03-17-03 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 13 March 2003
RE: Otsego — Otsego Meadows; EAW Review
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 02.16
BACKGROUND
Manley Land Development, Inc. has submitted an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the Otsego Meadows development to be located at the southeast
quadrant of CSAH 19 and Kadler Avenue. The preliminary plat, approved by the City
Council 8 July 2002, included an 18 -hole golf course and 157 residential units on 245
acres. The subject site is located in the rural residential preserve and is guided for rural
residential land use by the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development District. EAWs are processed in accordance with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 4410 — 4410.7900 and Section 38 of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Purpose. The purpose of an EAW is to evaluate in summary fashion the potential for
significant environmental effects related to a project. The EAW worksheet is submitted
to the City as part of the zoning and subdivision process, distributed to local, state and
federal agencies, and published in the State of Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board's bi-monthly publication for review and comments. A press release is also
published in the City's official newspaper noticing availability of the EAW for public
review.
Following publication of the EAW, there is a 30 -day period where those receiving the
EAW or other interested parties can make comment and recommendations as to a
project's potential environmental effects and means to mitigate those effects. During
the 30 -day comment period, the Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing to
consider the EAW and a project's potential for significant environmental effects. The
public hearing is noticed to surrounding property owners adjacent to the subject site.
The Planning Commission is to take testimony, receive comments and make
recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council then acts to pass findings if the project has the potential for significant
environmental effects. Adoption of findings for no significant environmental effect may
be conditioned upon measures necessary to mitigate any issues raised by the EAW or
during the comment period. Adoption of findings that a project does have potential for
significant environmental effects trigger preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement, which is a much more detailed study of a proposed project and its
environmental impacts.
Mandatory EAW. Minnesota Rules Section 4410.4300 outlines development
thresholds for projects that trigger mandatory preparation of an EAW. A City at its
discretion may also require an EAW for a project that it believes has potential for
significant environmental effect under Rules Section 4410.4500
The proposed Otsego Meadows development requires preparation of a mandatory EAW
under Rules Section 4410.4300, Sudp. 36. The threshold of Rules Section 4410.4300,
Subp 36 requires preparation of an EAW for any residential development with lot sizes
less than five acres or golf course that results in the permanent conversion of 80 or
more acres of agricultural, native prairie, forest, or naturally vegetated land.
The EAW was prepared and submitted for City Staff review. After modifications
directed by the City Engineer and our office, the Zoning Administrator signed the EAW
and authorized it for distribution. The EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on 17
February 2003 and the 30 day comment period ends 19 March 2003. The Planning
Commission is to hold a pubic hearing to consider the EAW on 17 March 2003. The
preliminary plat approved on 8 July 2002 is contingent upon a finding by the City that
the project has no potential significant environmental effects.
To date, the only comments on the EAW that have been received were in response to
the developer's inquiries to the DNR, Wright County Soil and Water Conservation
District and Minnesota Historical Society during preparation of the EAW. The
comments of these agencies were addressed within the EAW.
Criteria. As outlined in Section 20-38-3.D.4 of the Zoning, the City Council is to base
its decision on the need for an EIS and the proposed scope of an EIS on the information
gathered during the EAW process and on the comments received on the EAW.
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, in deciding whether a project has the potential
for significant environmental effects, the following factors are to be considered:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects
2
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a
result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the
project proposer, or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects.
The proposed development has been subjected to City review for Comprehensive Plan
consistency and conformance with applicable performance standards outlined in the
City's Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual as well as the
other agency applications outline in Paragraph 8 of the EAW. Compliance with these
policies and performance standards will be sufficient to mitigate any potential significant
environmental effects summarized in Paragraph 31 of the EAW.
CONCLUSION
An EAW has been submitted an processed in accordance with Minnesota Rule Chapter
4410 and Section 38 of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance for the proposed Otsego
Meadows development. Review of the EAW and the comments received to date
indicate that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects
that outside of the City's applicable policies or performance standards. As such, we
recommend that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental
effects and that preparation of an EIS will not be required as outlined below.
A. Motion to adopt findings that the proposed Otsego Meadows does not have
potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is
not to be required based on a review of the submitted EAW and evidence
received, subject to the following condition:
1. The project shall proceed in conformance with the preliminary plat and
applicable stipulations approved 8 July 2002 by the City Council.
B. Motion to adopt findings that the proposed Otsego Meadows does have potential
for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is to be
required based on a review of the submitted EAW and evidence received
(Specific environmental impacts must be cited).
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Linda Fisher
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIG IFF COI.NTY, iNIINNESOTA
APPLICANT: Manley Land Development, Inc.
03-13-03
FINDINGS & DECISION
Negative Declaration for EIS
APPLICATION: Consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet related to the Otsego
Meadows preliminary plat and PUD Development Stage Plan ("the project').
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 24 March 2003
FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact:
A
B
C
D
E
The legal description of the subject site is attached as Exhibit A.
The projectlies within the Rural Residential Preserve and guided for rural residential land uses by
the Otsego Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The project is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District to allow for development of an 18 -
hole golf course and 157 residential units on approximately 245 acres.
The project requires preparation of a mandatory EAW pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4300
Subp. 36.A.
The EAW was approved by the Otsego Zoning Administrator for distribution was published in the
Environmental Quality Board Monitor on 17 February 2003. The 30 day comment period ends
19 March 2003.
F. Section 20-38-3.D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance required the City Council to base its decision on the
need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the proposed scope of an EIS on the
information gathered during the EAW process and on the comments received on the EAW.
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, in deciding whether a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of
EISs previously prepared on similar projects.
G. The EAW dated 2/99 prepared by Manley Land Development, Inc. is incorporated herein.
H. The planning reports dated 30 May 2002 and 13 March 2003 prepared by the City Planner,
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
The engineering review dated 6 June 2002 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson
Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
J. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on 17
March 2003 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice. Upon review
of the application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and recommended by a vote that the City Council the request
based on the aforementioned findings.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the proposed Otsego
Meadows does not have potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is
not to be required based on a review of the submitted EAW and evidence received, subject to the
following condition:
1. The project shall proceed in conformance with the preliminary plat and applicable stipulations
approved 8 July 2002 by the City Council.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 24th day of March, 2003.
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Attest:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Revised 2/99
ENVIRONMENTALAsSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in
Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may
have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or
its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must
supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. If a complete answer does
not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be
included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title Vintage Pro Golf Course
2. Proposer Manley Land Development, Inc. 3. RGU City of Otsego, Wright County
Contact person Kurt Manley Contact person Mike Robertson
Title Title City Administrator
Address 2113 Cliff Drive Address 8899 Nashua Avenue
City, State, ZIP Eagan, NIN 55122 City, State, ZIP Elk River, MN 55330
Phone 6514544933 Phone 7634414414
Fax 651-454-9371 Fax 763-441-8823
E-mail E-mail cityhall@ci.otsego.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one)
EIS scooping ✓ Mandatory EAW Citizen petition RGU discretion Proposer volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number 4410.4300, Subpart 36A
5. Project location County Wright City/Township City of Otsego
Part of the S %: of the W %: of the NW '/. of Section 14 and Part of W %: of SW '/. of Section 14 and
Part of the NW '/. of Section 23 Township 121 Range 24
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project (Exhibit A);
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable) (Exhibit B);
• Site plan showing all significant project and natural features (Exhibit Q.
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
The Vintage Pro Golf Course property is a proposed 18 -hole golf course combined with a
residential development on 239 acres in the City of Otsego. The development will be served with
municipal storm sewer and public streets, a community well and water distribution system, and an
on-site cluster sewer system.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or
industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the
Page 1 of 15
timing and duration of construction activities.
The project consists of an 18 -hole golf course and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential
development. The site is 238.7 acres in size. The residential development consists of 157 lots, of
which 107 are single family lots approximately '/.-acre in size, and 50 detached townhouse lots
approximately 1/8 -acre in size*. The development will be served with public streets and storm
sewer. Water will be provided by a community well and water distribution system owned and
maintained by the golf course. Sanitary sewer will be served by an on-site septic system which will
be owned and maintained by the golf course. Treatment plant effluent may be used to irrigate the
golf course during warmer weather and discharged to a drainfield during colder months.
Construction will consist of watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical power, telephone,
and other utilities common to residential subdivisions, public roadways, community well,
wastewater treatment facilities and home construction. The site includes 6.5 acres of wetlands.
Total grading will move approximately 750,000 cubic yards of earth. The project will be
constructed over a period of 1 '/: years. For each construction season, the street and utility
construction is anticipated to take 90 days to complete, with individual house construction
following. The golf course is expected to take 1 %: years to complete. The first year will consist of
site grading. Grass establishment on the fairways and greens may require two seasons.
c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need
for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The project will provide a championship golf alternative in this area. Currently, there are no
championship golf courses within 20 miles. The housing portion of the project will address a
continuing consumer need in the area for additional housing options, particularly higher value
townhomes with superior recreational amenities. The purpose of the project is to provide a high
quality championship golf course with integrated housing opportunities.
d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to
happen? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental
review.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage 238.7
Number of residential units: unattached 157* attached 0 maximum units per building 3
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet Club house
maximum - 16,000 square feet
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office 0 Manufacturing 0
Retail 0 Other industrial 0
Warehouse 0 Institutional 0
Light industrial 0 Agricultural 0
Other commercial (specify)
Building height Max. 40 ft. If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings NA
8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and
financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review
of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax
Increment Financing and infrastructure.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
*Minn. Rules Ch. 4410.0200 Subp. 5 defines "attached" as having 4 or more units in one building Page 2of 15
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Dept. of Nat. Resources
MN Pollution Control Agencv
MN Pollution Control Agency
MN Department of Health
Wright County
City of Otsego
City of Otsego
City of Otsego
City of Otsego
Cit of Otsego
Section 404 Permit
Water Well Permit
Water Appropriation Permit
On-site Septic Permit
NPDES Stormwater Permit
Community Well and Watermain
Construction
Road Access Permit
WCA Replacement Plan Approval
PUD Dev. Plan/Prelim. Plat
Rezone from A-1 to PLD
Grading/Building Permits
Final Plat
*Subject to completion of environmental review
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
Approved*
Approved*
Not yet applied
Not yet applied
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent
lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential
conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site
uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or
gas pipelines.
The northern portion of the site has been used for pasture and hay. The southern portion of the
site has been used for row -cropping. A relatively small area of woods is located in the southeastern
corner of the property.
The area surrounding the site includes rural residential uses and agricultural uses on the east,
south and west. Uses to the north include the existing Vintage Golf Course and the single family
uses in Grenins Mississippi Hills and Island View Estates. The proposed development is
compatible with nearby and adjacent land uses.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and
after development:
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be
affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
The primary wildlife habitat resources on the site include the seven wetland basins and a forested
stand in the southeastern portion of the site. Most of the site that has been historically used for
farming activities, such as row cropping, haying and pasture, has little wildlife habitat value. A
portion of the forested area in the southeastern portion of the site would be cleared for
construction of streets, residential lots and the 4`h hole. This is a disturbed, immature woodland
comprised of box elder, quaking aspen, green ash, common buckthorn, and American elm. The
presence of buckthorn indicates historic grazing. No other forested areas are present on the site.
Page 3 of 15
Before
After
Before
After
Types 1-8 wetlands
6.5
9.4
Lawn/landscaping
1.00
184.1
Wooded/forest
21.9
7.5
Impervious surfaces
0.50
19.0
Brush/Grassland
11.3
9.7
Other (describe)
Stormwater Retention
Ponds/Golf Course Ponds 0.0
9.0
Cropland
197.5
0.0
TOTAL
238.7
238.7
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be
affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
The primary wildlife habitat resources on the site include the seven wetland basins and a forested
stand in the southeastern portion of the site. Most of the site that has been historically used for
farming activities, such as row cropping, haying and pasture, has little wildlife habitat value. A
portion of the forested area in the southeastern portion of the site would be cleared for
construction of streets, residential lots and the 4`h hole. This is a disturbed, immature woodland
comprised of box elder, quaking aspen, green ash, common buckthorn, and American elm. The
presence of buckthorn indicates historic grazing. No other forested areas are present on the site.
Page 3 of 15
The on-site wetlands have all been highly disturbed through historic anthropogenic manipulation,
primarily related to improving the site for agriculture. This is discussed in greater detail in Item
#12. Impacts to wildlife and specific habitat areas is described below.
Mammals
The project site is likely utilized by a variety of wildlife species typical of agricultural
environments. Mammals typical of the forested portion of the project site include white-tailed
deer, raccoons, gray and red squirrels, cottontail rabbits, striped skunks, meadow voles, deer
mice, red fox and coyotes. Impacts to mammals will be associated with the clearing of forested
habitats and the change from wooded plant associations to residential communities and golf
course. Many of the species impacted will be forced to coexist in a suburban environment. Most
mammals common to agricultural forested habitats such as white-tailed deer, raccoons,
woodchucks, red fox, striped skunks, meadow voles, deer mice and gray squirrels will still utilize
those areas where trees persist and may use shrubbery or landscaping plants for food or cover.
Birds
Bird species which may utilize the forested portion of the site include American crows, downy
woodpeckers, blue jays, black -capped chickadees, white -breasted nuthatches, house wrens, gray
catbirds, brown thrashers, warbling and red -eyed vireos, northern cardinals, indigo buntings,
ovenbird, chipping sparrows, scarlet tanagers, rose -breasted grosbeaks, American redstarts,
American goldfinches and red-tailed hawks.
Birds common to agricultural and the small turfed areas of the site include mourning doves,
American robins, chimney swifts, eastern kingbirds, tree swallows, barn swallows, common
grackles, brown headed cowbirds, house finches, house sparrows and starlings.
The wetlands on the site which would rarely have any standing or open water (Wetlands C, D, E,
H and I) would be used by a similar mix of bird species as described above for the agricultural
and turfed areas. The ditched Wetlands A and B may occasionally support great blue herons,
great egrets, and a variety of duck species during periods of standing water. The compensatory
wetland mitigation plan described in greater detail in Item #12 will provide Type 2, 3 and 4
wetlands which will have managed water levels. These wetlands will be capable of retaining
standing water for more sustained periods than the existing partially drained wetlands and, thus,
should provide greater value to wildlife. Also, several of the new wetland areas will include
restored native prairie upland buffers. These areas will be beneficial to birds, small mammals,
amphibians and reptiles.
Some displacement of the forested bird species may occur as a result of tree clearing. However,
the forested area on the site has already been highly fragmented through past clearing for
agricultural use.
The implementation of the wetland mitigation plan, coupled with the establishment of over nine
acres of ponding that does not currently exist will have a positive environmental benefit to many
species of birds and other wildlife. Several of the new wetland areas and the ponding areas will
be capable of attracting and supporting wildlife by providing gathering areas, a food source and
a refuge from predators. Additionally, the establishment of 3.7 acres of upland buffers adjacent
to many of the new wetland areas will benefit wildlife by providing food, cover and nesting sites
that do not currently exist.
b. Are any state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or
other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or
regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? X* Yes No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the
resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame
Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20020907
Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
*Within 1 to 2 miles of the project site Page 4 of 15
There are no known state -listed endangered, threatened or special concern species, rare plant
communities or other sensitive ecological resources on the project site. However, the DNR Natural
Heritage Program identified two known occurrences of rare plant communities within one to two
miles of the site. One is a floodplain forest that exists on five islands in the Mississippi River
Scientific and Natural Area (floodplain forest no. 23). The other is a 78 -acre dry-mesic pin oak
forest on upland terrace located north of the Mississippi River in Big Lake Township (dry sub -type
no. 14). Due to the relatively substantial distances from the site, the project will have no impact on
these rare plant communities. The Minnesota DNR's Natural Heritage Program letter of
correspondence is included in Exhibit D.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic
alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any
surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? X Yes No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the
water resources affected are on the PWI: . Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation
measures to minimize impacts.
There are seven wetland basins present on the site (see Exhibit E) totaling 6.54 acres. The
wetlands are classified under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife "Circular 39" system as Type 1
(temporarily flooded basin), Type 2 (inland fresh meadow), and Type 3 (inland fresh shallow
marsh). The wetland delineation received the concurrence of the Wright Soil and Water
Conservation District on November 13, 2002 (Exhibit F).
Project implementation would result in the filling of 1.98 acres of on-site wetlands regulated under
the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) by the City of Otsego and 1.37 acres of wetlands regulated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Of the seven wetlands on-site, only Wetlands A and B have
a clear surface water connection to a federal "navigable" water and, as such, would be regulated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands C, D
and E appear to be isolated and do not have a surficial connection to federal navigable waters.
Wetlands H and I are connected to each other via sub -surface drain tile. This tile then outlets from
Wetland I north under CSAH 39 and to wetlands on the Vintage Golf Course north of the site.
These wetlands presumably have a connection to the Mississippi River in which case the Corps
would regulate the discharge of fill material to Wetlands H and I.
The project plan has undergone several iterations, with each successive plan decreasing the
amount of expected wetland impact. Wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
extent practicable. The proposed wetland mitigation plan will generate 4.86 acres of new wetland
credit and 3.71 acres of upland buffer credit. Therefore the total wetland area on the site will be
increased as a result of the project. Excess wetland credits generated over those required by
wetland permit applications will likely be deposited in the state wetland bank. The project
proposer has met with the WCA Technical Evaluation Panel and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to review proposed wetland impacts, discuss potential measures to reduce or eliminate
impacts and consider the compensatory mitigation plan. A complete sequencing analysis will be
provided as required in permit applications to the City of Otsego as the Local Government Unit
administering the WCA and to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The impacts proposed are shown in Exhibit E and described as follows:
Wetland A
This wetland is a 0.30 acre ditch system which was excavated through a once larger wetland.
Although highly modified from its pre -ditch condition, the basin is classified under the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular 39 classification methodology as a Type 3 inland fresh shallow
marsh. A total of 0.17 acre of the wetland would be filled for the creation of the 71h and 12`h
fairways and for a cart path crossing.
Upland areas north and south of Wetland A would be excavated to create open deep water areas
for golf course amenities. These areas are not part of the compensatory wetland mitigation plan
Page 5 of 15
for the project. However, a 0.48 acre area adjacent to the south side of Wetland A is proposed to
be restored as wetland and included as part of the mitigation plan.
Wetland B
This 0.36 acre Type 3 wetland is the eastern half of the ditch system which is separated from
Wetland A by a field road. The two wetlands are connected hydrologically via a culvert beneath
the field road. At Wetland B, a total of 0.10 acre of the wetland would be filled for an internal
street, two cart path crossings, tee boxes for the 3rd hole, the landing area for the 3`d hole and the
3`d green. An additional small area of fill at the extreme eastern end of Wetland B is proposed in
order to install a flow control structure or weir which would regulate the water level of the ponds
planned adjacent to Wetlands A and B.
Several upland areas north and south of Wetland B would be excavated to create open deep water
areas for golf course amenities. These areas are not part of the compensatory wetland mitigation
plan.
Wetland C
No impacts are proposed for this 0.28 acre Type 2 inland fresh meadow basin. However, the
wetland would be enlarged by 0.29 acre through excavation on the north and south sides as part of
the compensatory mitigation plan for proposed wetland impacts.
Wetland D
This wetland is 1.0 acre in size and is classified as Type 2 inland fresh meadow. A total of 0.04 acre
of the eastern tip of this basin would be filled for the construction of a landing area for the 18th
hole. Because this area will be used as the irrigation pond for the golf course, the remaining
unfilled wetland would be excavated to a depth no greater than six feet from the normal water
level. Sideslopes in the excavated wetland area will be 5:1 or flatter. Also, the wetland would be
enlarged by 1.47 acres via excavation to provide the necessary water capacity should the irrigation
well become inoperable temporarily. This expanded wetland area is not considered part of the
compensatory wetland mitigation plan.
Wetland E
Wetland E is a 1.97 acre Type 2 inland fresh meadow wetland. Proposed impacts to Wetland E
include 0.57 acre of fill. At the extreme east side, a small area of wetland would be filled to
accommodate tee box and cart path construction for the 1s1 hole. An additional area of fill on the
west side would be for the purpose of constructing the 18th approach and green. The wetland
would be enlarged by 0.22 acre on its south side as part of the wetland mitigation plan.
NOTE: There were no Wetlands F or G delineated on the Vintage Pro Golf Course site.
Wetlands H and I
Construction of the 9th hole would fill 0.80 acre of the 1.85 -acre Wetland H and 0.30 acre of the
0.77 -acre Wetland I. Expansion of the wetland through excavation would take place along its
western edge (0.17 acre) and its north edge (0.17 acre). Wetland I would also be enlarged along its
west side by 0.31 acre as part of the wetland mitigation plan.
All regulable wetland impacts will be replaced according to the provisions of the WCA and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The total
regulated wetland impact (fill area) for the project is 1.98 acres under the WCA and 1.37 under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The wetland mitigation plan calls for the restoration and creation of 4.86 acres of new wetland
area which would be developed through the expansion of existing on-site wetlands and
establishment of wetland areas unconnected to existing wetlands (Exhibit E). The new wetland
areas would consist of Type 2, 3 and 4 wetlands and most would be located in areas of effectively
drained wetland and expansion areas adjacent to existing on-site wetlands. Storm water
Page 6 of 15
discharged to all of the mitigation wetlands would be pre-treated through on-site detention basins,
thus improving water quality over the existing untreated agricultural runoff to wetlands.
Also, wetland mitigation credit for WCA impacts will be generated through the establishment of
3.71 acres of upland buffer Public Value Credit (PVC) adjacent to new wetland areas. This buffer
would be planted to native prairie mixes and would provide valuable complimentary habitat to the
wetland basins. As will be documented in the Section 404 permit application and the WCA
Replacement Plan, post -project wetland functions and values are expected to have equal or greater
public value than the existing disturbed wetlands on the site. The WCA requires 2:1 replacement
of impacted wetlands, thus 3.96 acres of total mitigation credit will be required for the project
under the WCA. Excess NWC and PVC will likely be deposited in the state wetland bank.
All storm water on-site and leaving the site will be pre-treated prior to its discharge to existing
wetlands, waters and new wetland areas.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to
or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including
dewatering)? X Yes No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be
made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations;
and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and
new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine.
There are two domestic wells on the site, which will be properly abandoned in accordance with
Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
A community well will be constructed on the site to be shared by the golf course club house and the
residential units. One irrigation well for the golf course will also be constructed in the northern
portion of the site. It is expected that water use from the irrigation well will be approximately
36,000,000 gallons per year. A water appropriation permit for this well will be obtained from the
Minnesota DNR.
14. Water -related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland
zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river
land use district? Yes X No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
Yes X No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other uses.
None of the wetlands, including the ditched Wetlands A and B, are capable of supporting
watercraft for recreational navigation due to lack of water during most times of the year.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of
soil to be moved:
acres 210 ; cubic yards 750,000. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them
on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after
project construction.
There are some moderately to severely eroded Lester soils on-site that will be regraded to a less
steep slope.
Since this project will be mass graded over one to two construction seasons, there is the potential
for some site erosion during construction. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by
Page 7 of 15
measures identified in vIPCA's Best iVanagement Practices (BNIP's) and as required as part of the
NIPCA's NPDES stormwater permit. Temporary silt fence barriers will be placed through low
lying areas and drainage pathways. Permanent vegetation will be placed after construction
activities are complete. Sediments from surface water and storm sewer outfall will be controlled
with detention and sedimentation basins prior to discharge.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.'
The quantity of runoff will increase due to the impervious surfaces from the roadways, homes and
driveways and parking lot areas of the golf course. This increase will be controlled with detention
basins adequately sized to limit the discharge rate to pre -development rates. Drainage calculations
will be submitted to the City for their review and approval.
Under past agricultural land use practices, there has been no pre-treatment of stormwater
discharged to on-site wetlands and off-site water bodies. Agricultural herbicide and fertilizer
practices are comparable to those that would be used after project completion. Pre-treatment of
water through the use of stormwater retention basins under the project plan should result in water
quality for on-site and off-site waters that is equal to the water quality under past land uses.
The majority of stormwater will be collected through grassed swales and/or by catch basins
connected to a piping system that will ultimately discharge into one of a series of sedimentation
ponds. These ponds will treat the runoff water as previously described and discharge at a rate
equal to or less than the pre -development rate of flow into the on-site wetlands and to the ditch
channel. Any runoff that enters the on-site wetlands or ditch directly will pass over large grassed
areas and swales, which allow any sediments to be captured in the swales. During the construction
phase, silt fence, bale checks, and other BINIP measures will be adhered to as referenced in the
erosion control plan. All NPDES and BMP requirements for the new Phase II standards will be
followed for the project until the permanent devices are established.
As previously stated, all NPDES and BMP measures for preventing stormwater pollution will be
adhered to during construction of this project. The sedimentation ponds and grassed swales are
part of the permanent stormwater pollution plan for this project. Street sweeping the paved
surfaces and having a professional golf course maintenance person regulating fertilizer and
pesticide used on the golf course will play a large role in the prevention of stormwater pollution
when the development is established.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water
bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving
waters.
The site is split into two major drainage areas. The northern portion drains into the wetlands in
the northern portion of the site. The southern portion drains into the ditch that crosses the site in
an east/west direction. There are also some low lying areas on the east and west sides of the
property that receive runoff. The effect of the runoff on the receiving waters should be minimal
following treatment in sedimentation ponds and storage to reduce runoff rates to pre -development
rates.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater
produced or treated at the site.
The residential on-site treatment system will have an estimated average daily flow of 58,875 gallons
of domestic strength wastewater. This is based upon 157 three bedroom homes at 375 gallons per
day. The composition of the wastewater will consist of normal domestic strength wastewater that
Page 8 of 15
has a Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the range of 270 mg/1 to 400 mg/l, and total suspended
solids of 300 mg/I to 400 mg/l. There will not be any commercial or industrial strength wastewater
entering the treatment system for this development. The flow and strength estimates are based on
criteria required for on-site sewage systems by NIPCA Chapter 7080.
The commercial on-site treatment will have an estimated average daily flow of 15,275 gallons per
day. This is based upon a flow suggested by NIPCA Rule 7080 for a golf course, pro shop,
restaurant, and health club. A nibbler type pre-treatment system will be utilized to treat the
wastewater so normal domestic strength wastewater, which has a BODS of 270 mg/I to 400 mg/1 and
a total suspended solids of 300 mg/l to 400 mg/1, will be entering the septic tanks and soil dispersal
area. This system will only handle the commercial strength waste generated by the club house in
this development. The flow and strength estimates are based on criteria required for on-site
sewage systems by MPCA Chapter 7080.
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition
after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the
discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems,
discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
This project will require a community on-site septic system and a separate commercial on-site
system to be constructed. The collection system will be comprised of a gravity collection system
with a centralized lift station. Raw wastewater will be pumped from the lift station to a series of
large septic tanks located in the treatment area. The commercial system will enter a pre-treatment
Nibbler system from the building before entering directly into the septic tanks. The septic tanks
will be designed in accordance with NIPCA Chapter 7080 Standards. The large septic tanks will
allow the suspended solids and some of the BODS to settle out of the wastewater prior to entering
the soil dispersal system.
The soil dispersal system for both the residential and commercial will consist of a series of Bord na
Mona Peat Filter modules that will disperse the effluent into the soil or allow the effluent to be
collected and distributed to a series of drip irrigation systems. The systems will be designed and
sized to MPCA Chapter 7080 Standards. Soils information has been collected from several soil
borings that were dug in the septic treatment area. These soil borings show there to be inadequate
separation from the bottom of trench bed to the level of the mottled soil, for a standard on-site
treatment system.
The Wright County Soil Survey rates the soils in the area to be poor for septic systems because of
the low permeability of the soils and indications of a high water table. The Peat Filter system that
is proposed for this site accommodates a six-inch separation to groundwater by passing the
wastewater through 2.5 feet of media before exiting the system. The modules will be separated to
accommodate the low permeable rates of the system if direct disposal is used. This allows the
effluent to be spread over a larger area to prevent failures of the system. If drip irrigation is
utilized, it will be adequately sized for clay soils to prevent failures of the system.
These systems will be maintained and monitored by a licensed treatment plant operator, to ensure
the septic tanks are pumped regularly and the system is operating correctly. The operator will
analyze influent and effluent samples and water samples for three on-site monitoring wells and will
submit monthly reports to NIPCA and the City to ensure the system is operating properly.
C. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any
pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes,
identifying any improvements necessary.
N/A
Page 9 of 15
d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and
discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary.
Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems.
N/A
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: minimum average greater than 10'
to bedrock: minimum average 136' from well boring records. Wright County Soil Survey
indicates the depth to bedrock ranges from 100 to more than 400 feet in Wright County.
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site
map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or
minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
No site hazards to groundwater are encountered within this site.
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving MRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity
and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
The majority of the soils on the site are Angus loam, Lester loam and Angus -Cordova complex
(Exhibit G). There are also Glencoe silty clay loams, Hamel loams, Nessel loams, Houghton muck,
Klossner muck, Hamel -Glencoe depressional, Cordova loam, and Angus -Cordova complex on the
site. Many of the soils are fine-particled and, as such, would likely contain any spilled hazardous
wastes. The routing of storm water to detention basins may reduce or confine surface water
contaminants to these basins and therefore potentially reduce the effects of the project on
groundwater contamination.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of
disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan;
describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there
is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
Solid wastes generated from the development will be limited to municipal solid waste. Waste
generation is estimated to be 2.5 pounds per capita per day. Waste collection is performed by
several independent haulers who contract directly with lot owners. The City of Otsego participates
in a recycling program for glass, paper, metal and plastic.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be
used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will
lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or
eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
No known hazardous or toxic materials are encountered at the site. After houses are constructed,
typical household hazardous materials can be expected from the residential areas.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.
There are three petroleum product storage tanks on-site, two -250 gallon above grade tanks and
one 500 to 1,000 gallon underground tank. The underground tank is no longer in use. These will
be properly removed from the site.
Page 10 of 15
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added 204 . Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0.
Estimated total average ADT daily traffic generated 2305 Estimated maximum peak hour
traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence 194
Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on
the regional transportation system.
The ADT was calculated by assuming 107 single-family residences using the 'Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Code 210, 50 townhome units using ITE Code 230 and 196 golf
course acres using ITE Code 430.
Residential traffic will outlet via two access roads onto Kadler Avenue. Traffic on Kadler Avenue
is expected to be split fairly evenly between northbound vehicles traveling to County Road 39 and
southbound vehicles traveling to 80`' Street to reach County Road 19. A stop sign is present on
Kadler at County Road 39. Traffic from the golf course will outlet onto County Road 39, which is
subject to Wright County Highway Department approval. Kadler will be upgraded to rural MSA
Standards by this development.
22. Vehicle -related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation
measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW
Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.
This project will not have a significant effect on air quality. A total of 204 parking spaces are
planned north of the golf course clubhouse. One hour and eight hour carbon monoxide levels are
projected to remain below the NIPCA standards because the proposed development is not expected
to have a significant negative impact on the roadway system. No baseline air quality or predictive
modeling has been completed for the proposed project and no mitigation measures are being
proposed.
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust
sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse
gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-
fluorocarbons, hydro fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed
pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air
quality.
None, other than exhaust gas from household furnaces.
24. Odors noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? X Yes No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
Fugitive dust will occur during the construction of this project. Depending upon the wind and
construction conditions, some nearby properties may be affected temporarily. Noise commonly
associated with heavy equipment will also occur. The impacts will be intermittent and temporary.
Page 11 of 15
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes X No SHPO No. 2002-
2558
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the Minnesota Historical Society was contacted
to review their database to determine whether potential or known resources or properties were
present on the subject site. The SHPO responded that it concludes that no properties listed on the
State or Federal Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties
will be affected by this project (see Exhibit H — State Historic Preservation Office letter).
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes X No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes X No
Scenic views and vistas? Yes X No
Other unique resources? Yes X No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project -related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation?
Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling
towers or exhaust stacks? Yes X No
If yes, explain.
The approved PUD Development Plan requires Planning Commission review and approval by the
City Council for illumination of range tees and hours of operation.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency?
X Yes No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and
explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain.
The proposed Vintage Pro Golf course is subject to the 1998 City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan
Update ("Comprehensive Plan"). The project site lies within the Rural Residential Preserve and is
guided for Rural Residential land uses. The intent of the Rural Residential Preserve is to provide
for preservation of rural character and open space while allowing clustered residential
development. A base density of 4 units per 40 acres is allowed, although increases may be granted
as a bonus to encourage superior site design or amenities. The gross density of the proposed
development is 0.6 units per acre. If the area of the golf course is excluded, the net density is 3.7
units per acre, which is consistent with the City's definition of low density residential. Although
the net density of the proposed residential golf course development is higher than the base density
allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan, the City has determined that the higher density is
appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan given its compatibility with the approved
concept plan and other Comprehensive Plan land use and housing policies. Therefore, the project
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment will be
required.
The proposed development is also compatible with the land use plan designations for surrounding
properties. The land use designation of properties to the east, south, and west is Rural Residential
- or Agriculture. Uses to the north include the existing Vintage Golf Course and single family uses
in Grenins RNIississippi Hills and Island View Estates.
On July 16, 2002, the Otsego City Council approved a rezoning of the project site from A-1
Agriculture Rural Service District to PUD Planned Unit Development, subject to completion of the
mandatory environmental review process. On that same date, the Otsego City Council also
approved a PUD Development Plan and preliminary plat for the proposed development, subject to
Page 12 of 15
completion of the mandatory environmental review process. The rezoning to PLD District allows
for development of a championship golf course, a mix of residential dwelling types, and flexibility
in lot areas and setback requirements. Development of the integrated golf course as an amenity to
the single family and townhouse units provides an opportunity to develop additional higher value
homes in the community consistent with Comprehensive Plan land use and housing policies.
Except as modified on the approved PUD development plans, the PUD District approved for the
proposed development will be subject to the uses and performance standards of the R-4
Residential -Urban Single Family District. The approved PUD Development Plan requires
preparation of landscape plans for the gateways at 90`h Street, 92"d Street, and 89`h Street Circle
and the buffer to the east and south of the range tees. The approved PUD Development Plan and
preliminary plat also include mitigation measures to offset impacts of increased density and to
provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate the proposed use. For example, as discussed in
the response to Question #28 of this EAW, the project proposer will dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way
for Kadler Avenue as a designated collector street and will be required to upgrade Kadler Avenue
to a rural section MSA street from CSAR 39 to 85`h Street. Water treatment will be provided via
an on-site communal water system designed to municipal standards subject to agreement with the
Citv and conformance with ivIPCA regulations. Sewage treatment will be provided via an on-site
system, subject to agreement with the City and conformance with MPCA regulations.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes No. If yes,
describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a
connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for
details.)
The City of Otsego has required that the applicant dedicate a total of 40 feet of right-of-way for
Kadler Avenue as a designated collector street. The City is also requiring the applicant, at their
cost, to upgrade Kadler Avenue from CSAH 39 to 85`h Street to a rural section MSA street
standard, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Existing utilities such as electricity, gas, and cable TV will be necessary to service the proposed
development.
29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU
consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the
need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future
projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative
impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information
relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative
impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form).
This development will be constructed over two construction seasons. Future development of
undeveloped property to the west, south, and east is expected according to the Comprehensive
Plan.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental
impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed
mitigation.
There are no known adverse environmental impacts at this time
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping;
instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the
EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the
project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for
these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
Page 13 of 15
11. The DNR's Natural Heritage Program indicated that there are no threatened, endangered or
rare plant or wildlife communities on the project site. Although some displacement of plant,
animals and birds will occur with project implementation, the wetland and forested habitats
present are highly disturbed and not of particularly high value. The project will provide
wetland restoration and creation which will increase the wetland base on the site from its
current 6.5 acres to 9.4 acres. Many of the restored and created wetlands will have upland
buffers established adjacent to them, providing additional wildlife habitat composed of
native grasses and forbs.
12. Some unavoidable wetland impacts, which will require permits and approvals under Section
404 of the Clean Nater Act and the WCA, are anticipated. These impacts will be mitigated
in accordance with applicable rules through the restoration and creation of new wetland
areas and upland buffers. Post -project wetland functions and values are anticipated to be
equal to or greater than the functions and values of the existing disturbed wetland on the
site.
16. Some increase in erosion can be expected in the short-term during construction. The erosion
and sedimentation control measures proposed are typical for this type of development. Over
the long-term, soil erosions should return to existing conditions or better with the
development of permanent grass cover and utilizing sedimentation basins.
Page 14 of 15
RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
L• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
n those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased
actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature
Title (OM DatenaVQ3
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board
at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: \`
Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or
www.nmplan.state.nin.us
GENERAL HICHWAy PdAP
WFOGIiT . COUUTY
--Y--mINNESOTA
EXHIBIT A
April 25, 2002
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40
Phone: (651) 296-7863 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: sarah.hoffmann@dnr.state.mn.us
Lynn Caswell
John Oliver & Associates, Inc.
580 Dodge Avenue
Elk River, MN 55330
Mod
APR 3020M
i
Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Vintage Pro Golf Course and
Residential Development, T121N R24W Sections 14 & 23, Wright County
NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20020907
Dear Ms. Caswell,
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile
radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there
are 2 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see
enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields). However, based on the nature and location
of the proposed project I do not believe it will affect any known occurrences of rare features.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is
continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on
Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its
purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features.
Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or
otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county -by -
county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Wright County. Our
information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because
survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey
of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the
project area.
The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: index and full record. To
control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare
element, both printout formats are copyrighted.
The index provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted,
unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report
compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other
purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include
the following disclaimer:
"Copyright (year) State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This index
may be reprinted, unaltered,. in Environmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal
natural resource plans, and.internal reports. ' For any other use, written permission is
required."
The full -record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your per use
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 0 TTY: 651-296-5484 0 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
Printed on Recycled Paper Cmer Y EvT fIB T,T., D
Minimum of 10% Post -Consumer V A.[I j 1 1
only. If you wish to reprint the full -record printouts fox any purpose, please contact me to request written
permission.
Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only
on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources
as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other wildlife -
related issues, you may contact your Regional. Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Mike North, at (218)
828-2433.
An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search
and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. Thank you
Is for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources.
.
Sincerely,
Sarah D. Hoffma
Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator
encl: Database search results
Rare Feature Database Print -Outs: An Explanation of Fields
Invoice
VINTAGE PRO GOLF COURSE
Minnesota Natural Heritage Database T121N R24W SEC 14 & 23, WRIGHT COUNTY
Element Occurrence Records MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program
TWP RNG PRIMARY FED MN S RANK ELEMENT and OCCURRENCE NUMBER
SECTION STATUS STATUS
T032N R27W 02 S2 FLOODPLAIN FOREST #23
T033N R27W 35 S3 OAK FOREST (CENTRAL) DRY SUBTYPE #14
RECORDS PRINTED = 2
10:54 Friday, APRIL 19, 2002 1
Copyright 2002 State of Minnesota DNR
MANAGED AREA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER ISLANDS SNA
ti
VINTAGE PRO GOLF COURSE
Minnesota Natural Heritage Database T121N R24W SEC 14 & 23, WRIGHT COUNTY 10:54 Friday, APRIL 19, 2002 1
Element Occurrence Records MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program ' Copyright 2002 State of Minnesota DNR
T032N R27W NW02 SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN
Element: FLOODPLAIN FOREST #23 Last Observed Date: 1979 DNR Region: 3
S Rank: S2
Wildlife Area: 320
EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: 9 Intended Status: 9 Quad Map: BIG LAKE (Q15C) Forestry District: 351
Site: MISSISSIPPI RIVER ISLANDS SNA CBS Site #: 253 Latitude: 4S 17' 48" Long: 93 40' S"
Ownership: MN DNR Wildlife (Scientific and Natural Areas) Precision: approx. boundaries have not been determined
Managed Area(s): MISSISSIPPI RIVER ISLANDS SNA
Source: SNA RESOURCE INVENTORY; MORLEY,T. Voucher: Verification: verified
FLOODPLAIN COVER CLASS. FLOODPLAIN FOREST ON 5 ISLANDS IN AN 8 MI STRETCH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DOM IN VARYING PROPORTIONS BY ACER SACCHAR, A. NEGUNDO,
FRAXINUS PENN, F. NIGRA, ULMUS AM, CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS & TILIA AM. ALSO ON QUAD Q15D & WRIGHT CO.
T033N R27W OSSW35 SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN
Element: OAK FOREST (CENTRAL) DRY SUBTYPE #14 Last Observed Date: 20 July 1989 DNR Region: 3
S Rank: S3
Wildlife Area: 320
EO Size: 70 acres approx EO Rank: CD Current Status: Intended Status: Quad Map: BIG LAKE (Q15C) Forestry District: 351
Site: EAST BIG LAKE 35 (78 acres) CBS Site #: 252 Latitude: 45 18' S" Long: 93 40' 15"
Ownership: State of Minnesota (Other) Precision: approx. boundaries have been determined
Managed Area(s): not managed or no record
Source: DELANEY,B.(CO BIOL SURVEY 1989); M. PARTCH(1973) Voucher: Verification: verified
DISTURBED DRY-MESIC N PIN OAK FOREST ON UPLAND TERRACE. PIN OAKS SINGLE AND MULT STEMMED, AVG DBH 25 CM. BUR OAK COMMON, MOSTLY NARROW CROWN, MED -SM DBH. ALSO,
POPULUS TREM, ULMUS SP., CELTIS, ACER NEG. DOM SHRUBS: ZANTHOXYLUM WITH CORYLUS AM. SCATTERED RHAMNUS CA. HERBS MOD DIVERSE TRAILS, STUMPS, CLEARINGS, JUNK, &
OLD DITCH. STEEP SLOPE DOWN TO LOWLAND - AND FLOODPLAIN -FORESTS ALONG MISS. RIV. WAS KNOWN AS NSP WOODS. AS POSTED, NOW USED BY SCOUT TROOP 129.
Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Explanation of Fields
The Rare Features database is part of the Natural Heritage Information System,
and is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program,
a unit within the Section of Ecological Services,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
"Please note that the print-outs are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission**
Field Name: [Full (non-abreviated) field name, if different]. Further explanation of field.
-C-
CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1.
CLASS: A code which classifies features by broad taxonomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP =
special plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibernacula).
Cty: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1 (Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine).
CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0 (owner is not aware of record) to 9 (dedicated as a Scientific and
Natural Area).
_D_
DNR Region: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro.
DNRQuad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR -assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare
feature occurs.
-E-
ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)"
Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the
scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements (such as plant communities, which have no
scientific name) it is solely the element name.
EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A (highest) to
D (lowest).
EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated) of natural communities.
-F-
FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Status of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE=endangered,
LT=threatened, C=species which have been proposed for federal listing.
Federal Status: See "FED STATUS"
Forestry District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number.
-G-
GLOBAL RANK: The abundance of an element globally, from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide
basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by the Conservation
Science Division of The Nature Conservancy.
-I-
INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection status. See also "CURRENT STATUS." If a complete list of protection status
codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program.
-L-
LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the location.
Latitude: The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels
of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude/longirude data. For some of the data, particularly
historical records, it was not possible to determine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. "Fort Snelling", or "the
south shore of Lake Owasso"). Thus the latitudeilongitude reflect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation
location.
Legal: Township, range and section numbers.
Long: [Longitude]. See NOTE under "Latitude"
_M_
MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(s): Name of the federally, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc.,
containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY
BOUNDARY)" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary
of a state forest or park.
Map Sym: [Map Symbol].
MN STATUS: [Minnesota Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law:
MN STATUS: [Minnesota Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law:
END=endangered, THR=threatened, SPC=special concern, NON= no legal status, but rare and may become listed if declines
continue. This field is blank for natural communities and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no legal status in
Minnesota, but are tracked by the database.
-IN-
NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank].
-O-
Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, jn combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each record.
OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #
# OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the area searched.
Ownership: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with manaement
responsibility is listed. g
_P_
Precision: Precision of locational information of occurrence: C (confirmed) = known within I/4 mile radius, U (unconfirmed)
known within 1/2 mile, N (non-specific) = known within 1 mile, G (general) = occurs within the general region, X
(un mappable)=location is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (often known only to the nearest county), O
(obscure/gone)=element no longer exists at the location.
PS: [Primary Section]. The section containing all or the greatest part of the occurrence.
Q
uad Ma2: See "DNR Quad"
-R-
Rec #: [Record number].
RNG or Rng: [Range number].
_S_
SECTION or Section: [Section number(s)]. Some records are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to the
nearest quarter-section or quarter-quarter-section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWIM of the NW I/4 of section 32). A "0" is
used as a place holder when a half-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the north I/2 of section 3). When a occurrence
crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE.1/4 of section 19 and NW1/4 of section
20 is displayed as "NE 19NW20" ).
Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurrence lies. If no name for the area exists (a locally
used name, for example), one is assigned by the County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program.
Source: The collector or observer of the rare feature occurrence.
S RANK: [State Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known extent and condition of that
community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1 (in greatest need of conservation action in the state) to 5 (secure under present
conditions). A "T' following a rank indicates little information is available to rank the community. Communities for which
information is especially scarce are given a "U", for "rank undetermined". The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are
used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning.
The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available.
State Status: See "MN STATUS"
-T-
TWP or Two: [Township number].
_V_
Verification: A reflection of the reliability of the information on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is
"verified," which usually indicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records
based on collections made before 1970 are unverified.
Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository.
In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding area number.
_W_
Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number.
Data Security
Locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to
the rare features. For example, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valuable plants such as ginseng are vulnerable to exploitation by collectors;
other species, such as bald eagles, are sensitive to disturbance by observers. For this reason, we prefer that publications not identify the precise locations of
vulnerable species. We suggest describing the location only to the nearest section. If this is not acceptable for your purposes, please call and discuss this
issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for the Heritage and Nongame Research Program at 651/296-8319.
Revised 02/99
�rcjq; 24
x
WETLANDS PLAN
MMOATION
KEY
®DNd A K,,SCM An=.ai,s, im,
lip
EXHIBIT E
WETLANDS PLAN
®DNd A K,,SCM An=.ai,s, im,
EXHIBIT E
�a?rai�, Vlrair�n�n�eR� 5fy9?
"Sit (312)662•025s
November 13, 2002
Mike Graham
Graham Environmental Services, Inc.
PO Box 189
Ellsworth, WI 54011
Dear Mr. Graham:
RE: Vintage Pro Golf Course, Otsego, MN
Please accept this letter as confirmation that I have completed the wetland delineation review of
the above-mentioned site. I concur with the wetlands as staked including the determination that
Area 9 is effectively drained. I have reviewed the additional delineation report submitted for
Wetlands H and I and concur with the delineation of these basins as well. Feel free to contact me
if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely, Q�
Colleen Allen
Resource Conservationist
cc: City of Otsego
Exhibit F
Legend
106C2 — Lester loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded
106D2 — Lester loam, 12-18% slopes, eroded
114 — Glencoe silty clay loam, depressional, 0-1% slopes
235 — Nessel loam, 1-3% slopes
414 — Hamel loam, 1-3% slopes
523 — Houghton muck, depressional, 0-1% slopes
539 — Klossner muck, depressional, 0-1 % slopes
740 — Hamel -Glencoe, depressional, complex, 0-3% slopes
1094B — Angus -Cordova complex, 0-5% slopes
1156 — Cordova loam, 0-2% slopes
1362B — Angus loam, 2-5% slopes
Exhibit G
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
STATE HISTO ION OFFICE
May 28, 2002
Mr. Bob Sullentrop
John Oliver & Associates
580 Dodge Avenue
Elk River, MN 55330
i
RE: pre-EAW; residential subdivision development; T121 R24 S14 W NW & W 5W, S23 NW
Otsego, Wright County
SHPO Number: 2002-2558
Dear Mr. Sullentrop:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above referenced project.
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed
on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected
archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for
federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office
with reference to the assisting federal agency.
Please contact us at (651) 296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our comments on this
project.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
ExHIBIT H
W) KELLOCc BOULEVARD WEST / SAINT PkUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1906 / TIi,LEPIIONE: 651-296-6126