure their long-term viability and protection. Stormwater Requirements In order to meet the requirements of the RPBCWD, the proposed development must abstract the first 1.1-inches of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces for every rainfall event. Approximately 1.27-inches of rainfall on an impervious surface will yield 1.1-inches of runoff. Therefore, impervious runoff from every storm that is 1.27-inches or less (the most commonly occurring rainfall events) will need to be completely captured (abstracted). Using historical annual rainfall data from April 15, 1998 to October 15, 2016, the engineer calculated that of the 3,496 total days, 1,181 days had rainfall. Of those 1,181 days, only 69 days had over 1.27-inches of rainfall. By this estimation, 5.8% of rain days will result in some discharge from stormwater features, while 94.2% of rain days would never result in discharge to downstream wetlands or other water resources. City Code Requirements City Chanhassen Code Section 20-410(b) states that when a wetland alteration permit is issued, the alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands. In addition to direct impact to wetlands from fill or excavation, potential decreases in the hydrological characteristics of avoided wetlands were assessed in accordance with local rules. Per the requirements of City of Chanhassen Code Section 20-409(b)(3), Table 6 below provides pre-development wetland drainage areas with post-development drainage areas for the alternative designs considered. Table 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered Wetland ID Pre- development Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 1 Avoidance Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 2 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Mini- mization Alternative Drainage Area (ac) 3 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Proposed Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (Ac) 4 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2 31.12 9.98 68% 9.95 68% Impacted NA Wetland 3 7.14 3.83 46% 5.1 29% 3.84 86% Wetland 4 1.14 1.14 5% increase 1.02 11% Impacted NA Wetland 5 5.55 3.23 42% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 6 17.48 5.4 69% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 7 4.81 1.59 67% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 8 3.85 0.69 82% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 9 3.36 1.57 53% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 10 0.55 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 1 - See Figure 5, 2 - See Figure 7, 3 - See Figure 8, 4 - See Figure 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 17 The drainage areas in Table 6 on the previous page encompass the wetland and its undeveloped surrounding landscape and represent supporting wetland hydrology available from untreated surface runoff post-development. The indicated reduction in drainage area would correspond to a similar reduction in drainage volume/supporting wetland hydrology. Because less than 6% of rainfall events result in stomwater discharge as described previously, treated stormwater discharge is not available to contribute to, or fully support, wetland hydrology post-development. 5.2 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative was considered as a way to eliminate all wetland impacts associated with the project, both direct and indirect. Although the no-build alternative would directly avoid all wetland impacts, it would not meet the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements, and would not be inconsistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which dual-guides the project area for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. The No-Build Alternative is the only alternative that would completely avoid direct and indirect impacts to all onsite wetlands. Any development plan that meets the guided use (which includes large areas of impervious surfaces requiring abstraction) will result in secondary impacts to at least some onsite wetlands in order to meet stormwater management requirements. Because the No-Build Alternative will not meet the guided use for the site it was rejected as an approach to completely avoiding wetland impacts. 5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative An alternative project design that would completely avoid directly impacting wetlands was considered (Figure 7 and Appendix G - Concept C). This direct avoidance design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to the west to onsite commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be avoided, as would all onsite wetlands and wetland buffers. Due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in poorly accessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative results in a net developable area of 58.33 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.92 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 20.25 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd). Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 18 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses eliminates project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide an inviting and comfortable “walking” environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 below. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient components of retail hub, anchor retail/hospitality, or residential services/uses as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. This alternative does not meet the use diversity/make-up requirements of the proposed PUD. Table 7. Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered Project Required Components Minimum Required Acres Avoidance Alternative NDA 1 (ac) Minimization Alternative NDA (ac) Proposed Alternative NDA (ac) Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 0.00 0.00 25.67 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 14.70 13.81 12.61 2 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 8.22 10.54 11.05 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 23.60 17.64 12.87 Residential 18 11.81 28.75 13.98 3 Roadways 13 14.92 14.48 16.60 Total NDA 90 73.25 85.22 92.78 Wetlands Impacts 0.00 1.33 5.00 Remaining Wetlands 5.65 4.32 0.65 Preserved BCOD (excludes wetlands) 20.25 15.48 14.40 Preserved NE Parcel 1.66 1.66 1.66 Total Other Areas 27.56 22.79 21.71 Total NDA and Other Areas 100.81 108.01 114.49 Total Property Boundary/Gross Area 119.88 119.88 119.88 Poorly Accessible/Undeveloped Area 19.07 11.87 5.39 LEDPA Determination Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Meets Project Purpose and Need 1 NDA = Net Developable Area. All uses measured using NDA except for ROW which is measured as Gross Area. 2 Office component is met/exceeded by utilization of two-story office space. 3 Residential component is met by apartment design and size. In addition, for the purposes of assessing water resource impacts of an alternative for identifying the LEDPA, it is important to note that even the Complete Direct avoidance alternative would have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of some avoided wetlands bordered or completely surrounded by intense development (i.e., high impervious uses) because: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 19 a) For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post- development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Complete Avoidance Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. b) Wetland 3 is an isolated depression that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. c) Wetland 4 is a slightly depressional, sloping wetland that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. d) Wetlands 5 and 9 are both slightly depressional, slightly sloping wetlands (farmed swales) that would likely maintain seasonally flooded basin hydrologic characteristics post-development. However, their ecological value when completely isolated by high intensity components would be minimal. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. e) Wetlands 6, 7, and 8 are all flow-through/swale wetlands that would likely maintain their hydrologic characteristics. Their ecological value would be minimal as a result of surrounding development and their location adjacent to major roadways. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural or un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. In summary, the avoidance design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 20 retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and/or hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. For the above reasons, the complete avoidance alternative was rejected. 5.4 Minimization Alternative An alternative project design that would minimize total wetland impacts was also considered (Figure 8 and Appendix G - Concept B). The minimization design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium and high density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be partially-impacted so as to avoid Wetland 1/2 and meet residential development requirements. As with the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative, due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in inaccessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Minimization Alternative resulting in a net developable area of 70.74 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.48 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 1.33 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 15.48 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7 page 18). The design would also require that 383.5-linear feet of waterway be relocated around developed area. Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses negatively impact project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide a comfortable walkable environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 on page 18. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient retail hub, office, or anchor retail/hospitality services as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. With the inclusion of apartment housing in Section M, the design meets PUD housing density requirements; however, this significantly reduces the available space for retail uses which is the driving component of the Regional/Lifestyle Center. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 21 Post-development, Wetlands 3 and 4 would be largely surrounded by low intensity components, and the preservation of surrounding space in relation to their wetland size (i.e., ~0.5-ac or less) and supporting hydrology (i.e., seasonal flooding) would maintain their ecological and hydrological characteristics. For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post-development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Minimization Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un- manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. In summary, the minimization design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Avoidance of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 results in a non-contiguous project, in a non-walkable environment, that lacks a comprehensive circulation system as well as sufficient component areas to service the existing and future market. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2. For the above reasons, the Minimization Alternative was rejected. 5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre property in the City of Chanhassen to Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments with associated streets, utilities, stormwater management features, and buffers on avoided wetlands as illustrated in Figure 10. The grading plan is provided in Appendix H. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 22 Project construction is expected to start in summer of 2017. The Avienda project will be mass graded in one phase. Streets and infrastructure such as storms sewers will be installed during the early stages of construction. Earthwork and seeding for wetland buffers and landscaping is expected to be completed by summer of 2018. Completion of the project is expected to require 3 years. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of this site as “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial”. The Comprehensive Plan also notes that a new zoning district regional Commercial (RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. However, the City Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2009 notes that the City wishes to see it zoned as a Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial PUD (Planned Unit Development). With the restriction of “one owner/one PUD” the City’s expectations for the completed project are that it will be of higher quality, create a regional sense of place/identity for the community, provide regional retail/commercial services that will complement existing uses within the City yet of a scale so as to provide shopping opportunities not currently located in the community, be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views), and provide appropriate transition between uses. Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. The Proposed Project (Proposed Alternative) is shown on Figure 9 (Appendix G - Concept A). Wetland impact types and areas overlaid on the proposed grading plan are shown on Figure 10. The proposed project design includes: 1. A retail hub and retail anchor/hospitality, supporting retail, and office components of sufficient acreage of contiguous buildable area (98.33 acres) to create a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center; 2. Three site access points via two arterial roads and a collect street and an internal contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City; 3. Housing components for all stages of life that meets PUD density requirements and that will provide project viability; 4. Utilizes housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses provides a visual buffer between the development and natural features/woodland; and 5. Due to the nature of the site’s soils (clays) the proposed development is unable to infiltrate the abstraction volume. Therefore, the project will use onsite irrigation of all landscape areas to meet abstraction requirements. Per same requirements, none of the irrigation water will run off into the wetlands. With the proposed project the resulting net developable area is 81.73 acres and the gross area of roadway/ROW is 16.60 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 4.9961 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 14.40 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 23 include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7, page18). The design also results in 714.5 linear feet of waterway impact. The proposed project design meets the project purpose, need, goals, and requirements as described previously and implements the future land use envisioned by the City of Chanhassen. The proposed project represents an orderly and logistical use of the subject property and is consistent with applicable land use and policy plans. The Proposed Project represent a balanced effort to accommodate the project purpose, goals, and requirements, while minimizing impact to the BCOD, and avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the extent practical. Based on Table 7 and the above avoidance and minimization alternatives summaries, construction of the Proposed Project is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the overall Project Purpose and Need. There are no practicable or reasonable alternative project designs that would meet the Project Purpose and Need of the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center. 5.6 Proposed Project Impacts As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Unavoidable wetland impacts for the Avienda project are summarized in Table 8 below. The table documents wetland impact amount, impact type (fill versus excavation), and a general description of the justification for impact. Table 8. Wetland Impact Summary Impact Wetland Impact Size (ac) Type of Impact Impact Justification Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill Located within the footprint of the retail hub and circulating traffic system. Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill Wetland 2 2.2569 Fill Wetland 4 0.1253 Fill Grading reconciliation between the apartment construction pad and sloping woodland. Wetland 5 0.3483 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Wetland 6 0.5302 Fill Excavation and fill to construct stormwater treatment feature. 0.2514 Excavate Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space, associated parking, and stormwater treatment feature. Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill Wetland 9 0.0985 Excavation Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Totals 4.9961 The project plan also includes 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway impacts (Figure 10). The northern waterway (383.5-ft) is currently located within an Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 24 area of the project that will be filled to construct retail and parking space and a stormwater basin. The southern waterway (331-ft) is located within an area of the project that will be filled for apartment and retaining wall construction. With development, the southern waterway will be relocated to the east so as to maintain the surface water flow paths from the woodland. 5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization There are no practicable or feasible alternative plan designs that would partially impact wetlands thereby minimizing wetland impacts. Because the entire area of each wetland proposed for impact will be impacted, minimization of impacts on individual wetlands is not possible. 5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed. Impact rectification does not apply. 5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time Practices that will be implemented to help reduce or eliminate wetland impacts over time, include: (1) providing vegetated buffers along avoided Wetland 3 and 10 to protect against ecological impacts and to provide wildlife habitat; and (2) implementation of a stormwater management plan manage that reduces or eliminates potential effects of stormwater runoff to remaining onsite wetlands as well as offsite water resources. The City of Chanhassen, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and Minnesota Department of Transportation have review jurisdiction over storm water runoff from proposed redevelopment at this site. The MPCA has jurisdiction under the State Construction Stormwater NPDES General Permit. Because site soils have very low infiltration capacity, preferred methods to achieve stormwater management requirements will consist of BMPs including detention ponds, filtration, and water reuse for irrigation. Because the drainage area of Wetland 3 will be reduced by 86% with a corresponding decrease in watershed to wetland ratio from 11:1 to 6:1, the Applicant proposes to monitor Wetland 3 for secondary impacts to wetland hydrology. 5.10 Sequencing Flexibility Sequencing flexibility offers a process for approving proposed wetland impacts when the proposed replacement wetland is certain to provide equal or greater public value as determined based on a functional assessment reviewed by the technical evaluation panel using a methodology approved by the board (Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0520, Subp. 7a.). The local government unit may allow sequencing flexibility if any of the following apply: 1. the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2. avoidance of wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value, for example, because of surrounding land uses, and the wetland's ability to function and provide public value cannot reasonably be maintained Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 25 through implementation of best management practices, land use controls, or other mechanisms; 3. the only feasible and prudent upland site available for the project or replacement has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetlands. This may be appropriate only if the applicant: a. demonstrates impact minimization to the wetland; b. agrees to perpetually preserve the designated upland site; and c. completely replaces the impacted wetland's functions and public value; or 4. the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. Item 1 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 5 and 9, and Wetlands 7 and 8. Wetlands 5 and 9 are both partially-drained, annually farmed wetlands surrounded by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Wetland 7 and 8 are both partially-drained swales, dominated by invasive vegetation and bordered by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Replacement of these wetlands with the proposed replacement plan is sure to provide an increase in wetland functions and values. Item 2 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2. As previously discussed, post- development these wetlands will be surrounded by intense components and significant impervious area. Due to the large size of the wetland complex in relation adjacent preserved space in combination with a significant change to supporting wetland hydrology (i.e., the elimination of agricultural runoff in combination with the absence of supporting replacement hydrology), any project plan showing avoidance of these wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value. The Applicant requests that sequencing flexibility be invoked for impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 once the replacement plan is finalized, and after MnRAM results confirm that the replacement wetland results in increased wetland functions and values. 6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN 6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement State Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0017, Subp. 1, states that Carver County is in an area with less than 50% of the presettlement wetlands remaining. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0522, Subp. 4, states that the minimum replacement ratio for impacts to wetland on nonagricultural land in a less than 50% area is 2:1. Federal Total wetland impacts are greater than 3 acres; therefore, the Avienda project will require a Standard Individual Permit (IP) from the USACE with a likely wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 26 Waterway replacement is usually accomplished by providing assurance that the capacity and flow of the impacted resource is maintained, and that upstream and downstream resources are not negatively impacted. The function of the existing northern waterway (383.5-ft) is to provide an outlet for Wetlands 1 and 2. With the proposed project, Wetlands 1 and 2 will be impacted and the function of the waterway will no longer be needed. Upstream resources will no longer exist, and downstream resources will benefit from the reduction in untreated agricultural runoff. The function of the existing southern waterway (331-ft) is to provide an outlet for agricultural drain tile, and a path for surface runoff from the southwest woodland. With the proposed project, tile drainage will no longer pass through Wetland 4. Woodland runoff will be routed offsite by the construction of a 617-ft swale feature (Figure 11, Waterway Relocation) south of the apartment building. For these reasons, waterway impacts should not require replacement under Section 404. Table 9 below summarizes required wetland replacement for the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Table 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement Total WCA/USACE Wetland Impacts Total Required Replacement 4.9961 acres 9.9922 acres Total USACE Waterway Impacts Total Required Replacement 714.5-linear feet (1,429 sf) None 6.2 Replacement Plan Overview Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. However, other actions eligible for credit, or a combination of actions, are potentially available for meeting project replacement requirements. The final implemented Avienda Replacement Plan will be based on City, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and USACE feedback and suggestions. After wetland impacts and the proposed project have been preliminarily approved by the TEP and USACE, a finalized replacement plan will be submitted that will meet BWSR, USACE, and local replacement requirements. Specific to the City of Chanhassen, the replacement plan will: 1. Include a Wetland Buffer Strip Plan for avoided onsite wetlands (City Code Section 20- 412(h)). 2. Demonstrate that the replacement action/s result in an improvement in wetland functions and values, and addresses water quality improvement, maintenance of preexisting hydrological balance, and wildlife habitat improvement (City Code Section 20-146(a)). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 27 The following paragraphs provide a summary of actions eligible for credit for the proposed project. At this time, the Applicant is only proposing replacement via banking; however, the Applicant is willing to investigate other potential replacement options based on TEP/USACE comments/feedback. 6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit Wetland Banking Wetland banking is the currently proposed wetland replacement plan. At the time of this application, there are no wetland banks in Major Watershed #33 and Bank Service Area 9 (BSA 9) that are: (1) available to the public, (2) have sufficient credit balance, and (3) are USACE certified. Therefore, if banking is chosen as the replacement plan or a component of the replacement plan, the applicant proposes to purchase USACE certified credits from an available wetland bank (or banks) within BSA 9, which is an area with less than 50% of presettlement wetland remaining. Wetland bank/s, total credit amount, and credit types used would be based on TEP and USACE comments/requirements. At a minimum, 9.9922-acres of credit would be purchased to meet compensatory mitigation requirements. Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resource Value (ENRV) Restoration and protection of important resources are eligible for replacement credit when the action improves or directly contributes to the function and sustainability of an exceptional natural resource. The determination of an exceptional resource can be based on the resource’s value relative to other resources in the watershed. Implementing this action could provide partial onsite replacement within the Bluff Creek minor watershed. An eligible resource exists onsite. Post-development, 14.40-acres of the site will be avoided and preserved oak woodland located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). As it is a local priority to protect and improve the function of the BCOD, utilization of ENRV is appropriate. Granting replacement credit under ENRV provisions would protect the long-term function and sustainability of the resource. According to BWSR guidance, preservation of upland in combination with a qualifying restoration activity is eligible for up to 12.5% credit of the total area permanently protected. With the proposed plan, 14.40-acres of BCOD could be restored and preserved thereby generating 1.8-acres of replacement credit. It may be possible to generate up to 10% replacement credit for Section 404/USACE permitting via upland buffer credit. Project-Specific Wetland Restoration/Creation The Applicant could explore wetland restoration/creation opportunities on other sites within the City of Chanhassen, with priority given to sites within, or with a tributary to, the BCOD. Sites would be identified by review of City documents (e.g., Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites from the City of Chanhassen 2nd Generation: Surface Water Management Plan), aerial review of primarily undeveloped sites, and City knowledge/feedback. Sites identified would be assessed for ecological suitability and sustainability, actions eligible for credit, total potential generated credits, construction feasibility, and landowner cooperation/authorization. The Applicant is willing to consider this option for fulfilling part, or potentially all, of the required replacement. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 28 7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS State and federal wetland rules require that endangered and threatened species be considered in wetland permitting. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0515 specifies that endangered and threatened species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. Approval of wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The federally-threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is the principle species of concern for this review. The NLEB hibernates in caves during winter and establishes maternity roosting colonies under the loose bark of trees during the summer. There are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the vicinity of the development site or in Carver County, Minnesota (Appendix H). KES reviewed the site in the field on September 28, 2016 to assess tree species, size, and condition, and to establish a base for quantifying tree removal and potential effects on NLEB habitat. Based on the field visit, KES determined that woodland consisted of three distinct cover types within the development parcel (Figure 2). The parcel east of Powers Boulevard is not proposed for development and is not included in this discussion.  Woodland Cover A (approximately 1.48 acres) was located along the northern edges of Wetlands 1 and 2. The woodland was dominated by green ash and boxelder ranging from 2 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of American elm, black willow, and black cherry ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>30-inch DBH) cottonwoods were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn, gray dogwood, chokecherry, and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover B (approximately 3.20 acres) was a shelterbelt in the center of the site. The woodland was dominated by green ash ranging from <4 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of boxelder, black cherry, black walnut, and American elm ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>15-inch DBH) bur oaks were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover C (approximately 21.00-acres) was located in the southwest portion of the development parcel. The woodland was dominated by red and bur oak ranging from 6 to 25 inches DBH and sugar maple ranging from <4 to 16 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of basswood, American elm, and black cherry (all 4 to 10 inches DBH) were present. Understory buckthorn shrubs were observed mainly along the outer edges of the woodland. Development of the Avienda project will require approximately 10.98 acres of tree removal (1.48 acres of Woodland Cover A, 3.20-acres of Woodland Cover B, and 6.30-acres of Woodland Cover C). Development tree removal areas are shown on Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance on the NLEB 4(d) Rule eliminates the need for detailed USFWS review because the project area is not located within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree or within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum (Appendix I). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 29 Under the 4(d) Rule, the USFWS created a framework that streamlines Section 7 Consultations under the Endangered Species Act when federal actions may affect the NLEB, but will not cause prohibited take of this threatened species. Federal agencies have the option to rely on the finding of the programmatic biological opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule to fulfill their project-specific Section 7 responsibilities by using this framework. Nevertheless, the project team understands that a federal interagency agreement requires the USACE to provide the USFWS with notice of proposed tree removal and allow the USFWS 30 days to comment. USFWS Guidance for federalized projects under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) Rule states that incidental take from “tree removal activities is not prohibited” because the project will not result in: 1. removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, 2. tree removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31, or 3. tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological surveys have been completed on the site. There are no cultural resources within the project area. Copies of the surveys are available upon request. Avienda Wetland Permit Application FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 28 species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. Approval of wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The federally-threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is the principle species of concern for this review. The NLEB hibernates in caves during winter and establishes maternity roosting colonies under the loose bark of trees during the summer. There are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the vicinity of the development site or in Carver County, Minnesota (Appendix H). KES reviewed the site in the field on September 28, 2016 to assess tree species, size, and condition, and to establish a base for quantifying tree removal and potential effects on NLEB habitat. Based on the field visit, KES determined that woodland consisted of three distinct cover types within the development parcel (Figure 2). The parcel east of Powers Boulevard is not proposed for development and is not included in this discussion.  Woodland Cover A (approximately 1.48 acres) was located along the northern edges of Wetlands 1 and 2. The woodland was dominated by green ash and boxelder ranging from 2 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of American elm, black willow, and black cherry ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>30-inch DBH) cottonwoods were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn, gray dogwood, chokecherry, and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover B (approximately 3.20 acres) was a shelterbelt in the center of the site. The woodland was dominated by green ash ranging from <4 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of boxelder, black cherry, black walnut, and American elm ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>15-inch DBH) bur oaks were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover C (approximately 21.00-acres) was located in the southwest portion of the development parcel. The woodland was dominated by red and bur oak ranging from 6 to 25 inches DBH and sugar maple ranging from <4 to 16 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of basswood, American elm, and black cherry (all 4 to 10 inches DBH) were present. Understory buckthorn shrubs were observed mainly along the outer edges of the woodland. Development of the Avienda project will require approximately 10.98 acres of tree removal (1.48 acres of Woodland Cover A, 3.20-acres of Woodland Cover B, and 6.30-acres of Woodland Cover C). Development tree removal areas are shown on Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance on the NLEB 4(d) Rule eliminates the need for detailed USFWS review because the project area is not located within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree or within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum (Appendix I). Under the 4(d) Rule, the USFWS created a framework that streamlines Section 7 Consultations under the Endangered Species Act when federal actions may affect the NLEB, but will not cause prohibited take of this threatened species. Federal agencies have the option to rely on the finding of the programmatic biological opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule to fulfill their project-specific Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 29 Section 7 responsibilities by using this framework. Nevertheless, the project team understands that a federal interagency agreement requires the USACE to provide the USFWS with notice of proposed tree removal and allow the USFWS 30 days to comment. USFWS Guidance for federalized projects under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) Rule states that incidental take from “tree removal activities is not prohibited” because the project will not result in: 1. removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, 2. tree removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31, or 3. tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological surveys have been completed on the site. There are no cultural resources within the project area. Copies of the surveys are available upon request. Avienda Wetland Permit Application FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Wetland Avoidance Alternative 8. Wetland Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas Figure 1 - Site Location & Property Boundary Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Property Boundary MnDOT ROW (adjacent to site) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Residential Development Residential Development Residential Development Trun k H i g h w a y 2 1 2 Lyman Boulevard Po w e r s B o u l e v a r d Parcel within property boundary (1.66-ac). Not proposed for development at this time. Figure 2 - Existing Land Cover (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Bluff Creek Overlay District Wetlands (5.65-ac) Not Cropped/Grass (9.02-ac) Former Farmstead (5.12-ac) Shelterbelt (3.20-ac) Woodland (22.78-ac) Cropland (68.53-ac) Roadway (1.70-ac) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap No developmentproposed for thisparcel.WoodlandCover A1.48-ac WoodlandCover B3.20-ac WoodlandCover C21.00-ac WoodlandCover D0.30-ac Po w e r s B l v d TH 2 1 2 916 914 912 91 8 920 91 0 908906 9 0 4 902 9 0 0 898 896894 8 9 2 8 9 0 888 8 8 6 884 92 2 9 2 4 9 2 6 928 9 3 0 8 8 2 9 3 2 880 934936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872 870 948 950952954956958 890 894 92 8 916 944 9 2 0 89 8 934 942 878 9 0 0 94 6 92 4 950 902 938 934 936 914 930 910 88 4 91 6 92 6 936 9 1 2 932 916 954 92 0 932 952 93 0 874 906 9 2 4 922 918 950 938 934 9 0 8 892 932 916 914 886 876 936 896 934 90 6 942 930 918 940 912 9 0 4 946 926 930 940 874 9 2 4 918 938 910 90 0 9 1 0 906 938 948 914 872 936898 9 0 6 928 904 914 9 1 4 9 2 6940 9 0 2 924 92 8 934 874 9 3 4 952948 918 914 954 930 9 1 6 896 92 0 946 944 89 6 9 1 2 9 0 0 888 936 908 910 8 8 4 924 9 3 8 89 2 9 2 2 944 912 91 6 90 2 894 928 926 904 9 0 2 932 89 8 922 938 9 2 0 870 Figure 3 - Topographic Elevations (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver Co 2-ft Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 950-ft 924-ft 908-ft 912-ft 938-ft 932-ft 9 3 2 - f t 8 9 4 - f t 8 8 6 - f t 926-ft 930-f t 910-f t 906-f t 906-ft 9 0 0 - f t 8 9 2 - f t 924-ft 914-f t 936-ft 8 8 6 - f t 876-ft 916-f t 9 0 0 - f t 902-f t 946-ft 912-f t 930-f t 946-ft 936-ft 902-f t Figure 4 - Minor Watershed Boundaries (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Minor Watershed Divide Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL3 2016 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL2 WL1 WL1/2 WL7 WL8 WL10 Lake Susan & Riley Creek Watershed Bluff Creek Watershed Source: www.mngeo.state.mn.us Figure 5 - Existing Drainage Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Drainage Areas (DA) Sub Drainage Area (SDA) Surface Drainage Direction Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 DA 17.48-ac WL1/2 DA 31.12-ac WL8 DA 3.85-ac WL7 DA 4.81-ac DA 2.56-ac WL3 DA 7.14-ac WL5 DA 5.55-ac DA 12.61-ac DA 28.83-ac DA 3.62-ac DA 2.36-ac WL9 SDA 3.36-ac WL10 SDA 0.55-ac WL4 SDA 1.14-ac Figure 6 - Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present Figure 7 - Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL1/2 WL5 WL4 WL10 WL3 WL9 WL6 WL7 WL8 Figure 8 - Minimization Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL3 WL10 WL4 WL1/2 Figure 9 - Proposed Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet WL3 WL10 Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District Figure 10 - Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Fill Waterway Relocation Wetland Fill Wetland Excavation Wetlands WL6 WL1 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL8 WL7 WL1/2 WL2 WL10 WL3 383.5-ft 331-ft617-ft Figure 11 - Tree Removal Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Tree Removal6.3-acres P o w e r s B l v d TH 2 1 2 Tree Removal3.20-acres Tree Removal0.27-acres Tree Removal1.21-acres ThisParcelNotDeveloped Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX A Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Level 7 Development, LLC (contact Mark Nordland) Mailing Address: 8315 Cascade Drive, Suite 165, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: (612) 812‐7020 E‐mail Address: mnordland@launchproperties.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above):Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services Mailing Address: 105 5th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612‐252‐9070 E‐mail Address: Darren B. Lazan, RLA <dlazan@landform.net> Agent Name: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952‐401‐8757 E‐mail Address: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Carver City/Township:Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec23, T116, R23 Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44°50’15” N; 93°33”27” W Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet):Site = 119.88‐acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. See Sections 1, 2, and 5.5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 Wetland 1 Wetland Fill P 1.001 1.001 Shallow marsh/wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 1/2 Wetland Fill P 0.1860 0.1860 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 2 Wetland Fill P 2.2569 2.2569 Open water/ shallow marsh/ wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 4 Wetland Fill P 0.1253 0.1253 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 5 Wetland Fill P 0.3483 0.3483 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Fill P 0.5302 0.5302 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Excavate P 0.2514 0.2514 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 7 Wetland Fill P 0.0150 0.0150 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 8 Wetland Fill P 0.0844 0.0844 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 9 Wetland Excavate P 0.0985 0.9850 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 North Waterway Waterway Fill P 383.5‐ft (767 sf) sf) 383.5‐ft (767 sf) sf) Open water Carver, 33, 9 South Waterway Waterway Fill P 331‐ft (662 sf) 331‐ft (662 sf) None/Water Carver, 33, 9 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 12 Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non‐binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU 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 (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: See Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on‐site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Off‐Site Alternatives. An off‐site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off‐site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off‐site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. See Section 3 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Account # County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # Credit Type (if applicable) Number of Credits TBD TBD TBD 9 TBD 9.9922 Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project‐Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. WCA Action Eligible for Credit1 Corps Mitigation Compensation Technique2 Acres Credit % Requested Credits Anticipated3 County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # 1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. 2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: NA Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.): NA Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX B Alternative Sites Analysis Figures © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure A - West Metro Twin Cities and City of Chanhassen Location Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5 Miles Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Retail/Comerical/Mixed-Use Commerical Burnsville Center Eden Prairie Center Canterbury Downs Arbor Lakes Shops at West End Ridgedale Center Downtown Chanhassen Minneapolis Southdale Center B l u f f C r e e k Minneso t a R i v e r Riley C r e e k C h a s k a C r e e k Purgatory Creek Unn a m e d t o M i n n e s o t a R i v e r Assumptio n C r e e k U n n a m e d T r i b u t a r y Bluff Creek U n n a m e d t o M i n n e s o t a R i v e r Rile y C r e e k Ri l e y C r e e k R i l e y C r e e k Figure B - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Aerial Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Alternative Sites Public Waters Public Watercourse MN Landscape Arboretum (MnLA) Temple of Eckankar MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge TH 2 1 2 TH 5 TH 4 1 6 Seminary Fen Inter-change Inter-change Camp Tanadoona MnLA TH = Trunk Highway Figure C - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Basemap) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/1527 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site 6 Figure D - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Land Use) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site (Dual Guided for Office Campus or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center) Figure E - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City of Chahassen Available Land Inventory) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet Und e r Dev e l o p m e n t 1 2 3 4 5 6 Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites Figure F - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Road Classification) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 Legend Alternative Sites Proposed Site Bl u f f C r e e k Riley Creek Figure G - Alternative Site 1 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 1 = 58-acresCharity and Business LandownersGuided for Office Industrial Use General MillsProperty ExistingDaycare General MillsOffice/Factory 0.90-ac 0.28-ac Coulter Blvd (collector) TH 5 (arterial) Au d u b o n R o a d ( c o l l e c t o r ) 0.10-ac 0.10-ac 0.28-ac 0.31-ac 0.18-ac S t e e p S l o p e s Hazeltine (10-14 P) Hazeltine (10-14 P) Figure H - Alternative Site 2 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Soil Survey Mapped Peat Soil Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 2 = 50-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Office Industrial Use~25 acres mapped with peat soils requiring correction before useSouthwest half of site within shoreland (impervious surface restrictions) Railro a d T r a c k s Lyman Blvd (arterial) Ga l p i n B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) 0.56-ac 0.34-ac 0.15-ac 1.30-ac Hazeltine (10-14 P) Blu f f C r e e k Figure I - Alternative Site 3 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver NWI Wetland 4.0-acres NWI & Offsite Wetland Total (soils; topo) 9.6-acres Alternative Site 3 = 70-acres3 Private LandownersGuided for Office Industrial UseBluff Creek Overlay District south half siteShoreland on southwest and northeast site boundaries Existing OfficeIndustrial Lyman Blvd (arterial) Au d u b o n R o a d ( a r t e r i a l ) NWI Wetland 0.11-acres 0.13-acres Au d u b o n R o a d ( c o l l e c t o r ) Bluff Creek Figure J - Alternative Site 4 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 11.75-acres Alternative Site 4 = 40-acres2 Private LandownersGuided for Office UseBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland extends past BCOD limts Pioneer Trail (arterial) TH 2 1 2 ( p r i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) MN D O T La n d MN D O T La n d Unnamed (10-214 W) Unnamed (10-215 W) Figure K - Alternative Site 5 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 18.25-acresWetland Complex 6.50-acres Wetland Complex 4.2-acres Cit y P a r k Pre s e r v e Wetland 0.48-acresWetland 2.0-acres Wetland 0.62-acres Wetland 0.84-acres Wetland 1.61-acres Wetland 0.38-acres Alternative Site 5 = 117-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay District Wi l s o n T r e e F a r m rec e n t l y p e r m i t t e d res i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t cur r e n l t y u n d e r con s t r u c t i o n . TH 2 1 2 ( p r i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) Gr e a t P l a i n s B l v d (a r t e r i a l ) Alternative Site 6 Alt Site 4 Created Pond Present 2015 2 Parcels to be added to Wilson Tree Farm Pioneer Trail (arterial) Potential future collector street Wetland 2.35-acres Bluff Creek Figure L - Alternative Site 6 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Road Upgrade ROW Ravine Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 6 = 226.5-acres(of which 100 acres is within BCOD)1 Association LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland does not extend past BCOD TH 2 1 2 (pri n c i p l e arte r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d (a r t e r i a l ) Alternative Site 5 Alt Site 4 Pioneer T r a i l ( a r t e r i a l ) 0.89-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.97-ac 0.18-ac 0.41-ac 0.13-ac 0.12-ac 0.04-ac Potential Future Collector Future Collector B l u f f C r e e k Figure M - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) with Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet 0.13-ac 0.10-ac 0.35-ac 0.67-ac 0.78-ac 2.26-ac 0.19-ac 1.00-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-ac Proposed Site = 116-acres1 Private/Applicant LandownerDual Zoned/Guided for Office or Regional CommercialBluff Creek Overlay District / Woodland Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) Lyman Blvd (arterial) TH 2 1 2 (pr i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Bluf f C r e e k B l v d (co l l e c t o r ) Legend Proposed Site Waterway Intermittent Surface Flow Ag Tile Delineated Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver 0.07-ac Unnamed (10-215 W) Unnamed (10-214 W) Riley (10-2 P) Figure N - Alternative Site 5 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-acres) Circulating Traffic System (10-acres) Housing (12.5-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hospitality (11-acres) Medical Professional Retail (9.3-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Public Waters B l u f f C r e e k Wetland impacts identified in white 0.67-ac 0. 4 8 - a c 1. 6 1 - a c 0.73-ac 0.36-ac 2.0-ac 0.84 - a c 0.38-ac Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Indirect discharge to Lake Riley(impaired water)2000-ft Wetland Impact = 7.07-acres. Additional impact to wetlands and BCOD required to meet project purpose and need. Layout is short: 13+ acres of retail etc.; 5 acres of housing. TH 2 1 2 Po w e r s B l v d Gr e a t P l a i n s B L v d Bluff Creek Figure O - Alternative Site 6 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Road Upgrade Road Upgrade ROW Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-ac) Circulating Traffic System (10-ac) Housing (13-ac) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11-ac) Medical Professional Retail(18-ac) Stormwater (3.4-ac) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Ravine Public Watercourse Carver Co 10ft Contours 0.04-ac 0.89-ac 0.18-ac 0.97-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.28-ac 0.22-ac 1.01-ac (all three) Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1100-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)500-ft Site is less than 0.5-mi from Minnesota River and MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge (directly south) Wetland impacts identified in white0.12-ac 0.10-ac 0.02-ac 50-ft gra d e c h a n g e 8 0 - f t g r a d e c h a n g e Wetland Impact = 4.12-acres, including offiste impacts for roadway upgrades. Layout is disconnected and short: 5 acres of retail etc., 5 acres of housing to meet project purpose andneed. Collector streets not likley approved by City. TH 2 1 2 Pioneer Trail Bl u f f C r e e k Figure P - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Indirect discharge to Lake Susan(impaired water)5400-ft Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1200-ft 0.10-ac 3.45-ac(all three) 0.35-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-acWetland impacts identified in white Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites - Copy Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Waterway Retail Hub Circulating Traffic System Housing (18-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11.5-acres) Medical Professional Retail (23-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Alternative Site 3 Alt Site 4 TH 2 1 2 Po w e r s B l v d Wetland Impact = 4.00-acres. Waterway impact = 383.5-ft. Layout is connected and meets project purpose and need. Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX C Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Addendum 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798 Memorandum Date: January 9, 2017 To: Terry Jeffery, City of Chanhassen Ryan Malterud, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cc: Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company Re: Delineation Addendum AVIENDA, CHANHASSEN, MN (formerly The District at Vincent Ridge) This memo provides an addendum to the 2015 City approved wetland delineation for the Avienda site in Chanhassen, MN (Figure 1). Background Information Eight wetlands were originally identified and delineated on the Avienda site as illustrated on Figure 2. These wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in November 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of those reports/memos are available upon request. In 2016, the new developer for the site contracted with Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) for wetland permitting services. As part of the wetland permit application, MnRAM analyses based on wetland characteristics is required to determine wetland buffer widths. As such, KES visited the site on September 28, 2016 to document wetlands and their adjacent upland characteristics for completing the MnRAM analyses. During that visit, two additional wetlands were identified and delineated. Wetland 9 Wetland 9 was a 0.10-acre, Type 1 (PEMAfd) partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin that was drained by an incised and back cutting gully. Page 2 of 2 Wetland 9 was historically an approximately 0.69-acre Type 2 wetland. On April 6, 2007 the City of Chanhassen approved a WCA agricultural exemption allowing the landowner (Fox Properties, LP) to impact Wetland 9 (Attachment A). The WCA exemption expires after 10 years (i.e., expiration date of April 6, 2017). Any impact within the area of historic Wetland 9 prior to the expiration date would require replacement. After April 6, 2017, any required replacement would be based on wetland that currently exits. Therefore, wetland that currently exists in or near the area of historic Wetland 9 was delineated during the September 2016 site visit (Figure 2). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 9 is included in Attachment B. A review of all available FSA photos (198o’s to present) was not completed for the area of Wetland 9 since they are not all representative of post-exemption site conditions. Instead, available FSA photos from post-2007 (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015) were reviewed for wetland signatures in and around the area of Wetland 9. The delineated boundary of Wetland 9 corresponds to saturated soil signatures observed in 2013 and 2015 (Attachment C). Wetland Signature Observations for 2016 Delineated Wetland 9 Year Climatic Condition Wetland Signature 2008 Normal None 2009 Dry None 2010 Normal None 2013 Wet Saturated Soil 2015 Normal Saturated Soil Wetland 10 Wetland 10 was a 0.07-acre, Type 1 (PFO1A) primarily unvegetated, seasonally flooded basin located in the southwest woodland. During the September 2016 site visit, KES observed surface runoff flowing into the northwest edge of Wetland 4 from upslope. After following a shallow and mostly dry drainageway/swale to the top of the woodland, Wetland 10 was discovered (Figure 2). Based on wetland type, Wetland 10 would have water only during the springtime in normal years and could easily be missed. It is likely that the hydrology observed during the site visit was a function of the wetter than normal fall precipitation conditions of the 2016 growing season (Attachment C). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 10 is included in Attachment B. Wetlands 1 Through 8 Wetlands 1 through 8 were observed to be as originally delineated (Figure 2) during the September 28, 2016 site visit. With submission of this delineation addendum we request that the wetland boundary and type for Wetlands 9 and 10 be approved by the LGU. We are requesting delineation concurrence and a PJD from the USACE. Attachment A of the Joint Application Form is included within Appendix A of the Avienda Wetland Permit Application. © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 916 914 912918 920 91 0 908 906 9 0 4 902 9 0 0 898 896894 8 9 2 890 888 8 8 6 8 8 4 92 2 9 2 4 9 2 6 9 2 8 9 3 0 882 932 880 934 936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872870 948 950 952 954 956958 934 928 938 924 932 936 914 950 942 890892 878 910888 88 4 926 908 9 1 2 89 8 948 934 894 89 6 9 1 2 936 944 9 2 2 932 92 0952 954 874 906 924 918 950 916 9 3 4 872 902 932 9 2 6 884 94 6 876 9 0 4 928 934 9 4 4 942 930 9 2 4 940 92 0 920 946 9 0 6 930 914 916 926 9 1 0 916 910 90 0 9 2 0 906 938904 916 936 898 9 0 2 90 4 930 918 9 1 4 940 930 924 92 8 9 0 0 874 91 6 896 934 952 9 4 8 9 1 8 914 930 9 3 8 936 946 9 1 2 896 90 0 874 9 0 0 886 908 91 0 916 924 9 3 8 89 2 944 9 1 6 91 4 894 928 926 90 6 90 2 932 89 8 92 2 9 3 8 918 8 7 0 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 7-County Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Transect Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver County Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present SP9 SP10 Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT A WCA Notice of Decision Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT B Wetland Determination Data Forms 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact us | search | Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, September 01, 2016 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2016 second prior month: July 2016 third prior month: June 2016 estimated precipitation total for this location:10.01 5.49 3.80 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.11 2.94 3.27 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.25 4.23 5.27 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet normal monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)17 (Wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact us | search | Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Saturday, October 01, 2016 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: September 2016 second prior month: August 2016 third prior month: July 2016 estimated precipitation total for this location:5.60 10.01 5.49 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.48 3.11 2.94 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.35 5.25 4.23 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet wet monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)18 (Wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Stunted soybeans, low overall percent cover. 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: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat to slight concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 25 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 00 0.00% Y 0 Glycine Max 25 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 0 5.00 25 125 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 25 125 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 9f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. Y Dominant Species Indicator Status X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Surface soil was saturated from recent rain, pockets of standing water present on surface. D2 may not apply due to drainage by gully. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP9-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat farm field Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. N Dominant Species Indicator Status 00 00 0 5.00 50 250 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 50 250 Glycine Max 50 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 50 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 00 0.00% Healthy soybeans, normal overall percent cover. 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: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP9-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Surface soil was wet from recent rain, no pockets of standing water present on surface. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Some sedge present in wetland. Green ash not in wetland, but overhanging edges. 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: 25 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 00 100.00% Y 0 (Plot size: 5 0 2.00 25 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 10f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: slight depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) X True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Water table = apparent water table. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 2Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2+ 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP10-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat woodland Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Quercus rubra 15 Y FACU 00 00 0 2.75 40 110 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 15 60 50.00% 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: 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP10-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT C FSA Photos 2008 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2009 FSA Photo (Dry Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2010 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2013 FSA Photo (Wet Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2015 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX E Historic Photos, Topographic Maps 1940 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1947 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1951 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1957 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1963 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1966 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1970 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1980 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1984 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1991 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1997 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2003 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1905 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1907 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1972 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1993 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2013 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX F MnRAM Analysis Output Results Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL3 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL4 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL6 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL7/8 Low Low Low100 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda WL10 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda MnDOT WL PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL1 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 Moderate Low Low100 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL2 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL5 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL9 Low Low Low100 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 2 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Name Maint. of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maint. of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline Protection Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda HydrogeomorphologyLocationWSSA Moderate High High Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001933 High Moderate High High Not ApplicableDepressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001933 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maint. of Char. of Wildlife Habitat Maint.of Char. Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda Maint. of Char. Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Develop.Location RechargeModerateNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeModerateNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowModerateAvienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateNot ApplicabAvienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeHighNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ExceptionalHighHighAvienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateLowAvienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.66 0.55 0.30 0.00Avienda WL1 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.300.17Avienda WL1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.1 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low1000.50 0.30 0.18 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 16Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL1 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 20 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMCd Type 3 Plant Community:Shallow Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 C 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 A 56 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 1.03 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.51 0.42 0.20 0.00Avienda WL2 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.28 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.200.23Avienda WL2 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Low Low Not Applicable0.10 0.10 0.00 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 17Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL2 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 60 inche 8-2 60% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 B 14 C 15 C 16 80% 17 NA 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PUBG Type 5 Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMBd Type 2 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 B 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 A 56 C 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 2.33 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate High High Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.55 0.77 0.68 0.33 0.00Avienda WL3 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.36 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.330.15Avienda WL3 PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 8Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL3 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 6 inches 8-2 5% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMA Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 B 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.58 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.58 0.52 0.30 0.00Avienda WL4 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowModerate 0.38 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.300.37Avienda WL4 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 9Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL4 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 B 55 A 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.13 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL5 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL5 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 18Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL5 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.36 0 0 67 30 feet 68 A 69 Drain Tiles, Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.43 0.56 0.70 0.35 0.00Avienda WL6 Recharge Low Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateNot Applicable 0.27 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.350.00Avienda WL6 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 12Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL6 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 B 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 C 22 B 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 25% 26-C 75% 27 A 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.78 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.53 0.45 0.23 0.00Avienda WL7/8 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.230.00Avienda WL7/8 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 13Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL7/8 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 B 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 0.08 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL9 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL9 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 19Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL9 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.1 0 0 67 30 feet 68 C 69 Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. High Moderate High High Not Applicable Depressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)1.00 0.55 0.70 0.83 0.00Avienda WL10 Recharge High Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Exceptional HighHigh 0.74 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.830.67Avienda WL10 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Saturday, December 10, 2016 Page 1 of 1 14Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL10 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Isolated 8-1 12 inche 8-2 100% 9 15 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 A 15 A 16 30% 17 NA 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 A 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 75% 25-B 25% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PFO1A Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 A 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 A 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 A 55 A 56 B 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.07 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 Exceptional 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/10/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.52 0.63 0.58 0.45 0.00Avienda MnDOT WL Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateLow 0.51 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.450.30Avienda MnDOT WL PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 15Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda MnDOT WL Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 48 inche 8-2 60% 9 60 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 B 14 B 15 A 16 75% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 40 feet 24-A 70% 24-B 0% 24-C 30% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMF Type 4 Plant Community:Deep Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PSS1B Type 6 Plant Community:Shrub Carr Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEM1A Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 25% 25-B 50% 25-C 25% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 B 39 B 40 A 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 A 52 C 53 A 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 C 56 B 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 11.5 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 A 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX G Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans L y m a n B o u l e v a r d P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d Avienda Parkway U S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Bethesda Circle Lyman BoulvevardJersey Way Mills DriveRiver Rock Drive N Degler CircleRIVER ROCK DR S Jeurissen Lane Sunset Trail P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d Bluff Creek Boulevar d 25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAILRETAIL R E T A I L RE T A I L R E T A I L 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S R E T A I L A N C H O R 8,000 S.F. 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 8,000 S.F. 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 6 , 0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL 6 , 0 0 0 S . F . 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 10,00 0 S . F . 1 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . 25,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T C 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T D 20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.60,000 S.F. R E S T A 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . APARTMENTS 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 115,000 S.F.16,000 S.F.40,000 S.F. R E T A I L 20,000 S.F. 1 2 , 0 0 0 S . F . 76,000 S.F. 1 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . 2 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . OFFICE A O F F I C E B R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L HOTEL A R E T A I L RETAILRETAILRETAIL R E S T B APARTMENTS DAYCARE R E T A I L R E T A I L RETAIL R E T A I L TWIN HOME 35 3 3 7 185178 3 6 9 537 1 0 3 1 1 5 3 3 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 7 9 4 6 6 306 1 1 4 539 1 8 7 N A B L O F G I J K EDC P R/W R / W R / W R/WR/W R/W R / W H M R / W PR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T A W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 6 . 6 0 A c r e s 0 . 7 5 A c r e s 1 6 . 0 6 A c r e s 1 . 4 1 A c r e s 6 . 3 0 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 7 8 . 7 6 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 5 . 0 0 A c r e s D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 8 . 2 9 8 . 2 9 9 0 , 0 0 0 4 6 6 5 . 2 1 . 7 9 1 . 7 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 . 5 1 0 . 5 1 7 . 5 4 9 3 , 0 0 0 5 3 9 3 1 5 1 . 7 9 . 2 8 6 . 4 4 7 6 , 0 0 0 n / a 3 8 5 . 2 9 4 . 1 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 0 6 6 . 1 1 . 5 8 1 . 5 8 1 6 , 0 0 0 3 5 2 . 2 4 . 3 0 4 . 3 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 6 6 . 7 4 . 2 1 4 . 2 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 7 6 . 7 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 2 6 , 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 . 1 1 . 5 8 1 . 2 0 6 , 5 0 0 1 1 4 1 7 . 5 2 . 0 5 1 . 6 5 6 , 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 . 5 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 4 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 . 7 2 5 . 6 7 2 5 . 6 7 2 5 7 , 0 0 0 1 2 8 5 5 . 0 3 . 4 9 3 . 4 9 3 6 , 0 0 0 1 8 7 5 . 2 2 . 7 6 2 . 7 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 5 1 0 0 1 . 9 2 . 5 8 2 . 5 8 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 7 8 9 2 1 . 9 1 6 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 1 6 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 7 8 . 7 6 8 1 9 , 5 0 0 4 , 3 9 8 5 4 5 n / a A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P P R R / W O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S DAYCARE6,000 S.F. R E T A I L A N C H O R 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S O F F I C E B 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . APARTMENTS40,000 S.F. R E S T A 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 2 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . L Y M A N B O U L E V A R D SUNSET TRAIL A V I E N D A P A R K W A Y BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D MILLS DR. U S H W Y . 2 1 2 JERSEY WAY DEGLER CIRBETHESDA CIR RIVER ROCK DR N P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D RIVER ROCK DR S LYMAN BOULEVARDJEURISSEN LN RETAIL32,000 S.F. R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 1 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . HOTEL13,000 S.F. R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 4 5 0 1 0 3 5 0 3 7 0 150160 400 44 3 6 1 3 6 3 2 6 1 3 2 7 R/WR/WR/W R/W R / W R / W R/W A B C D E F G GML K J I HH K K LGPR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 7 . 8 8 7 . 8 8 9 0 , 0 0 0 4 5 0 5 . 0 1 . 8 0 1 . 8 0 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 . 7 1 . 2 2 1 . 2 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 5 0 5 . 0 7 . 6 9 7 . 2 2 7 4 , 0 0 0 3 7 0 5 . 0 2 . 6 6 2 . 6 6 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 . 0 2 . 7 5 2 . 6 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 6 0 8 0 2 . 0 2 2 . 3 4 1 9 . 1 2 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 8 0 1 . 9 5 1 . 3 6 6 , 0 0 0 4 4 7 . 3 5 . 5 1 5 . 5 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 1 7 . 2 4 . 7 9 4 . 7 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 3 7 . 3 1 3 . 9 3 3 . 5 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 6 1 5 . 2 7 . 5 0 6 . 0 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 2 7 6 . 5 7 . 0 2 7 . 0 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 . 0 1 4 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 1 8 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 7 0 . 7 4 6 7 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 3 9 5 1 0 n / a L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y A B C D E F G H I J K L M R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T B W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - P a r t i a l I m p a c t - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k P R R / W P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k : S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 4 . 4 8 A c r e s 4 . 4 2 A c r e s 1 7 . 1 4 A c r e s 5 . 0 0 A c r e s 8 . 1 0 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 7 0 . 7 4 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 1 . 3 3 A c r e s BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD AVIENDA PARKWAYMILLS DR. U S H W Y . 2 1 2 DEGLER CIR SUNSET TRAILRIVER ROCK DR N JERSEY WAYBETHESDA CIR P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . RIVER ROCK DR S O F F I C E B 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S RETAIL26,300 S.F. RE T A I L 10,0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL 13,000 S.F. R E T A I L A N C H O R 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T A 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL10,000 S.F.OFFICE A12,500 HOTEL A 13,000 S.F. DAYCARE6,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 25 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S RETAIL7,000 S.F.JEURISSEN LN L Y M A N B O U L E V A R D P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D RETAIL5,000 S.F.LYMAN BOULEVARDTWN. HM.76,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S 35 3 3 4 145 3 5 9 125 2 1 3 313 14477 L A J F G I C R/W D R / W R/WR/W H R / W 1 1 7 2 7 0 1 0 4 3 5 7 E R / W B M R/W K 5 1 I I F L PR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 6 . 6 7 6 . 6 7 9 0 , 0 0 0 3 5 7 4 . 0 1 . 5 5 1 . 5 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 5 1 1 4 8 0 . 4 5 . 6 3 5 . 4 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 7 7 7 5 1 . 7 9 . 2 9 6 . 3 8 7 6 , 0 0 0 n / a 3 8 5 . 2 9 2 . 4 0 1 2 , 5 0 0 1 4 4 1 1 . 5 1 . 6 5 1 . 0 6 6 , 0 0 0 3 5 5 . 8 4 . 7 2 4 . 7 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 5 9 7 . 2 4 . 1 4 4 . 1 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 4 6 . 7 1 4 . 2 5 3 . 4 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 3 4 . 3 1 . 9 3 1 . 9 3 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 4 . 9 1 4 . 1 9 1 2 . 7 2 5 8 , 3 0 0 5 8 3 1 0 . 0 8 . 2 9 4 . 3 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 5 . 0 4 . 2 3 3 . 5 8 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 1 7 9 . 0 1 4 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 2 3 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 5 8 . 3 3 4 6 8 , 8 0 0 2 , 6 4 4 2 6 1 n / a L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y A B C D E F G H I J K L M R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T C W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - A v o i d a n c e - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r P R R / W P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 4 . 9 2 A c r e s 5 . 7 1 A c r e s 2 1 . 9 1 A c r e s 9 . 4 9 A c r e s 9 . 5 2 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 5 8 . 3 3 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 0 A c r e s Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX H Grading Plan L y m a n B o u l e v a r d P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d A v i e n d a P a r k w a y U S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Degler CircleBethesda Circle Lyman BoulvevardJersey Way Mills DriveRiver Rock Drive NRIVER ROCK DR S Jeurissen Lane S u n s e t T r a i l P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d B l u f f C r e e k B o u l e v a r d 0 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N P R O P O S E D G R A D E Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX I Rare Species Information White-Nose Syndrome Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts Northern Long-Eared Bat Final 4(d) RuleU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map Created January 29, 2016 Northern Long-Eared Bat range and WNS Zone subject to change as new data are collected. WNS = White-Nose Syndrome Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans ; the fungus that causes WNS Counties/Districts with WNS/Pd Infected Hibernacula White-Nose Syndrome Zone Per Final 4(d) Rule U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive counties/districts (Data as of 01/26/16; additional updates expected) Northern Long-Eared Bat Range (As of 04/30/2015) 0 150 300 450 600 Miles Coordinate System: North America Equidistant Conic Datum: North American 1983 WNS Counties/Districts Data Provided By: Pennsylvania Game Commission Basemap Data: USGS TOWNSHIPS CONTAINING NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ROOST TREES AND/OR HIBERNACULA Minnesota DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 6, 2015  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules restrict activity around northern long-eared bat roost trees and hibernacula. See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html for more information on the northern long-eared bat and its protection.  The townships listed below contain one or more northern long-eared bat roost trees and/or hibernacula  A roost tree may be identified to a specific tree or to a general location (e.g. within ½ mile)  If a project involving tree removal is not within a listed township, no further action is required  If a project involving tree removal is planned within an identified township, you may: o Submit a data request to the DNR for a printed copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Apply to the DNR for a data license to obtain a digital copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Contact the USFWS to obtain detailed information and advice on how to proceed with your project (see contact information at the bottom) o Also contact USFWS if your project involves federal funding, a federal permit, or federal lands  These data are current as of June 6, 2015. Updates of this information will be released twice annually on April 1 and October 1  As of this date, there are 25 known hibernacula and 163 known roost trees in Minnesota County Township Contains one or more Hibernaculum Contains one or more Roost Tree Aitkin T139N R25W X Aitkin T48N R23W X Aitkin T48N R24W X Aitkin T48N R25W X Aitkin T49N R24W X Aitkin T49N R25W X Aitkin T49N R26W X Aitkin T50N R26W X Aitkin T51N R27W X Carlton T47N R18W X Carlton T47N R19W X Carlton T47N R20W X Carlton T47N R21W X Carlton T48N R17W X Carlton T48N R18W X Carlton T48N R19W X Carlton T48N R20W X Carlton T48N R21W X Cass T133N R29W X Cass T139N R25W X Cass T139N R26W X Cass T139N R27W X Cass T139N R28W X Cass T51N R27W X Chisago T32N R19W X Crow Wing T138N R29W X Fillmore T102N R12W X Fillmore T103N R13W X Fillmore T104N R10W X Fillmore T104N R12W X Goodhue T112N R15W X Goodhue T113N R14W X Hubbard T144N R35W X Lake T56N R7W X Lake T60N R9W X Lake T62N R11W X Lake T63N R11W X Morrison T130N R30W X Morrison T131N R30W X Morrison T133N R29W X Morrison T133N R30W X Nicollet T110N R26W X Pine T42N R20W X Ramsey T28N R22W X Ramsey T28N R23W X Stearns T124N R28W X St. Louis T62N R12W X St. Louis T62N R15W X Winona T106N R7W X Winona T107N R9W X