The URL can be used to link to this page

ITEM 4.2_EAW_LahnENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Lennar Lahn Site — Otsego, Minnesota Table of Contents 1. Project Title 2. Proposer 3. RGU 4. Reason for EAW 5. Project Location 6. Project Description 7. Cover Types 8. Permits and Approvals Required 9. Land Use 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms 11. Water Resources 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) 14. Historic Properties 15. Visual 16. Air 17. Noise 18. Transportation 19. Cumulative potential effects 20. Other potential environmental effects Appendices Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 USGS Quadrangle Map Figure 3 Site Soils Figure 4 Site Wetlands and Water Resources Figure 5 Well Locations Appendix B Lahn Site Concept Plan - Four Sheets Appendix C Wetland Reports Appendix D Select Well Logs & City of Otsego Drinking Water Supply Management Area Appendix E Natural Heritage Information System Response Appendix F State Historic Preservation Office Response Office of the State Archeologist Response Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Lennar Lahn Site (Redacted) December 3, 2015 page 1 July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board's website at: http://www.e(lb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. 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: Lennar Lahn Site — Otsego, Minnesota 2. Proposer: Contact person: Joe Jablonski Title: Land Development Area Manager Address: 16305 36 Avenue North, Suite 600 City, State, ZIP: Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: 952-249-3014 Fax: 952-249-3075 Email: joe.jablonski@lennar.com 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: Required: ❑ EIS Scoping X Mandatory EAW (check one) 3. RGU Contact person: D. Daniel Licht, AICP Title: City of Otsego - City Planner Address: 13400 90 Street NE City, State, ZIP: Otsego, MN 55330 Phone: 763-231-5840 Fax: 763-427-0520 Email: DDL@PlanningCo.com Discretionary: ❑ Citizen petition ❑ RGU discretion ❑ Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 MANDATORY EAW CATEGORIES Subpart 19 Residential Development December 3, 2015 page 2 5. Project Location: County: Wright City/Township: Otsego PLS Location ('/a, '/a, Section, Township, Range): N/, NE '14, Section 12, Township 120 N, Range 23 W SE% Section 1, T 120 N, R 23 W EI/, SWI/, Section 1, T 120 N R 23 W NEI/, Section 1, T 120 N, R 23 W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): North Fork Crow River (07010204) Mississippi River St. Cloud (07010203) GPS Coordinates: 450 13.824'N 93° 31.800' W Tax Parcel Number: 118802121100 118802014200 118802013100 118235000070 118802011301 118802011100 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre -construction site plan and post - construction site plan. Maps depicting the project site are included in Appendix A. A concept Plan for the proposed development is included in Appendix B. December 3, 2015 page 3 6. Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The proposed project is a low density residential development consisting of approximately 344 homes and associated streets and utilities. The area of the proposed development is currently zoned A-1 Agricultural -Rural Service Area and is guided for Low Density Residential in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Shoreland areas and floodways along the Crow River and on-site wetlands will be preserved. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. The project site consists of approximately 344 single family residential dwellings. The new development will include site grading, installation of utilities (phone, electric, cable, natural gas, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main extensions), and streets, all typical of a residential development. Site grading will consist of excavation for stormwater management and treatment, house foundations, and onsite roadways. Typical earth moving equipment will be utilized. The installation of utility piping for natural gas, stormwater, water and sewer will generally consist of trench excavation and bacljtll. Disturbed areas will be managed to minimize erosion under a construction stormwater management plan. Portions of the site will not be disturbed including a mostly forested buffer area along the Crow River, existing wetland areas throughout the site and the floodway located on the southern portion of the project. The project will be constructed in approximately 10 phases of approximately 30 to 35 homes per phase. Grading work is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2016 with utility work beginning in the summer of 2016. Home construction will begin in the fall of 2016, with an additional phase completed in each following year. During development, areas not involved in construction will remain as cultivated land, forest or dormant agricultural land. Disturbed areas will be stabilized to prevent erosion during development. The project will be served by existing City of Otsego water and sewer utilities. An existing sanitary sewer lift station and force main located west of the southern project area and just south of 53d Street NE, will convey wastewater to the City's East Wastewater Treatment Facility located just west of the northern project area. The City currently has the water supply capacity to serve the project; however, the City's long term water supply development plans may include provisions for an additional well to be located within the project area. December 3, 2015 page 4 c. Project magnitude: Total Project Acreage Approximately 240 Linear project length N/A Number and type of residential units 344 single-family detached units Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A Industrial building area (insquare feet) N/A Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A Other uses — specify (in square feet) N/A Structure height(s) 25 to 30 feet, typical of two -stony single family homes d. 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 purpose of the project is to address and meet demand for residential housing with a high quality project that is consistent with the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan. e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? X Yes ❑ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. Lennar may develop approximately 38 additional lots east of the project site. The current project does not include the Lahn Family Farmstead, which prevents development of this property and also prevents access to approximately 16 lots southeast of 53'd Street NE. These lots are shown as the "Ghost Plat" on the concept plan. The anticipated date for potential development of these 38 additional lots is unknown. f. 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. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: December 3, 2015 page 5 Before After Before After Wetlands 10.217 10.217 Lawn/landscaping 5.258 71.895 Deep water/streams None None Impervious surface 0.398 47.046 Wooded/forest 34.845 32.287 Stormwater Pond None 15.00 Brush/Grassland 3.27 64.063 Other (describe) None None Cropland 186.52 None TOTAL 240.508 240.508 December 3, 2015 page 5 Wetland acres will not change as a result of the project and wetland types are also not expected to change. Based on a wetland delineation conducted as part of the project, pre-existing impacts were identified at one of the wetlands, which will be restored to its original boundaries as part of the project. A reduction in wooded area of approximately 2.5 acres is anticipated on the central portion of the southern project area. There will be no reduction in wooded acres along the Crow River. On completion of the project there will no cropland so the 186.5 acres currently under cultivation will be converted to: lawn/landscaping, impervious surface, brush/grassland and stormwater ponds. 8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications 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. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Unit of government Type of application Status City of Otsego Zoning Map Amendment Under Review City of Otsego Planned Unit Development — Conditional Under Review Use Permit City of Otsego Preliminary Plat Application Under Review City of Otsego Final Plat Approval To be submitted City of Otsego EAW Negative Declaration Under Review City of Otsego Grading Permit To be submitted City of Otsego Building and related Permits To be submitted (Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing) Wright County Access Permit To be submitted Wright County Right -of -Way Permit To be submitted Minnesota Department of Water Main Extension Approval To be submitted Health Minnesota Department of Public Waters Work Permit If needed Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Dewatering Permit If needed Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution NPDES/SDS General SW Permit Submit NOI Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be submitted Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan To be prepared Control Agency Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 — Wetlands Determination Under Review State Historic Preservation Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Complete Office Office of the State Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Complete Archaeologist Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. December 3, 2015 page 6 If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19 9. Land use: a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands. The existing land use for the site is agricultural The portion of the site north of 53rd Street NE (CSAH 36) is bordered by agricultural land use to the north and residential and institutional land use to the west. The institutional land is currently utilized for the City's East Wastewater Treatment Facility. Two rural residential properties are located north of 53rd Avenue NE (CSAH 36) on separate lots shown as exceptions on Lennar's Concept Plan. The portion of the project located south of 53rd Street NE (CSAH 36) is bordered almost entirely by the Crow River. The Lahn Family Farmstead is also located on the southern project area between the Crow River and 53rd Street NE (CSAH36). No prime or unique farmland exists on or adjacent to the site. Adjacent parkland includes the Frankfort Park (Neighborhood Park) and an unnamed bituminous trail adjacent to Frankfort Park along Randolph Ave NE. ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Planned land use for the project location, as described in the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan 2012, is low-density residential (LD Residential) which is defined as less than three dwelling units per acre. The proposed Lennar project has an average density of approximately 1.5 dwelling units per acre and therefore is consistent with the City's planned land use. The project lies within the City's East Sewer District and as such will be served by municipal sanitary sewer. Municipal water service is also available and will be provided by the City of Otsego. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. Portions of the project are located within the City's Shoreland Overlay District and floodplain associated with the Crow River. The City's Shoreland Overlay District includes land within 300 feet of the high water mark but is increased to the limit of the floodplain where the floodplain is greater than 300 feet. The project does not involve home construction on the flood plain and the proposed lot layout in the concept plan exceeds the required setback of M feet for sewered structures. The proposed project is also in compliance with other requirements of the Shoreland Management Overlay District and once built, the property ownershnanagers must continue to comply with the requirements. b. Discuss the project's compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. December 3, 2015 Page 7 The project will be compatible with neighboring land uses and proposed zoningfor the project site. Low density residential development, with less than 3 dwelling units per acre, is the City's planned use for the site. The proposed project has a density of approximately 1.5 dwelling units per acre which allows adequate room for preservation of existing wetlands, stormwater management and open spaces. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. There are no incompatible land uses proposed. 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. The project area is underlain by approximately 150 feet of unconsolidated glacial deposits consisting of silty clay, clay, sand and gravel. On the southern portion of the project area the floodplain associated with the Crow River is underlain by sandy flood plain alluvium. Beneath the glacial deposits, at a depth of approximately 150 feet based on area well logs, Cambrian bedrock is encountered. The Wright County Geologic Atlas suggests that the bedrock surface is somewhat uneven in this portion of Wright County so depth to bedrock will vary along with the formations encountered. Generally, in the project area the first bedrock consists of the Cambrian age sandstone and shale of the Jordan Sandstone, St. Lawrence Formation and deeper Cambrian formations. ,Select well logs are included in Appendix D and the well locations are shown on Figure 5. The first aquifer in the area appears to be the unconsolidated glacial deposits consisting of sand and gravel at depths of approximately 100 feet. The City of Otsego utilizes the deeper Cambrian sandstone formations for the City's high capacity water supply wells. The geologic formations at the site do not pose special limitations for the project. b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item Il.b.ii. December 3, 2015 Page 8 Figure 3 in Appendix,4 illustrates the soil types present at the property and the following table summarizes the soils properties as listed on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) data base. Map Symbol Soil Classification Sloe Drainage Flooding Hydric 406 Dorset sandy -loam 0 to 2 % Well- None Not hydric drained 441 Almora loam 0 to 2 % Well- None Not hydric drained 771 Elk River fine 0 to 2 % Moderately Rare in Not hydric sandy -loam well- March to drained June 1255 Elk River fine 0 to 2 % Somewhat Occasional Not hydric sandy -loam poorly- in March drained to August 1257 Elk River-Mosford 0 to 6 % Moderately Rare in Not hydric complex (fine sandy well- March to loam) drained June 1377 B, E Dorset -Two Inlets 2 to 6 %, 20 Excessively None Not hydric complex (sandy to 35 % to well loam to loamy sand) drained 1378 Fordum loam 0 to 2 % Poorly Occasional Hydric drained in March to August 1380 A, B, C Bygland silt -loam 0 to 2 %, 2 to Moderately None Not hydric 6 %,6 to 12 well % drained 1381 Lindaas silt -loam 0 to 2 % Poorly None Hydric drained Soils on the site are silty to sandy loams, with some coarse looms and loamy sands. The topography of the site gently slopes towards the Crow River, changing elevation from approximately 890 feet at the northern edge of the project site to approximately 850 feet along the Crow River. Development is not anticipated to occur along the steeper slopes that occur close to the Crow River at some locations. Stormwater management plans will need to consider the steep slopes along the river to prevent additional erosion. The proposed project will not involve deep excavations or major alteration of the existing topography beyond that necessary for construction of basements, foundations, roads and utilities. According to the NRCS, and based on previous investigations by Braun Intertec in 2002 and 2005, the known soils beneath the site are primarily formed in glacial alluvium, consisting of clays underlain by poorly graded sands, silty -sands, and clayey sands. Gravel mining operations took place on the upland (northern) portion of the southern project area. In this area, the disturbed suifcial soils consist of brown sand to brown sandy loam. December 3, 2015 page 9 NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10. 11. Water resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Figure 4 illustrates wetlands and public waters inventory for the project area based on the Department of Natural Resources Public Water Inventory. In addition, Liesch Associate, Inc. — Terracon Company (Liesch) conducted wetland delineations that are included on the concept plans in Appendix B. A request for wetland delineation concurrence and jurisdictional determination has been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and is included in Appendix C. Approximately 10 acres of wetland exist within the site, with 15 individual wetland areas and two wetland ditch areas identified. Wetlands on the floodplain associated with the Crow River on the southern portion of the site were not delineated since development will not occur on the floodplain. One of the wetlands delineated as part of this project was partially filled at some point in the past and will be restored as part of the project. Other than this, no work in the wetlands is planned. The Crow River borders much of the project area and the bulk of the project lies within the Crow River Watershed, MPCA Stream ID Number; 07010204-502. This stretch of the Crow River is on the Impaired Waters List for aquatic life macroinvertebrate bioassessments, fishes bioassessments, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and fecal coliform. A portion of the project site area is located within the Mississippi River — St. Cloud Watershed, MPCA Stream ID Number; 07010203-503. This stretch of the Mississippi River is on the Impaired Waters List for aquatic consumption including PCBs and Mercury in fish. The Mississippi River is designated as a MDNR Recreational River within the watershed. The proximity of the project to the impaired waters will require preparation of a stormwater pollution plan (SWPPP) for the construction phase of the project. Other than the Crow River (CR) and Mississippi River (MR) no DNR PWI-listed water bodies were located within a one -mile radius of the project site. ii. Groundwater — aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, December 3, 2015 page 10 including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. The project site is underlain by approximately 150 feet of glacial drift which may constitute an aquifer locally. Figure S illustrates the location of a glacial drift well with Minnesota Unique Well Number UWN 791542 located just east of the project. This well is completed in the glacial drift at a depth of 110 feet. A static water level of 45 feet below grade was reported at this well when it was drilled in 2012. The well located at the Lahn Farm, UWN 218017 was drilled in 1928 to depth of 500 feet and apparently utilizes the Mt Simon Sandstone as a source of water, however, construction details are not available for this well. The City of Otsego drilled a test hole (UWN 74 72 70) to a depth of 440 feet just west of the northern project area that was open to the Mt. Simon Sandstone. A static water level of 6 feet above grade was reported for this well in 2007. The project site is located within a wellhead protection area for City of Otsego Wells 3 and 8. A map showing the location of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area for these wells is included in Appendix D. The City of Otsego may construct an additional well on the project site as part of their long term water supply plans. It is anticipated the proposed well will be constructed in the Mt. Simon Sandstone Aquifer. The project will be served by municipal water. b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. L Wastewater For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this property within the current sewer district and has planned for providing wastewater services within this area. The project includes a sanitary sewer collection system that will utilize an 8 -inch diameter force main to connect to the City of Otsego East Wastewater Treatment Facility. The treatment facility has a capacity of 1, 000, 000 gpd and has adequate treatment capacity for the proposed development without expansion. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. There is no on-site wasteti-vater treatment proposed for this project. All wastewater will be collected and treated at the City of Otsego East Wastewater Treatment Facility. December 3, 2015 page 11 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. No wastewater discharge to surface water is proposed for this project. ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. There is currently minimal storm water management at the site and no storm sewer piping. Precipitation collects within the site where it infiltrates into the ground or runs off to the Crow or Mississippi River. Preferential flow paths based on topographic features are present on the southern portion of the site including shallow ravines with some erosion that discharge to the Crow River. The change in land use post -development will provide an opportunity for improved stormwater management. The project plans to utilize stormwater treatment ponds, which will reduce runoff rate and volumes and generally improve the quality of the runofffrom the site. Runoff water quality will be typical of low density residential developments with managed stormwater systems. The project will incorporate measures such as vegetated drainage swales, storm water ponds, infiltration and other best management practices (BMPs) to manage the volume, rate and quality ofrunofffrom the site. Potential adverse effects of runoff volume and quality will be further mitigated by the construction of. approximately 5.6 acres ofstorm water ponds, which will be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and meet the requirements of the City of Otsego and the MPCA. A stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with appropriate BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading in storm water runoff. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs during construction will be consistent with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements, including site inspection after rainfall events, perimeter sediment control maintenance, and sediment removal. Surface waters generally flow north to south towards the Crow River. A portion of the northern project area appears to drain directly to the Mississippi River. The project will be designed to maintain peak discharge rates at or below existing conditions. Post - construction drainage will follow similar pathways, with minor differences in drainage routes. iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and December 3, 2015 page 12 purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. The project does not propose to appropriate surface or groundwater and a DNR water appropriation permit is not required far the project. It is possible that temporary dewatering may be required for utility installation. This work would be conducted in accordance with the DNR requirements for dewatering under their general permit. The project will utilize the existing City of Otsego water supply and will include a water distribution system to serve the homes. The system will utilize 6 -inch to 8 -inch water lines per City of Otsego specifications and will connect to the existing City water main along 53rd Street NE (CSAH 36). The City currently has the ability to serve the project without a new or expanded water appropriation permit. However, the City's long term water supply plans call for a new water supply well in the vicinity project. iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. Liesch evaluated the subjectpropertyfor wetlands and other jurisdictional water. Fifteen wetland areas and two wetland ditches were identified on the site, as depicted on the concept plan in Appendix B and on the ACOS information in Appendix C. The current concept plan design incorporates the existing wetlands into the development plans and no net change in wetland acres is anticipated as a result of the project. Additionally, no homes will be constructed within a 40 foot buffer of the mapped wetland boundaries. Construction within wetland buffers will be limited to roads or walking paths. b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to December 3, 2015 page 13 surface water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. There are no other anticipated effects or alterations to surface water features. 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre -project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre -project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. Debris including concrete and used tires are located on the southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to the Lahn Family Farmstead. It appears that this debris may have been strategically placed at this location to reduce erosion in a shallow ravine. During a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) performed in October 2014, no visual or olfactory evidence was observed to indicate that a release to the environment occurred at this location. As such, the material located here can be handled as non -hazardous waste during removal for construction activities. As part of the Phase I ESA, a records review offederal, state and local environmental databases was performed- no releases were reported within 1, 000 feet of the project site. Additionally, no other observations of hazardous materials or contamination were noted for the project site. b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. This project will produce solid waste h pical of residential developments and construction projects. All solid waste will be collected by private haulers and disposed as required by the City of Otsego and Wright County. During the construction phase of development, Lennar will require the General Contractor to dispose of all solid waste generated per requirements of the City of Otsego and Wright County. c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. December 3, 2015 page 14 Currently, there are no known hazardous wastes used or stored on the site. During the construction phase, Lennar will require that the General Contractor does not store hazardous materials on site without proper precautions for items such as fuel and construction materials. Post development, it is expected that the homes will generate typical quantities ofhousehold hazardous waste which will managed in accordance with City and County waste ordinances. d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. Currently, there are no known hazardous wastes used or stored on the site. During the construction phase, Lennar will ensure that the General Contractor does not store hazardous materials on site without proper precautions for fuel and construction materials. Post development, it is expected that the homes will generate typical quantities of household hazardous waste which will managed in accordance with City and County waste ordinances. December 3, 2015 page 15 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. Fish and wildlife resources on and near the site are consistent with species found in woodland, wetlands, and grassland. Based on a review of the pre -development site, the project site is composed of the following habitat types: 10.22 acres of wetland, 34.84 acres of ivoodland, 3.27 acres of brush/grassland, and 186.52 acres of cropland. These habitats are used by a variety of animals common to the North Central Hardwood Forests ecoregion of Minnesota. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA -N/A) and/or correspondence number (ERDB #20150118) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program conducted a database search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NNIS) to determine if there are listed plants and animals; native plant communities; wildlife aggregations; geological features; or state rare features that are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the project site. The database search did identify the following rare features within the search area: Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) and Black Sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta). In addition, an animal assemblage (Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area), and Native Plant Community (Silver Maple — (Virginia Creeper) Floodplain Forest Type) were also identified within the search radius of the project site. The DNR Natural Heritage Review response letter is provided in Appendix E. During the on-site Technical Evaluation Panel review of the wetland delineations a probable eagle's nest was noted in a tree located just north of the northern project boundary. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. The project will convert 186.52 acres of cropland to brush/grassland, lawn/landscaping, impervious surface and stormwater ponds. Species that are dependent in part on cropland may be displaced including Pheasants, turkeys and some song birds. Migratory birds that are tolerant of urban conditions such as Canada geese and mallards will likely increase in numbers due to the additional grassland and stormwater ponding areas. Blanding's Turtles which were identified in the search area are susceptible to wetland drainage and degradation which are not planned as part of this project. Uplands at the project site are cropland and reclaimed gravel mining areas which are being converted to brush, grassland, landscaped areas impervious surface and stormwater ponds. Other areas, particularly along the Crow River will be left undisturbed. Rare mussels that may be found in the Crow River are vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, particularly siltation that could occur as the result of erosion during or after construction. December 3, 2015 page 16 The suspected eagle's nesting site off the northern project boundary could potentially be disturbed during the construction season. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. A primary threat to Blanding's turtle is loss of habitat which is not anticipated occur as a result of this project because most of the area is disturbed. Protection of Blanding's turtles during and after construction will include providing information to site contractors and future homeowners to help identify the turtles and ways to avoid impacts such as the proper use of silt fence, minimizing the time trenches are open, checking excavations prior to backfilling and other information provided by the DNR Rare mussel habitat associated with the Crow River will be protected during construction by development and implementation of an effective stormwater pollution prevention plan required under the MPCA general stormwater permit. The plan will focus on effective erosion prevention and sediment control across the site but particularly in areas near the Crow River. The suspected eagle's will be verified in the field and aplan will be developed to avoid disturbance of the nest by implementing applicable US Fish and Wildlife service recommendations. 14. Historic properties: Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. A request was made for a file review of the project location by the SHPO on October 7, 2014 and a response was received on October 8, 2014. This review identified two listings for the project site and two listings for adjacent areas. Based on these listings Liesch reviewed the paper file at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office and obtained copies of the applicable Minnesota Archeological Site Forms. Subsequently, Meijent was hired to conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the project site. Portions of Merjents's report are summarized below. 21 WRo Scattered Artifacts Mei fent conducted additional survey activities at the project site and recovered two additional pre - contact archeological finds spots consisting of a small chert projectile point and a quartzite flake. Merjent concluded that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) and that no additional investigation is warranted. 21 WR0130 Dayton Quarry Burial No additional Human remains were found during the survey and the site has been "completely destroyed as the result of gravel extraction operations". The Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) December 3, 2015 page 17 should be consulted regarding the current status of the burial and any remaining restrictions to ground disturbing activity at the location. "In the event that additional archeological materials are identified during construction activities. Merjent recommends that construction in proximity to the discovery immediately cease and procedure be followed to notify the SHPO and other agencies as required. Further, if human remains are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activity must cease and local law enforcement must be notified. MS 30Z 08, the Private Cemeteries Act, prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials. Work should not resume until all issues are resolved. " Merjent's report has been submitted to the OSA for review and the OSA has concurred with Merjent's findings. Two Historic Farmsteads "Two historic farmsteads are located outside of and immediately east of the project area. Based on observations made from the right-of-way, these structures are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRNP. " Merjent concluded that no historic properties will affected by the proposed project. Merjent stresses that if construction plans are altered to include areas that were not addressed in this Phase I survey, these locations should be examined for cultural resources. Merjent's report was submitted to the SHPO and a review letter dated September 14, 2015 was received. In the letter SHPO states "Based on the results of this survey we conclude that there are no historic properties that will be affected by this project. " The letter also recommends that the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) be consulted regarding site 21 WR0130, the Dayton Burial Site. Merjent's report has been submitted to the OSA for review and the OSA has concurred with Merjent's findings. Information concerning the SHPO review including the review letter, Merjent's report and the OSA review comments are included in Appendix F. 15. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The project will not create adverse visual impacts. The proposed residential uses are consistent with other established and planned uses in the area, and therefore will not create a significant change in visual aesthetics. Furthermore, along the Crow River, existing vegetation, includingforested areas and wetlands, will be preserved beyond 100 feet from the high water level. Maintaining the existing forests will preserve the current appearance along the Crow River and help to maintain the natural appearance of the area. Street lighting will be installed according to the City of Otsego Subdivision Ordinance. Artificial lighting used during the development and construction phases will be used sparingly and will be shielded from any nearby residential receptors. There are no other anticipated adverse visual impacts anticipated related to this project. The project is consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan, including the Natural Environment Plan, and applicable lighting standards. December 3, 2015 page 18 16. Air: a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project's effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate stationary source emissions. b. Vehicle emissions -Describe the effect of the project's traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project's vehicle -related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle -related emissions. The proposed project will generate an increase in carbon monoxide levels due to an increase in passenger vehicle trips. The project will not require an indirect source permit. There are no measures planned to mitigate for the vehicle related emissions being considered. The area is guided for single family home development in accordance with City's Comprehensive Plan and these low level impacts associated with vehicle emissions are anticipated through the long range planning process. c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. Fugitive dust will be generated during the construction phase on the site. Contractors will be required to control dust during construction activities by providing water trucks and minimizing the areas which are disturbed. The contractor will also be limited to hours of work by state and city code noise standards. Dust generation will be short term. The project is not anticipated to generate odors. 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. December 3, 2015 page 19 The project will be constructed in accordance with the City of Otsego established noise ordinance. It is anticipated that noise levels will temporarily increase locally during project construction, but are expected to return to normal levels following project completion. Noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably during construction depending on the pieces of construction equipment being operated simultaneously, the percent of time in operation, and the distance from the equipment to the receptors. The nearest receptors to the proposed project are the single family residences located east and west -adjacent along 53rd Street NE (CSAH 36). 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic -related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. 1) No parking spaces exist on site, and no parking spaces are proposed, apart from parking for residences at each individual property (i.e. garage space for two to three vehicles and driveway). Residential home driveway space and proposed public street widths within the project site will accommodate residential visitor parking needs. 2) Results from a MnDOT draft study indicate that current (2012) daily traffic generated along County State Aid Highway 36 is approximately 850 average annual daily traffic counts (ADT) between Robinson Street and Minnesota Highway 101. The project would add 3, 640 ADT assuming 10 trips per day per home. 3) Peak traffic hours in and around the project area are anticipated to be the morning and evening rush hours. Morning rush hour is estimated to be from 7:30 to 8: 30 AMand generate 273 vehicles entering and exiting the subdivision. The evening rush hour is estimated to be from 4:30 to 5:30 PM and generate 364 vehicles entering and exiting the subdivision. 4) Trip generation is estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9`" Edition 5) RiverRider Public Transit offers transportation service in Benton, Sherburne, and Wright Counties, Monday through Friday, 7.00 AM to 5: 00 PM. Base fares are $1.25. 6) Light Rail transportation is available at the Elk River Station approximately 5 miles from the site. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. The results of the traffic calculations indicate that the proposed project will require a traff c impact study. c. Identify measures that will betaken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The project will install traffic control measures as dictated by 1lMnDOT, Wright County and City of Otsego requirements. December 3, 2015 page 20 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause potential cumulative effects. The City's Comprehensive Plan is based upon cumulative development actions. The impacts have been evaluated and properties have been developed consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This development is consistent with the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential development in the project area. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. In addition to the planned 344 homes, Lennar anticipates "ghost platting" approximately 38 additional lots east of the project site. The current project does not include the Lahn Family Farmstead which prevents development of this property and also prevents access to approximately 18 lots southeast of 53"`' Street NE (CSAH 36). These lots are shown on the concept plans. The potential anticipated date for development of these 38 additional lots is unknown. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects The City's Comprehensive Plan is based upon cumulative development actions including implementation of the project as a low density rural residential development. Significant unanticipated environmental effects are not anticipated to result from implementation of this project consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 21. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No other potential environmental impacts have been identified. December 3, 2015 page 21 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. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than 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 9c and 60, respectively. • Copies of this E-argb ' sent totentire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title �' P%h�N +;t December 3, 2015 page 22 AePEvnix A 1 rerracon Location Map Nov 15 Consulting Engineers and Scientists EAW Lennar Lahn Site Figure 13400 15TH AVE N MINNEAPOLIS. 1,14 55441 PH (763).189-3100 FAX (763)409-3101 Otsego, MN 1 90 .g6 �- �_A _ _ x1=1 v.r,� �,\�" ?y` I= t a L 35 I�� l\ ��36 9 �� - I a� c�W� 24 *� . ' " Sanc _1 1 �, ' , i f � .�� .4.t • �'�4 ss9 N. I • .. � 19 J t, SHERBURNL�U�� dat _gra 3 -, - ,— -- - ses - _ Public A~ .1fISSI,s'S "`'� °r Got, rj -- - _ �T est urs (: Gravel Pitx� �t Area'o ,S oohrl:the aptistFC�u(��,. � .. . ' • - _1„�_��\tee. - - �. 69 . t / --976 O 0. 01 • ; ' Site Location 1 F• `I D A Y'i` i �� R `` - 9 + Id CS St Jello if Baptist rein, rJi1 3,'_�+-•-:�'�, � AVE E, I L I ti • I,' 1 :`��' I - alb l %�asol �I' I, i - f �� GOlf ,.Course q [� Pit, C a�% 1 T— • - 93ST =1 1 , I' - o";-_ •. �:�,. • 7- d VE -N -11 ►4157t,L 97J � _' i.� .--� • . "937 /• • j� �' __ � ,� � I - - 3 � iii J i Copyright:© 2013 National GeographicSoclety;, i -cubed Source: National Geographic Society; i -cubed 0 1,000 2,000 Feet o...i....4�....• AIAnWa IIT A 7- IFAI Project No. MP147329 1 rerracon USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map Nov 15 Consulting Engineers and Scientists EAW Lennar Lahn Site Figure 13400 15TH AVE N MINNEVOLIS. MN 55441 Otsego, MN 2 PH. (763) 489.3100 FAX (763)489.3101 Sources: Microsoft Bing Aerial Maps; USDA Project No. MP147329 �` .. (iib t eet Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 15N IN 1� I rerracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists 13400 15TH AVE N MINNWOLIS. LN 55441 PH. (763)489.3100 FAX 1763)4843101 Site Soils I Nov 15 EAW Lennar Lahn SiteI Figure M Otsego, N 3 ` zs SWh.St rLc.-._� `t6tk5�N q _ ti r 10, 16 4e TAY .� rY " 3IXF�AveN�� - a. 714111,A- on Freshwater Emergent Wet Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Aj Freshwater Pond Lake Other Palustrine Emergent Wetland �40- 1 1 Riverine 14 ^�a Source: Microsoft Bing Aerial Maps; MDH; City of Otsego 0 670 Feet Prniactinn• NAD93 UTM 7nne 15N Project No. MP147329 , , i Irerracon Well Locations Nov 15 Consulting Engineers and Scientists EAW Lennar Lahn Site Figure 1340015THAVE N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 PH. (763) 4893100 FAX (763) 489-3101 Otsego, MN 5 APPENDIX.B Oz o 11 cli n LU C� 0 o CO (.) Z If — -- — -- — -- — W z C) z 0 U 11 - — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- — C) C. UJ W t= 0 z 410 IL z LU z LU 0 I ',1 N1y7d(7�0 ab�4_ O7d 1A/ O.l 4 � t -y, I • �v r" 4tm' == --- - -- -- - __ K W = Z `,- Z g z I ',1 N1y7d(7�0 ab�4_ O7d 1A/ O.l 4 � t -y, I • �v r" 4tm' <q< DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 E( - ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 1678 11/10/2014 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Operations Regulatory (MVP-2014-03949-JCD) THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Warren Tuel Liesch / Terracon 13400 15th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Mr. Tuel: We have received your submittal described below. You may contact the Project Manager with questions regarding the evaluation process. The Project Manager may request additional information necessary to evaluate your submittal. File Number: MVP-2014-03949-JCD Applicant: Paul Tabone Project Name: Lennar Homes / Hahn Development Site Delineation Received Date: 11/04/2014 Project Manager: Jessie Diaz U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1678 651-290-5975 Additional information about the St. Paul District Regulatory Program can be found on our web site at http://www.mvp.usace.armV.mil/missions/regulatory. Please note that initiating work in waters of the United States prior to receiving Department of the Army authorization could constitute a violation of Federal law. If you have any questions, please contact the Project Manager. Thank you. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District Regulatory Branch { I 1 Pali US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District Request for Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Review Please enter the following general information about the property under review: Name of property owner Lennar Homes Property Address (No. & Street, City, State, Zip Code) 17700 County Highway 36, Otsego, MN Lat. 45.233 ° Long. 93.527 decimal degrees) County Wright Location: Eastl/4 Section 1 Township 120N Range 26W Size of review area 200 acre(s) By submission of this wetland delineation report I am requesting that the U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District provide me with the following (check only one box): ❑✓ Wetland Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with awetland delineation is a written notification from the Corps concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the wetland boundaries delineated on a property. Under this request, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area. ❑ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination is a nonbinding written indication that there may be waters of the United States, including wetlands, on a parcel or indications of the approximate location(s) of waters of the United States or wetlands on a parcel. For put -poses of computation of unpacts and compensatory mitigation requirements a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary jurisdictional determination will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Preluninary jurisdictional determinations are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑✓ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States or navigable waters of the United States, or both, are either present or absent on the property. An approved jurisdictional determination precisely identifies the limits of those waters on the project site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved jurisdictional determinations can be relied upon by the affected party for a period of five years. An approved jurisdictional determination may be appealed through the Corps' administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1957 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://www.mvp. us geo.army. inil/reuul_atpry/). Date %0 - :3/- ZL)l Name (typed) Warren Tuel - Liesch Associates, Inc. a Terracon Company Project Narne and/or Number: Lennar Homes - Otsego, 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: Mr. Paul Tabone — Lennar Homes Mailing Address: 16305 36`h Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: (952) 249-3086 E-mail Address: Paul.tabone@lennar.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Warren Tuel — Liesch/Terracon Mailing Address: 13400 15`h Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: (763)489-3100 E-mail Address: Warren.tuel@liesch.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Wright City/Township: Otsego Parcel ID and/or Address: Rawlings Ave NE and Randolph Ave NE Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec 1, T120N, R26W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): N45 Deg, 14'00.0" W93 Deg 31'40.0" 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): 200 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. The applicant proposes construction of a Dollar General store at the site. Grading of the site will include filling and realignment of an existing drainage channel that flows through the property in a southwest to northeast direction. Plans for the facility are in the development stage and will be submitted under separate cover once the final design and proposed impacts to aquatic resources are determined. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Dollar General — Chisholm, MN PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact 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 Aquatic Resource Resource Type ID (as noted on (wetland, lake, overhead view) tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) Size of Impact- or Temporary , (T) overall Size of Aquatic 3 Resource Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area County, Major Watershed b, and Bank Service Area # s of Impact Area 'If 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)". Impacts 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". °Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`d 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: Impacts have not occurred at the time of this application. PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein, Sinature: Date: /D —Z '/— ,2J/ g �/ I hereby authorize Warren Tuel with Liesch/Terrocon to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. 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 =orm February 2014 Page 4 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Lennar Homes — Otsego, MN 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): i ❑ 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.a rmy.niii/Missions/Regulatory/Deli neationJDGuidance.aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11 J U6 l - ``f I�=,' ��' Mlnnosofa Unique well Ab. 74770 County Wright MINNESOTA DkPARTMF11fOFHEALTH Entry0ela 01232007 quad Rogers WELL AND BORING RECORD Update Data 001102014 Quad lD 121A Minnesota Statutes Chapfar1031 R000lved Data 02A212OD7 Via[] Nem.OTSCGOTW9 WON Depth Depth Completed Data WallComp;otod Tonnshlp Range Dlr Soollon 8ubsoctions Elevation 886 R. 44o n. 440 ft. Of1122007 120 23 W t ABGBBB FlovatlenMethod tht&ulehpographiomap(d-Sfoot) Drilling Method Millilemabodsused Well Address RANDOLPHAV OTSEGO MN 66330 Drilling Fluid J B WeOHydrofractured? ❑ Yes ❑ No Water From R b Fl Use Abandoned Status Sealed CasingType Real (black OF low carbon) JobtWeMnd Dllvo$hoe? Q Yes Q No Abovef flow It. Geological Material color Hardness From To CLAY COARSE SAND BROWN BROWN SOFT SOFT 0 10 10 16 Casing Dlametor Weight Note Diameter COARSE SAND/GRAVEL SILTY FINE SAND GRAVEL, ROCK BROWN BROWN BROWN SOFT SOFT MED-HRD is 60 86 60 65 70 10 In. to 101 A. 40.48 lbs/f, 10 In. to 101 I. 6 in. to 375 ft. 18.97 IbalfL 6 in. to 375 ft, o n Holo 8om375 IL to 440 I GRAVEL, ROCK CLAY LENSES BROWN MED-HRD 70 75 GRAVEL, ROCK SHALE, GRAVEL BROWN GRNIBRN MED-HRD SOFT 75 100 100 105 Screen NO Make Type SHALE, SANDSTONE GRNIGRYIBLUITAN SANDSTONE, SHALE GRYIREDIBLUIGRN VARIED VARIED MEDIUM MEDIUM 105 126 125 160 Diameter SlouGauzo Length Sot Botween SHALE GREEN MEDIUM 150 200 SHALE, SANDSTONE GRNIGRY7TANIGRY BLACK SOFF 200 202 SHALE, SANDSTONE GRNIGRYfTANIGRY VARIED SOFT 202 225 SANDSTONE TAN SOFT 225 245 SANDSTONE & SHALE SANDSTONE &SHALE SHALE, SANDSTONE, GRAVEL. LENSES SANDSTONE, SHIALE SHALE, SANDSTONE GRWGRY/TAN TAWGRN TAEUGRN VARIED TANIGRN VARIED MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM 246 248 270 280 285 270komLandsurraee 280NGLEVEL{balowHndsurlaee} 286 248FFR-essadaptsr 300R WatsrLeval DdbWasured 01/1212007 after 5b bra. u in300 ..ra SHALE, $ANDSTONE GRWTAN MEDIUM 300 323 SHALE, SANDSTONE GRNITAN MEDIUM 323 370 ead completion SANDSTONE TAN SFT -MED 370 432 manufaclurer lkdel SANDSTONE RED HARD 432 440S�AA Q Cast., Proration 1IIrr 121n.aboas grade ❑ Al -grade EmAronmantalWells and Borings ONLY) REMARKS hBlnformation wal Gtaated? HEl NO, ElNol�eri6ed Yes Grout MG&N0.4663. GMTMLOGGED 1-12-2007. L000ED 6YJIMTWU34. SEALED 07-11-2008 BY 1404;FREVIOUSUSETW Gmuthiatadab NealCemenl from to 375 I. 6,5 yrds. Located by: MnoesniaGeologicafSurvey Method: Dig&alan(&reen)- Map (1:24,000) UnlquaNumber Verilloatfan: InfaMlramdaa source Input Date: 01232007 Noateeti(nownscumoof Cantaminallon System: UTM-A'ad83,InnaI6,Mefers X458229 Y: 5008322 jeei dkecion _ype Welld*10cladupon -rrpbson? ❑ Yee ❑ No Pump ❑ Notlnahllod DaWnsalled Manufaobrar'snarna Madelnunbw— HP_ Wits LongthuldrupPipe L Oa ad m Type Mabrial Abandoned Welt' Doespioporyhave anynolin use Bad nolsealedwa0(s)? Yes © No Parlance Wasa variance granted Imailhe NOR Nr NisWl? ❑ Yes © No well Contractor Certification Cuttings Yes Borehole Geophysics Yes _ Rnt Bedrock Tunnel CiyGroup Aquifer ht8lwn A§rkJTrautWalls.lne Mite EDROWLE Last Urat IkrlcklgSandsUne Depth to Bedrock 105 ft. Lkense@rsnessNarre Uc.Or Reg.No, NarmofOdller County Well Index Online Report 747270 Printed HC --E-0312014 01205-07 Kinnesote unique Well flo. County Wright MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OFHEALTN Entry Data 04/17/1968 218017 Quad Rogers WELL AND BORING RECORD Update Date 08/182014 quad lD 12lA Minnesota Sfalulas Chapter 1891 Received Ode Wag Name CROW R.FARh1R.J.LAJIH WellDopth Depc,CumP!oled Data Wall Completed Townshlp Range Dlr Seeded Subsactlons Elevation 692 ft 500 ft. 500 ft. 0313611828 120 23 W 1 DBABDA HevaltonMethod 75m1nu[ebpographlarmp(41-5 feel) Drilling Method Cable Too] We 1l Address DrICIngField WellHydrofractwad? ❑ Yes Q No 1 DAYTON MN 66327 From Ft la FL Use Ooneslo Casing Type Joint Nohfame8on Drive Shoe? Q Yes ❑ No AbovoiBolow 0. Geological Material Color Hardness From To TOP SOIL, SANDY LOAM SAND, CLAY & GRAVEL, MIXED 0 1 1 6 Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter Open Hole 0om R b R YELLOWCLAY 6 11 CLEAN SAND FINE SAND & CLAY 11 61 51 91 Scroon Make Type WATER -BEARING SAND &GRAVEL HEAVY GRAVEL & STONES 91 140 140 160 Diameter 9IoUGauzo Length Set Behveen HARD LT. BRN SNDS VERY BRITTLE-: 160 180 ST. PETER SANDROCK 160 190 VARI-COLORED SHALE 190 350 JORDAN SANDSTONE 350 400 Wild Water Level RED SHALE 400 408 BLUE SHALE (VERY GUMMY) 406 450 325. homLandsurfacs Dab hbaarred 03/00/1926 GRAY SANDSTONE TRACE OF WHITE SH DRESBACHORCOARSE-GRAINED SNOS 450 460 460 500 0.MMer his.L rTkilllefigm.nd ace) 8. albr hrs. u h m Wog Head Completion Hlessadepbr raenufsduror Madel ❑ Casing PmIedon ❑ 121a.abovograde ❑ A4grede(EmironmentalWale and lloringsONLY) KS 0rougng lnicrmalbn WellG7ouhd9 El Yes ❑ No Q NotSred0ed WATERREMALEVRATADEPTH OF30OFT.WAS39 FT,8ELOWSURFACE WATE2LEVELATA DEPT14OF t75 FT. WA960 FT, t1130W SURFACE, WATER LEVEL ATA DEPTH OF 600Ff.WAS32 Fr. BELCW SURFACE Locatedby: MnneaolaGeologkalSurvey, Method: Dlglgmd - wale 1:24,000 or larger (Di9thing Table) NeeSource of Cordamindlon Unique Number Verllrodlan: Inbrrmtonkmmneighhor kiputDais: 04112/1995 _feettdlto*irac6o_n —type System: UTM-Nsd83,7onelS,Mfeters %458505 Y: 5008108 Wefl disinfec(ed upon rw elan? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ NollnsWled Dalstnsialled lanubOUrar'aname MAsIrurrber— HP,. Volts Len hofdm R e fl Ca ed .pm Type Malarial _ Abandoned Wells Does properly have any not in use and noisealed well(s)? El Yes ❑ No Variance WasavarlancegranbdlomNMJHbrgliswell? ElYes P No Nell Contractor Certgballon FlmtIledrock Jordan Gnndabne Aquifer Renner Wax We! Gm 27246 Leel Slral W,LSnnn Sandsune Dopih to Bsdreok i50 it Lltense Hlshess Nana Well Index Online Report21$�1�/201420507 �U�&01WNo*g. �,NoolDllelCounty Minnasofa Unique County Wright MINNESOTADEPARTMERTOFHFALTH 9ttry Date 03A02013 791542 Quad Rogers WELL AND BORING RECORD Update Date 07202013 QuadlD 12fA WrroaolaSlatutesChap(sr1031 RacelvedDate 01/172013 WoliHame0N1WN.RLL WelDepth Depth Completed Date WellComplaled Township Range Dlr Section 6libaeollone Elevation 892 f6 140 fl. 110fl. 69222012 120 23 W 1 ACWRA ETevatlon Melhod Ca!o0omNED(N.lIBsv.Datasa90n) Driling Method Non- erled Rol ary VVell Address 1768555TH ST NE OTSEGO MN 55374 Drllln g Fluid Basic" WelHydrofnctured7 ❑Yas ❑J.- Ab Fmm Ftp R Use DomaAo Casing Typo Hadco Join[Mod Drive Show? ❑ Yes Q No AbovefBalow, ft. 6e010glCalMaterial Color Hardness From To CLAYIGRAVEL VARIED MEDIUM 6 93 SANOIGRAVEL VARIED SOFT 93 110 Casing Diameter VVetght Hole Diameter 4 In. to 100 ft. 1.9 ftlft. 6.75 In. to 110 iL OPqnHoIq Yom ft b L SCIBan YE$ Make B;GFODT Type plae5c Diameter SlouGauze Length But Between 4 10 10 100 fl, and 110 Q. Sktp Wabr Level 46L 6omLandaurface Dapltbacured PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) 1100 R after 2 hrs u h 100 ppm WeBRead Complailon Hlamadeplormanufactmer A.OUASFAL Model 4 ❑ Gazing Protection [A 121n.abovmgrade ❑. Al-grade(EnV.TonnantelWalcandBaingsOMY) NO REMARKS Grouting Information Wel4aulad? © Yes ❑ No ❑ NotSpedled GmutMatedal: Callings from 60 to 100 R. Located by: hfnnesota Dopartrunlof Health Method: GPSSAOff(aearaged) Grout Material: Bonlooite from to 60 fl. 3 hags Unique Number VerlU;etion: hfolsMkomdelascuica Inpul Date: 10242012 Nearest Known Source of Contamination Ujoel gdiradon Sewer !rye System; UTM-Nad8.7.Zone fb,Molars k: 450481 Y: 5000040 Welldldnfeclodupon anppfon? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Notlii D.IaNa1elpd092420i2 ManuleouteranamaA90—T-IR Madelnurrbar12T-50 HPO_5 VolIsM _ Len bofdm P ego I. Capacityy. m Type submersible Maladel AbandonedWels Does pmperyhaveany nollnuse and notsealedwel'(s)? ❑ Yea p No Variance Waaavadancegranled0omlhe NDHbrihfswell? f-1 Yes Q No Well Contractor Certification First Rodrock Aqulfar JALkalolna Well Ddlloo Inc. 1352 bMPjNE.J. Last strat Dapthto0adwo k fl Lianco BJdnoss Name Lia Or Reg. No. NarraaMller County Well Index Online Report 791542 Printed 1-03225-14 HE -01205.07 C C O O V) F) lC C = QQ IIS �7 z a LU z Q az J Z aw zw 00 C �z F� v O (L a. 0 CL >'w N �` s U J W U o Z N Y Z_ 0.' a m T � 4 H O O Q O f0 = U N a J a o r�t i APPENDIX E Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road It St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 MNDNR Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: Iisa.joyal@state.mn.us December 9, 2014 Correspondence # ERDB 20150118 Mr. Jim de Lambert Liesch Associates 13400 15th Avenue North, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Otsego Lennar Residential Development, T120N R23W Section 1 & 12; Wright County Dear Mr. de Lambert, As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search area (for details, see the enclosed database reports; please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: • Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state -listed threatened species, have been reported from the vicinity of the proposed project. Although we have no records from directly within the project site, turtles may use the site if it contains suitable habitat. Blanding's turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands, as well as wetlands. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Because of the tendency to travel long distances over land, Blanding's turtles regularly travel across roads and are therefore susceptible to collisions with vehicles. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding's turtles, as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels. Other factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland habitat. For your information, I have attached a Blanding's turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to the first list of recommendations for your project. If greater protection for turtles is desired, the second list of additional recommendations can also be implemented. For further assistance regarding the Blanding's turtle, please contact Erica Hoaglund, DNR Regional Nongame Specialist, at 651-259-5772. The attached flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. If Blanding's turtles are encountered on site, please remember that state law and rules prohibit the www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER destruction of threatened or endangered species, except under certain prescribed conditions. If turtles are in imminent danger they should be moved by hand out of harm's way, otherwise they should be left undisturbed. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should clearly discuss potential impacts to Blanding's turtles, and identify any measures (e.g., fact sheet recommendations) that will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disturbance. Several rare mussels have been documented in the Crow River in the vicinity of the proposed project. As mussels are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation, it is important that effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices be implemented and maintained near the river and incorporated into any stormwater management plan. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific avoidance or mitigation measures that will be implemented. • Please include a copy of this letter in any DNR license or permit application. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota's rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. The enclosed results include an Index Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location data, the report is copyrighted and only provides rare features locations to the nearest section. The Index Report may be reprinted, unaltered, in any environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the Index Report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at httP://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Review Coordinator enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report Blanding's Turtle Flyer and Fact Sheet Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control cc: Brooke Haworth Erica Hoaglund Page 3 of 3 a V cH6 v m O N pj U a bD ° N d bp -is � b U y 42 W y N .1', '40 43 F. • ti � N ° S O id N 8 8a zbo d d W az w o 7 dN' r -Cl) N GL (], .-. o M M w° M N D N M tl 0 o F o o p CO O r- O O\ 00Cd ��y O N O N O O N ON v O " 3 s, 0 C7 C7 C7 ° U N' C V] U] Vl U) b U U bD bA � b •� 1' do 0 C�7 CU7 CU7 £? q a v cn ( ° N ° CdU o yw,q d 1 �. co z z �a 0 d O � . � M .b o e4 P-4 o`do -�4 w° bppy N bhp ami a°irAU O id o ° cq CIT 3 ZV N 3 3 C4. bq o z N en M u E • z M Cd O � y � O M O O N O N H C-4 q Cd - M O [� M .~ M M mGOV1zm N NN a� Gn a� 3 ;a Ap CN] 4 P. . ' 7 p �ryD W t� U cNy tU. ZO pZ 4, '9+ z Z OZ N U o d M 7 b N bj E. v zE- bj vi N Goof c d cd' .cyo �vN,a M �ry A a`ya N C a �i cd ^b d) end z w z -'E-,' d w H 3 Hrx a H ¢ u H zr,, Hcy a a V cH6 v m O N pj U a bD ° N d bp -is � b U y 42 W y N .1', '40 43 F. • ti � N ° S O id N 8 8a zbo d d W az w o N 0 0 N q0 N b P, pQ z ?C cd II � q O a' z� 0� U N O U GO II 'Cf b a) � q y Y 'o q q on Y a a8 m 40. S :3 0 Z d Cd *.P a, rr y a) a U ^C Y Cn y cOz .O.b � i O z oo N o W) d W iv O W CI q 0 O 0 � U b m •U tOif• N D bA O o ° w .q c� O N ° ,O O y 0 o bn z > � F" z w A ro W txo f b 3U. ° i o Cd o rnq z o cn a b II 0 0 .� , T y Wc-+� O c V1 . "C O vOi •q 3 vUi Q N QU U -'s (y°. V cbi p O o� •��' W O fs N R O [d a) U cd H a) Y "o w a)bio i. y 0 0 m w .a C) H a� 6'g z U ° >Q COQ � O q O O aS •I' .0 N a .Y. _N a {❑� IV o l Y N o~ U V O} �y 0 U 4, ' %•• U ° 'd q X1 C cd O ' V�. 0 cd U U a q - it X o 3 i ° c❑d^ o 4 o° Cd w Cd C tin ta-� v n II q a� abi V] 0 a �c o 43 ai 2a0-• 's 43O b •� U w q cd y ti ,a)O, O 0-0—. > cFd. z II �� b .,_, A a) c -, Y o oFl a Y M a) Yv° ° •� L� p O q y° > cd C . ,+`�'—+ p i ambb 2.8 OIS bn •°°�OqO o 3 q 3� •F c� q Y° . a O YO q by '° • � O ,��" t N A. q 3 U cd n q p V] W cd r ° o c • O a U +' ' a, �pp H O q ~ b W F! N op wb bl) ,n ai"o, o 0 o'`� o o v m o ami o ld ai W II o r + I q o CF i4z• �. 3� n o 0 a cd A w ° O dd ,, 0o O aqj . a V ,� y i. bA +�••' cci .� ice.' 0 O R y al 'ou i o U 0 bA v ,'� V 10 o C." w .� caa " C cqd O g y O O CQ a� •� m �� v v4. U� ° q ed O d'aw b mU oc:0 0p; Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series Endainwcred, Irlireatened, and Special Concern Speeies of Minnesota BlandhWs Ttulle (E»>i�rloidea bfanrliii9ii) Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank': S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank': G4 HABITAT USE Blanding's turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding's turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding's turtles. Also, the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding's turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding's turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding's turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early -October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding' s turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE • loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) • loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture • human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements • increase in predator populations (skunks, raccoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young *It is illegal to possess this threatened species. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding's Turtle. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding's turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding's turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding's turtles during construction or other work within Blanding's turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding's turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding's turtles (contact the DNB's Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding's turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to Blanding's turtles. be of state-wide importance to Blanding's turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustration of a Blandings turtle should be Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road - given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners crossing areas used by Blandings turtles to increase public should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's awareness and reduce road kills. turtles in the area. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding' s hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed. turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the If you would like to provide more protection for a nest. Blanding's turtle nest on your property, see "Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests" on page 3 o this fact sheet. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the removed after the area has been revegetated. time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANDS Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm during prime basking time(mid morning to mid- afternoon water retention basins (these wetlands provide important in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the to human activity near wetlands (basking habitat during spring and summer). shore minimize Blanding's turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching condition. wetlands and lakes. ROADS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per yearper 100 of road), and in areas of lower density if the level reducing the distance turtles need to cross). meters of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding's turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding' s Turtle. ROADS cont. Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, and elliptical or flat-bottomed. Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on roads). Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). This is especially important for roads with more than 2 lanes. Roads crossing streams should be bridged. UTILITIES Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum (this reduces road -kill potential). Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs (some non -natives form dense patches through which it is difficult for turtles to travel). Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October I' and before June I' ) As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding's turtles). Open space should include some areas at higher elevations for nesting. These areas should be retained in native vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation management is required, it should be done mechanically, as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August 1St so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 'Association for Biodiversity Information. "Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks." NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). b.qp://www.natureserve.org/rankiniz.htm (15 April 2001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding' s Turtle. 4 REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding's turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blanding' s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resow-ces, Updated Alarch 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Boz 25, St. Paul, AN 55155 / 651-259-5109 CAUTION BLANDING'S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are state -listed as Threatened and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding's turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-308-2653); Grand Rapids (218-327-4518); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-206-2820); or St. Paul (651-259-5772). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue -gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. BLANDING'S TURTLES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP THIS THREATENED SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO BLANDING'S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Blanding's Turtle Fact Sheet for full recommendations) • This flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area. • Turtles that are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm's way. Turtles that are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites. • If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest and do not allow pets near the nest. • Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. • Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. • All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. • Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. • Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. • Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical. • Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. • Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. • Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. • Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. • Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. • Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1" and before June 1S) Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Updated August 2012 Endangered Species Review Coordinator, 500 La}avette Rd., Boz 25, St. Paul, AIN 55155 / 651-259-5109 Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control Wildlife entanglement in, and death from, plastic netting and other man-made plastic materials has been documented in birds (Johnson, 1990; Fuller-Perrine and Tobin, 1993), fish (Johnson, 1990), mammals (Derraik, 2002), and reptiles (Barton and Kinkead, 2005; Kapfer and Paloski, 2011). Yet the use of these materials continues in many cases, without consideration for wildlife impacts. Plastic netting is frequently used for erosion control during construction and landscape projects and can negatively impact terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations as well as snag in maintenance machinery resulting in costly repairs and delays. However, wildlife friendly erosion control materials do exist, and are sold by several large erosion control material companies. Below are a few key considerations before starting a project. Know Your Options • Remember to consult with local natural resource authorities (DNR, USFWS, etc.) before starting a project. They can help you identify sensitive areas and rare species. • When erosion control is necessary, select products with biodegradable netting (natural fiber, biodegradable polyesters, etc.). • DO NOT use products that require UV -light to biodegrade (also called, "photodegradable"). These do not biodegrade properly when shaded by vegetation. • Use netting with rectangular shaped mesh (not square mesh). • Use netting with flexible (non -welded) mesh. Know the Landscape • It is especially important to use wildlife friendly erosion control around: o Areas with threatened or endangered species. o Wetlands, rivers, lakes, and other watercourses. o Habitat transition zones (prairie — woodland edges, rocky outcrop — woodland edges, steep rocky slopes, etc.). o Areas with threatened or endangered species. Use erosion mesh wisely, not all areas with disturbed ground necessitate its use. Do not use plastic mesh unless it is specifically required. Other erosion control options exist (open weave textile (OWT), rolled erosion control products (RECPs) with woven natural fiber netting). WFEC Fact -sheet — MN DNR 2013 Protect Wildlife • Avoid photodegradable erosion control materials where possible. • Use only biodegradable materials (typically made from natural fibers), preferably those that will biodegrade under a variety of conditions. • Wildlife friendly erosion control material costs are often similar to conventional plastic netting. Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 0 z 'RTMENT OF WFEC Fact -sheet — MN DNR 2013 (acc. Literature Referenced Barton, C. and K. Kinkead. 2005. Do erosion control and snakes mesh? Soil and Water Conservation Society 60:33A -35A. Derraik, J.G.B. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a aeview. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842-852. Fuller -Perrin, L.D., and M.E. Tobin. 1993. A method for applying and removing bird -exclusion netting in commercial vineyards. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:47-51. Johnson, S.W. 1990. Distribution, abundance, and source of entanglement debris and other plastics on Alaskan beaches, 1982-1988. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris 331-348. Kapfer, J. M., and R. A. Paloski. 2011. On the threat to snakes of mesh deployed for erosion control and wildlife exclusion. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:1-9. APPENDIX F Nr!�J REDACTED FROM THE ORIGINAL - PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES REMOVED 11/20/2015 Lennar Lahn Project Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Lennar Lahn Project near Otsego MN PREPARED BY Merjent, Inc. 800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 315 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Dean T. Sather, M.A., R.P.A, Principal Investigator Daniel Born, M.S Allison Lange Mueller, M.A, R.P.A Under Contract to Terracon Consultants, Inc. May 2015 rherjent TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY.....................................................................1 2.1 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................1 2.2 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................1 3.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................4 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................4 3.2 PRE -CONTACT OVERVIEW................................................................................4 3.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC)........................................4 3.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC)..................4 3.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC).............................................................5 3.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 200 BC)..................................................................5 3.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200)._ ........................ .......... 6 3.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650)..........................................................7 3.3 CONTACT AND POST -CONTACT OVERVIEW...................................................7 3.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE).............................................................7 3.3.2 Eastern Dakota.......................................................................................... 7 3.3.3 British.........................................................................................................8 3.3.4 Initial United States....................................................................................8 3.3.5 Post -contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE).....................................................8 3.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) .................................9 3.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) ...............................9 3.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................9 3.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites...............................................10 3.4.2 21 WR0146...............................................................................................10 3.4.3 21WR0125...............................................................................................10 3.4.4 21 WR0027...............................................................................................11 3.4.5 21 WR0043...............................................................................................11 3.4.6 21 HE0090................................................................................................11 3.4.7 21 WRo.....................................................................................................11 3.4.8 21 WR0130...............................................................................................11 3.4.9 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures..................................11 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................12 4.1 HISTORIC FARMSTEADS..................................................................................17 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................17 6.0 REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................18 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.2-1 Pre -Contact Archaeological Periods in Southern Minnesota.................................4 Table 3.4.1-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One -Mile of the Lennar Lahn ProjectArea.........................................................................................................10 Table 3.4.9-2 Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Sites within 1 -Mile of the Lennar Lahn ProjectArea.........................................................................................................12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Lennar Lahn Project Area Topographic Map with Previously Recorded Cultural Sites, Wright County, Minnesota REDACTED Figure 2 Lennar Lahn Project Survey Coverage Map with Previously Recorded Cultural Sites and 2015 Recorded Sites, Wright County, Minnesota REDACTED Figure 3 Lennar Lahn Project, Location of Gravel Pit in 2004 Figure 4 Lennar Lahn Project, 21 WR0130 Site Location, View to the North Figure 5 Lennar Lahn Project, MRJ-LP-01 Chert Projectile Point and Quartzite Flake LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Deep Testing Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), contracted with Merjent, Inc. (Merjent) to conduct a Phase I cultural resources inventory for the proposed Lennar Lahn Project (Project), a residential housing development situated on an approximately 190 -acre site in Sections 1 and 12 of T1 20N, R23W in Wright County. The Project area is predominantly active agricultural field owned and operated by a private land owner (Figure 1). Archaeological survey of the Project is being requested due to the presence of previously documented cultural resource sites within and near the perimeter of the defined Project boundaries, in compliance with the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MN 138.31-42). In April 2015, Merjent Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Dean T. Sather examined site files maintained at the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in St. Paul. Merjent staff inventoried previously executed cultural resource investigations for the townships included in the Project area and the greater Wright County region. A total of one previously documented archaeological site and one site lead were located within the defined Project area. On May 5th, 2015, Merjent cultural resource staff conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Project area. The survey identified cultural material in the form of two flakes and a single projectile point in the southern portion of the project area. Two historic farmsteads were observed immediately outside of the Project area. Background research indicated that a burial recorded by the OSA within the Project boundaries was heavily disturbed through previous quarrying operations. Following clearance by the OSA concerning the burial, Merjent recommends that no recorded archaeological or historic sites with eligibility potential for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be adversely affected by the proposed construction. In addition to Dean T. Sather, who served as the Principal Investigator, Dan Born assisted with the field survey and reporting. Allison Lange -Mueller contributed the Post -Contact Period portion of the cultural background overview. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 SCOPE OF WORK The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to determine if archaeological resources were present within the proposed Project's area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this Project included all surface and subsurface locations that would potentially experience direct physical disturbance as a result of the construction within the defined Project area (Figure 1). 2.2 METHODOLOGY Field investigations for the current Phase I Survey were conducted according to guidelines prepared by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (Anfinson, 2005). A literature review was conducted to determine the scope and results of previous archaeological and historic property inventories conducted in the region. Data files maintained by both the SHPO and the OSA provided information regarding recorded cultural resources and previous survey activities within the defined Project area. Previously published synthesis reports provided a majority of the background information regarding regional cultural contexts and environmental history. The environmental background and historic contexts were examined to assess the probability of sites and what types of sites might be identified. Field investigations executed during a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance provide a means of determining if cultural deposits exist within the defined Project area and to assess the vertical and horizontal boundaries of any discovered deposits. Investigative techniques for Phase I survey may include pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and deep testing. Pedestrian survey consists of controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Visual inspection is conducted on ground surfaces exhibiting exposed soils such as cultivated fields. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys are spaced 10 to 15 meters (m) apart and traverse the field in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. Positive findings consists of historic or prehistoric artifact concentrations and/or evidence of larger, intact cultural features such as structural remains or earthworks. Generally, pedestrian survey is not recommended for areas where surface visibility is less than 25 percent. Shovel testing, when required, consists of a hand dug excavation units between 30 and 40 centimeters (cm) in diameter at 15 m intervals along linear transects where feasible. The depth of the excavated shovel test varies depending the depth of the subsurface deposits and the presence or absence of intact cultural material. Shovel tests are generally excavated to a depth where intact subsoil horizons are exposed. In locations where subsurface deposits extend beyond the capabilities of hand excavated shovel tests, deep testing may be applied. All materials excavated from shovel tests or deep tests are screened through one-quarter inch hardware mesh. Detailed field notes are recorded during field investigations for both positive and negative results. With regard to potentially deeply buried sites, a desktop review is first conducted to identify the Iandforms and soils present in the Project area. If there is the potential for deeply buried living surfaces that might contain archaeological materials, field testing such as auger coring or mechanical trenching is done. 2 Page Redacted — Privileged Information 3.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The Project is located in the Deciduous Lakes Region of central Minnesota. Historic vegetation densities in the area consisted of Big Woods species like elm, maple, and basswood with incursions of prairie and oak woods. Historically, bison and elk were game animals found in the area with white-tailed deer still prominent on the landscape. The following discussion of pre -contact archaeological periods follows Gibbon 2012 unless otherwise noted. 3.2 PRE -CONTACT OVERVIEW Pre -contact cultural traditions and development are defined primarily by the material culture present at a site and the subsistence patterns being utilized at that time. Material culture includes artifacts and features, and subsistence patterns include hunting/gathering and horticulture. Further, within pre -contact periods there are often subdivisions based on geographical location, projectile point typologies, and ceramic typologies. Gibbon divides Pre -contact cultures in southern Minnesota into six cultural periods: Early Paleo-Indian (11200 to 10500 BC), Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC), Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC), Late Archaic (3000 to 200 BC), Woodland (500 BC to AD 1200), and Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to AD 1650). Table 3.2-1 Pre -Contact Archaeological Periods in Southern Minnesota Periods Year Early Paleo-Indian 11200 to 10500 BC Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic 10500 to 7500 BC Middle Archaic 7500 to 3000 BC Late Archaic 3000 to 500 BC Woodland: Initial, Terminal 500 BC to AD 1200 Oneota Tradition AD 1200 to AD 1650 3.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC) Paleo-Indians were likely the first people to populate the North American continent. Communities were comprised of small bands of highly nomadic hunter -gathers primarily focused on the exploitation of mega -fauna including mammoths and mastodons. Paleo-Indian sites tend to be small and are commonly identified by the recovery of large, distinctive lanceolate projectile points. 3.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC) The transition from the Early Paleo-Indian to Late Paleo-Indian in the Upper Mississippi River Region is evidenced in the archaeological record by the replacement of fluted points with stemmed points and some heavy stone tool construction. Tool types of Late Paleo-Indian/Early Eastern Archaic peoples occur in much greater numbers than those of their predecessors, the Early Paleo-Indians. Tool characteristic of this period show a high quality of workmanship and include projectile points with a lanceolate shape, lack of fluting, ground and thin edges, and fine oblique or collateral flaking across the blade face. Types of Late Paleo-Indians identified in 4 Minnesota include Agate Basin, Alberta, Angostura, Browns Valley, Eden, Frederick, Hell Gap, Midland, Plainview, and Scottsbluff. Early Eastern Archaic points are notched or stemmed forms, often constructed of heavily reworked lanceolate points with a concave base, basal ears, and fluting on some specimens. Although the point types differ from those of Late Paleo-Indians, the Early Eastern Archaic was contemporary in part with the Late Paleo-Indian period, sharing a nomadic, animal hunting lifeway. The majority of identified Late Paleo-Indian Sites in Minnesota occur along lake edges and rivers, with most lake edge sites located along smaller, non-glacial lakes. Sites identified from this period are typically find spots of points, lithic workshops, and temporary camps. Long term habitation sites, burial locations, and kill sites are rare and underrepresented in the archaeological record. 3.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC) Middle Archaic projectile points typically are smaller and less well made than during the preceding phases and suggest a general decline in high quality stone working outside of the Paleo-Indian tradition. Characteristics of Archaic points that separate themselves from Paleo-Indian projectile points include smaller size and beveled and resharpened edges designed for cutting and penetration. An expansion of tool technology begins to appear during the late Middle Archaic with a new suite of ground stone tools including banner stones, plummets, and grooved axes. The utilization of copper artifacts also appear for the first time. Known Middle Archaic sites in central Minnesota remain sparse, typically consisting of surface scatters of stone artifacts in small, shallow components with minimal midden buildup. Site types include short term camps, kill sites, lithic workshops, quarries, and burials. The features and minimal number of artifacts suggest a small population of highly mobile hunters and foragers with single use to short term habitation sites. 3.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 200 BC) The expansion of tool technology that starts to appear in the Middle Archaic period flourishes in the Late Archaic. New sets of side stemmed and side-notched projectile points, ground stone tools, and the first clearly identifiable fishing implements in the archaeological record of Minnesota originate in the Late Archaic. The utilization of raw materials like native copper and marine shell and creation of unusual artifacts like birdstones, gorgets, and Turkey Tail bifaces are defining characteristics of the period, as well as communal burial sites and the continuing absence of pottery from the archaeological record. Late Archaic sites in Minnesota are mostly characterized by the presence of hammered copper artifacts, as well as ground and polished stone artifacts. The lithic tool assemblage located at the Fish Lake West site near Duluth consists mostly of choppers, adzes, and bifaces; tools adapted to working in an environment dominated by timber. The lithic styles and hammered copper artifacts found at the Fish Lake West site are also present in Late Archaic sites farther south at sites like the Petaga Point site near Lake Mille Lacs. 3.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200) Gibbon (2012) separates the archaeological record of Initial Woodland period in South Eastern Minnesota (a resource region that coincides with the portion of the state located south and east of the City of Saint Cloud) into three periods: the Early Woodland (500 to 200 BC), Middle Woodland (200 BC to AD 200), and Late Middle Woodland (AD 200 to 500). Pottery remains are the most representative artifacts from the Initial Woodland tradition. Pottery styles from the period are usually typified by a thick walled jar with cordage markings on both the exterior and interior faces of the pottery. The construction and shape of the pottery typically consist of strait rims, slightly constricted necks, somewhat rounded shoulders, and subconoidal bottoms resembling varieties of pottery from the Havana -Hopewell complexes in Illinois. Lithic assemblages show continuity with earlier Archaic and Woodland assemblages typical of highly mobile groups of hunters and foragers. The greatest artifact concentration in the region appears in the rivers, lakes, wetlands, and wet prairies of southern Minnesota. In addition to the presence of pottery in the archaeological record, Woodland sites from this period are also exemplified by the presence of conical shaped burial mounds (Gibbon 2012). By the Late Middle Woodland phase of the Initial Woodland tradition, cultural practices of the Late Middle Woodland people seem less elaborate than during the previous phases. Burial mounds became simpler, often lacking diagnostic grave goods. Pottery styles at this later stage are described by more globular bodies, thinner walls, and finer temper with more complex rim profiles. The transformation from Initial Woodland complexes to Terminal Woodland complexes after AD 500 remains poorly understood (Gibbon, 2012). What is clear is that the Terminal Woodland period represents a time of technological and cultural change. The bow and arrow replaced the atlatl, earlier pottery traits disappeared, and elaborate mortuary rituals associated with large earthwork construction began. Long distance acquisition of materials, ritual pipe smoking, and possibly the presence of socially ranked societies were descriptive of cultures with a great reliance on domesticated plants and larger populations within groups. Known Late Woodland sites, while evident in some areas of southwestern Wisconsin and eastern Iowa, are sparse in southeastern Minnesota. One reason may be that the lack of real sites as large scale surveys in the region have failed to identify a strong Late Woodland presence suggesting a population density much lower than those areas farther south and east (Gibbon 2012). Because of sparse number of Late Woodland sites in the region, examples must be borrowed from the surrounding states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Initial Late Woodland (AD 500 to 700) in southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Iowa consist of components most recognized by the presence of Lane Farm Cord -Impressed pottery, a jar with a somewhat rounded base and constricted neck. The small and corner notched projectile points of the period may represent the first arrow head points in the region. Small conical and elongated linear mounds containing limited grave goods and primary flexed burials are evident. Defined by Gibbon (2012) as the Mature Late (Terminal) Woodland period in the Upper Mississippi River Valley, AD 700 to 1000 represents the time period defined by the Effigy Mound Complex, specifically that area of the region located south of Minneapolis and St. Paul, though within close geographic proximity to the Project location. Effigy Mound people constructed earthen conical and linear mounds similar to previous cultural phases as well as mounds designed in the shape of wildlife, including avian, mammalian, and reptile. Grave goods are typically utilitarian objects such as ceramic vessels and projectile points. Material culture of the Effigy culture includes the near absence on non -utilitarian "luxury" items intended for the elite, simple unnotched triangular points, thinner and finer tempered ceramics with more complex 0 shapes, and a shared cultural identity that covered a large geographic region for over 600 years. Mound building would disappear from the archaeological record during the Final Late (Terminal) Woodland period from AD 100 to 1200. Pure Late Woodland sites become rare and are replaced with stockade sites exhibiting both Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian characteristics. Ceramics from this period belong to the Grant Series with design features including grit tempering, cord roughened jars that may have squared orifices, prominent castellations, and special rim treatment that raises the height of the rim. Decorations, when present, generally consist of single cord impressions forming zigzag and chevrons over plain or cord roughened rim surfaces. Lithic technology from this period includes simple unnotched Maddison triangular arrow pints and Cahokia Site Notched cluster points. 3.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650) The transition from the Woodland dominated cultural landscape to the Upper Mississippian contexts in southern Minnesota saw a shift from long established lifeways of Woodland peoples to the appearance of societies with new material cultures, settlement patterns, social organization, and ideology. Groups of people were less mobile and more dependent on the cultivation of maize, living within more permanent and often fortified settlements. The construction and artistic techniques used to produce ceramics evolved to vessels with shoulder decorated rims, smoothed rather than cordmarked exterior surfaces, shell temper rather than grit temper, and handles in place of collars or castellations. Oneota Sites are distributed throughout the forests and prairie of southern Minnesota with regional variations of Oneota pottery identified in the northeastern prairie region and in the north woods. Oneota village sites are located along several rivers within southern Minnesota, specifically the Mississippi River near Red Wing, along the St. Croix north of Stillwater, the Blue Earth River and along the Upper Minnesota River. Oneota Pottery is also present in the upper layer of many sites as far west as the South Dakota Border. Ceramics are shell tempered, round bottomed globular jars with high straight to slightly curving rims ranging in size from 0.5 to 5 gallons. Stone tools identified at Oneota village sites consist of unnotched triangular points, scrapers, knives, drills, wedges, choppers, and expedient flake tools. 3.3 CONTACT AND POST -CONTACT OVERVIEW 3.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE) The Contact Period (1650 to 1837) includes American Indian and Euro -American contexts. The Minnesota OSA (MN OSA) subdivides the American Indian context into "Indeterminate" or "Eastern Dakota", and the Euro -American context into "Indeterminate", "French", "British", and "Initial US" (MN OSA, 2009). 3.3.2 Eastern Dakota The Eastern Dakota, along with the Western Dakota and the Lakota, comprises the ethnic group of the Sioux people. The Eastern Dakota lived in "village -centered tribal world societies" throughout Minnesota during the 17th century and were in an alliance with French fur traders and merchants (Gibbon, 2012). The Dakota War of 1862 resulted in numerous attacks on settlements and trading posts along the Minnesota River and culminated in the mass hanging of 38 Eastern Dakota (MNHS, 2015). After the war, many families relocated to the 7 western territories and Canada. There are currently four reservations in Minnesota inhabited by descendants of the Eastern Dakota people. 3.3.3 British After the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the British quickly set up fur trading posts throughout Minnesota. The British fur trading economy was centered at Grand Portage, where traders would bring their furs and leave with other valuable trade goods. After the Revolutionary War of 1776, competition between the United States and British companies intensified throughout Minnesota. In 1803, the Louisiana land purchase established United States lands extending from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. The War of 1812 saw a demise in the British fur traders due to the United States denying business licenses to British traders. 3.3.4 Initial United States Early Americans conducted the first fully documented land survey of Minnesota in the mid -18th century and early 19th century. Jonathon Carver explored the upper Mississippi River in the 1760s, and by 1806 Zebulon Pike had explored portions of the river. Missionaries began to arrive in the early 19th century, primarily along the Minnesota River. The American Fur Company was founded by John Jacob Astor in 1811, after which numerous fur trading posts were quickly established throughout the state. At the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi River, Fort Snelling was constructed in 1819 to protect the new United States investments in the area. Large-scale fur trade resulted in a major decline in the native beaver populations, and by 1842 the fur trade in Minnesota came to an end when the American Fur Company came to its demise (Dobbs, 1989). After the passing of the fur trading industry, land was opened up to Euro -American settlers. 3.3.5 Post -contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE) MN OSA subdivides the post -contact period into eight categories based on social and economic issues pertaining to different geographical locations and time frames (MN OSA, 2009): • Indian Communities & Reservations (1837 to 1934) • Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) • Northern MN Lumbering (1870 to 1930s) • Tourism & Recreation (1870 to 1945) • St. Croix Triangle Lumbering (1830s to 1900s) • Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) • Iron Ore Industry (1880s to 1945) • Urban Centers (1870 to 1940) Additionally, Euro -American Farms in Minnesota (1820 to 1960) have been divided into eight development periods (Terrell, 2006): • Early Settlement (1820 to 1870) • Development of a Wheat Monoculture (1860 to 1885) • Diversification and the Rise of Dairying (1875 to 1900) • Industrialization and Prosperity (1900 to 1920) • Developing the Cutover (1900 to 1940) E:3 • Development of Livestock Industries (1900 to 1940) • Depression and the Interwar Period (1920 to 1940) • World War II and the Postwar Period (1940 to 1960) 3.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) This category is defined by subsistence farming and the transition to wheat monoculture. It is primarily focused on the southeastern portion of the state. Farmsteads within this context are represented by farm buildings and other types of structures, such as, dugouts, soddies, and "claim shacks" (Terrell, 2006). The Preemption Act of 1854 and the Homestead Act of 1862 brought many settlers to Minnesota and the railroads quickly followed. Many towns arose along major transportation routes and along important rivers. The large influx of settlers created ethnic communities that were centered on churches and schools. As the farms and towns grew, so did industries associated with agricultural activities (Terrell, 2006). This, in turn, gave rise to the next historical context: Railroads & Agricultural Development. 3.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) This category is characterized by larger and more diverse farms, primarily in the southern and western portions of the state. Farmsteads within this context also include subsistence farming and large scale bonanza farms (Terrell, 2006). As the earlier, smaller communities continued to grow, railroads were expanding to accommodate the full-scale agricultural commerce. Towns located along railroad lines quickly became important to the local economies for the ease of transporting agricultural goods, as well as bringing in needed goods for the local populations. As the modern industrial era continued to expand and change, so did the local historical landscapes of the railroad towns. Urban sprawl, along with new technologies, industries, and railroads all led to changes within these communities that can still be seen today (Terrell, 2006). 3.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW The objective in reviewing cultural resources background literature is to identify previously recorded cultural resource sites and assess the potential for unrecorded sites to be located within the Project Area. The standard for considering a cultural property significant is whether it meets the criteria for listing on the NRHP. The initial criterion for such listing is an age of 50 or more years. Beyond age, a property must retain integrity and be associated with significant historic trends, historic persons, building styles and craftsmanship, or the property must have the potential to provide significant information about the past. Merjent reviewed and followed the published guidelines for conducting cultural resources literature reviews in Minnesota. The SHPO, located in the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul, is the record keeper for the state's prehistoric and historic archaeological site files, historic standing structure inventory files, and field survey reports. The OSA, located at Fort Snelling History Center in St. Paul, maintains the records for burial sites within the State. In May 2015, Merjent Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Dean T. Sather examined site files maintained at the OSA and the SHPO. Merjent staff inventoried previously executed cultural resource investigations for the locations included in the Project area and the greater Wright County region. Merjent examined the current topographic and aerial photo -based maps to understand the modern land use of the study area and to provide a baseline for examining the historic maps and documents. Several online resources were used to gather information. Merjent staff collected general information online about Wright County and surrounding areas. They also examined primary sources that have been digitized and made available online, such as the original land survey maps and the original land patent records. 3.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites An examination of cultural resource investigations conducted within the defined project area and a prescribed one -mile buffer yielded information regarding seven previously recorded archaeological sites. Archaeological sites 21 WRo and 21 WRO130 are located in the southern portion of the project area on terraces above the Crow River (Figure 1). The remaining five (5) sites are located within one mile of the Project but external to the defined Project area. A summary of the previously documented sites is provided in Table 1. Table 3.4.1-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One -Mile of the Lennar Lahn Project Area. Site Number/Site Name/Site County, Location Site Location Relative to Type (TRS) Significance Project Area 21 WR0146: Pre Contact Artifact Unknown West of Project Area Scatter/Habitation Site 21 WR0125: Pre Contact Artifact Unknown West of Project Area Scatter 21 WR0027: Pre Contact Unknown West of Project Area Mortuary/Burial Site 21 WR0043: Pre Contact Artifact Unknown North of Project Area Scatter 21HE0090: The Dayton Mound Group — Six Prehistoric Burial Unknown East of Project Area Mounds 21 WRo: Pre Contact Artifact Unknown Within Project Area Scatter — Unverified Site Lead 21 WR0130: Dayton Unknown Within Project Area Mounds/Cemetery/MortuaryMounds/Cernetery/Mortuary Site 3.4.2 21WRO146 Site 21 WRO146 is a pre -contact lithic scatter. According to the site form, the site has been heavily disturbed. The site is located external to the Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 3.4.3 21 W RO125 Site 21 WRO125 is a multi-component artifact scatter containing both pre -contact and historic debris. According to the site form, the site has been heavily disturbed. The site is located external to the Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 10 3.4.4 21 WR0027 Site 21 WR0027 is a single earthwork site containing one burial mound. It is a pre -contact age site, estimated to be of the Woodland period. An undefined amount of lithic debitage is recorded to have been recovered in association with this site. According to the site form, the site has been very heavily disturbed and has been virtually destroyed. The site is located external to the Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 3.4.5 21 WR0043 Site 21 WR0043 is a pre -contact artifact scatter. The site is located external to the Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 3.4.6 21 HE0090 Site 21 HE0090, the Dayton Mounds Site, is an earthwork site containing six burial mounds. It is a pre -contact age site, estimated to be of the Woodland period. An undefined amount of lithic debitage is recorded to have been recovered in association with this site. According to the site form, the site has been very heavily disturbed and have been virtually destroyed. The site is located external to the Project area and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 3.4.7 21 WRo Site 21 WRo is a documented site lead that has not been professionally verified as an archaeological site. The site, which was originally recorded as occupying the entire oxbow area, is the reported location of a large stone hammerhead and copper projectile point that was collected in an agricultural field located on the Lahn family farm. The artifacts were donated to the Wright County Historical Society in 1978. The site file does not identify the specific location where the artifacts were recovered and does not include a photographic record or detailed description of the artifacts. 3.4.8 21 W R0130 Site 21WR130, the Dayton Quarry Burial, is located in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, SE 1/4 of Section 1, T120N, R23W in the southeast portion of the Project area (Figure 1). The reported site is located on a terrace overlooking the Crow River. The burial was initially reported in 1999 as a collection of unidentified human faunal items. These items were found exposed in a spoil pile in an active gravel pit. Damage caused by excavation and an undetermined amount of exposure had caused the remains to be too fragmentary to identify age, sex, cultural affiliation, or temporal affiliation. 3.4.9 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures A review of records at the MN SHPO indicated that no historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within the Project area. Fourteen historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within the associated 1 -mile buffer (Figure 1). None of these resources have been evaluated for listing on the NRHP. The list of previously documented Historic/Architectural resources is summarized in Table 3.4.9-2. 11 Table 3.4.9-2 Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Sites within 1 -Mile of the Lennar Lahn Project Area Site Number/Site Type Location (TRS) Site Significance Location Relative to Project HE-DYC-002: Bank Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-003: Residence Unevaluated east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-004: Residence Unevaluated east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-005: School Unevaluated east of Project HE-DYC-006: St. John the Baptist Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and Church east of Project HE-DYC-007: Commercial Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and Building east of Project HE-DYC-008: Residence Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project HE-DYC-009: Residence Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-010: Residence Unevaluated east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-011: Residence Unevaluated east of Project HE-DYC-012: Residence Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project HE-DYC-013: Residence Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project HE-DYC-014: NcNeil Building Unevaluated In the City of Dayton, north and east of Project In the City of Dayton, north and HE-DYC-015: Dayton Post Office Unevaluated east of Project These structures were inventoried during previous surveys. The integrity of these structures is not defined, and none of them have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. None of these structures will be impacted by the Project. 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Field work was conducted May 5, 2015. Field Director was Merjent Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Dean Sather. Assisting with field work was Cultural Resource Specialist Dan Born. The Project area was considered high potential for prehistoric archaeological deposits due to the proximity of the project area to water resources and the reports of previously documented cultural resources within the Project area (21 WR0130 and 21 WRo). The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to locate the recorded cultural resources, and determine if unrecorded cultural resources were present within the proposed Project's APE. Cultural resources could include archaeological sites or historic/architectural resources. The APE considered all locations that would potentially have direct physical disturbance. The field reconnaissance for the Project consisted of pedestrian survey. Pedestrian survey involves controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys are spaced a maximum of 15 m apart and traverse the field in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. The majority of the 12 land surface investigated had excellent ground surface visibility of 90 percent or better. In locations where artifacts were observed on the surface, an intensive pedestrian survey was conducted in transects of 1 m over the landform or within a 50 m radius of the initial find. Because the Project area is in an alluvial environment, it was examined for the possibly of deeply buried living surfaces that might contain archaeological material. Geologists from Liesch Associates (a Terracon Company) (Liesch) conducted subsurface inspections at locations across the Project area at the same time Merjent was doing their field survey. Following desktop review, and communication regarding the subsurface probes, Merjent concludes that the proposed Project is situated on an upland terrace external to the floodplain and that there is little potential for deeply buried cultural bearing sites within the proposed Project area (see Appendix A). During the field survey, the Project area was separated into northern and southern sections that were separated by County Road 36 which bisects the Project (Figure 2). The northern portion of the Project area consisted of an approximately 95 -acre parcel of plowed agricultural field containing several small wetland areas. Surface visibility exceeded 90 percent throughout the northern portion of the Project area. Pedestrian transects were conducted in 15 m intervals across the project area in an east to west orientation. The southern portion of the Project area consisted of a comparable size parcel of approximately 95 acres. The southern portion of the Project area was separated into two separate sections based on vegetation cover. The northern section consisted of an approximately 45 acre area planted in wheat where surface visibility did not exceed 50 percent. Archival research of historic aerial photos of this area indicated that the majority of northern half of the southern portion of the Project area had been significantly disturbed by previous gravel extraction operations. Gravel operations conducted in the late 1990s exposed human remains near the northeastern corner of the gravel operation (Figure 2). This exposure was reported to the Minnesota OSA and Mark Dudzik, the State Archaeologist at the time, who visited the site, inspected the remains, and officially documented the site (21 WR0130) (Figures 3 and 4). According to the site form, the original provenience of the remains was not identified and the site was considered to have been completely destroyed. Further, the fragmentary nature of the exposed remains were insufficient to provide adequate determination of age, or cultural affiliation. The potential significance of the human remains were associated with the reported collection of a large stone hammerhead and a copper projectile point in the area, which had been previously documented as site lead 21WRo. 13 Page Redacted — Privileged Information { 1 Y' - YI Figure 3. Lennar Lahn Project, Location of Gravel Pit in 2004. Source: Google Earth Concerted effort was made to adequately survey the area immediately surrounding the location of the reported human remains. Tight interval (2 to 3 meters) pedestrian survey was conducted across the reported location of the site. The ground surface in the vicinity of the reported site was planted in wheat and afforded approximately 50 percent visibility. The exposed ground surface exhibited little or no intact top -soil and had the appearance of exposed, unsorted gravels. As mentioned above, this area had been subjected to extensive gravel extraction operations which, in the early 2000s, had been extended to the north and east to include the reported site area and abutted the private farmstead property occupying the extreme northeast corner of the parcel (Figure 2). A scatter of modern trash has been placed into a drainage ravine cutting through the site to retard erosion. It is unlikely that any portion of the original site remains. No additional human remains were recovered and no pre -contact archaeological materials were identified during the current investigation conducted within or near the recorded boundaries for site 21 WR0130. 15 Figure 4. Lennar Lahn Project, 21 WR130 Site Location, View to the North The southern section of the southern portion of the Project area consisted of an approximately 50 acre parcel of plowed agricultural field and a small wooded area immediately adjacent to the floodplain. Surface visibility in the cultivated area of the southern section was in excess of 90 percent while the visibility in the wooded area was approximately 60 percent. The entire southern portion of the Project area had been defined as site lead 21 WRo by the Minnesota OSA. In 1978, a large hammer stone and a single copper spear point were reported to have been collected from the southern portion of the Project area. In 1990, an artifact scatter had been reported on a low terrace near the southern edge of the oxbow. This referenced collection of artifacts was not provided a separate site number nor was it relocated during the current investigation. Pedestrian transects were conducted in 15 m intervals across the cultivated portion of the Project area in a general west to east direction. Surface collection intervals were reduced to 5 m upon the identification of cultural artifacts. A visual inspection of the wooded portion of the Project Area indicated that the ground surface is uneven and sloping southward towards the floodplain. The exposed ground surface of a series of intersecting trails crossing the wooded portion were inspected. Two isolated artifact find spots were recorded as the result of the pedestrian survey of the southern section of the southern Project area. MRJ-LP-01 consisted of a small chert projectile point and quartzite flake (Figure 5). These items were recovered near the base of a shallow slope near the eastern edge of the Project area (Figure 3). Tight interval (2-3 m) pedestrian survey was conducted across the location of MRJ-LP-01. No additional pre -contact 0161 archaeological materials were identified during the close interval reconnaissance near the find spot. MANAGING WYOMING'S HERITAGE RESOURCES SFA X L- ,% Figure 5. Lennar Lahn Project, MRJ-LP-01 Chert Projectile Point and Quartzite Flake. MRJ-LP-02 consisted of a single quartz flake. This item was recovered near the crest of a small terrace near the southern edge of the Project area (Figure 3). Tight interval (2-3 m) pedestrian survey was conducted across the location of the find spot site. No additional pre - contact archaeological materials were identified at MRJ-LP-02. Merjent will complete a Minnesota Archaeological Site Form and submit it to the OSA in order to add to the state's permanent record. The artifacts were not collected but were photographed and described in the field. 4.1 HISTORIC FARMSTEADS Two farmsteads are located immediately east of the Project area along County Road 36. An examination of styles and construction material presented in Terrell's 2006 study of farm houses in Minnesota suggests that they were constructed from the 1880s to the early 20th century (Terrell, 2006). Both homes feature major alterations to the original structure including new windows, new roofing material, and the addition of several new extensions to the homes in the form of attached garages, porches, and other additional living areas. The caliber and scope of the alterations of the structures significantly limits the integrity of the structures and makes it unlikely that they would be considered eligible for the NRHP. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The previously recorded site lead 21 WRo was surveyed and yielded 3 artifacts in two find spots. No other historic or pre -contact archaeological sites were documented as the result of the current Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey. In addition to 21WRo, the recorded location of site 21 WR0130 was visited and surveyed. Archaeological site 21 WR0130, the Dayton Burial Site, was not relocated during the survey. A scatter of modern items and animal bones processed with modern cutting tools were 17 found at the recorded location of the site. It is unlikely that any portion of the original site remains. No additional human remains were recovered and no pre -contact archaeological materials were identified during the current investigation. The findings suggest that this site has been completely destroyed as the result of gravel extraction operations. Merjent recommends consultation with the OSA regarding the current status of the burial and any remaining restrictions to ground disturbing activity at the location. Unplatted burials are protected under the Private Cemeteries Act and implementing Minnesota Statute (MS) 307.08 and assessed by the OSA. Archaeological site lead 21WRo was redefined as two individual pre -contact archaeological find spots. MRJ-LP-01 consisted of a small chert projectile point and quartzite flake recovered near the base of a shallow slope near the eastern edge of the Project area. Tight interval pedestrian survey did not recover additional pre -contact archaeological materials. Merjent recommends that this site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP and that no additional investigation is warranted. MRJ-LP-02 consisted of a single quartz flake recovered near the crest of a small terrace near the southern edge of the Project area. Tight interval pedestrian survey did not recover additional pre -contact archaeological materials. Merjent recommends that this site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP and that no additional investigation is warranted. Two historic farmsteads are located outside of and immediately east of the Project area. Based on observations made from the public right-of-way, these structures are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Following a literature review, and field survey using methods defined by the Minnesota SHPO guidelines, including deep testing, no properties potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP were identified. Merjent recommends that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed Project. Merjent stresses that if any construction plans are altered to include areas that were not addressed in this Phase I survey, these locations should be examined for cultural resources. In the event that additional archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, Merjent recommends that construction in proximity to the discovery immediately cease and procedures be followed to notify the MN SHPO and other agencies, as required. Further, if human remains are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activity must cease and local law enforcement must be notified. MS 307.08, the Private Cemeteries Act, prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials. Work should not resume until all issues are resolved. 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Anfinson, Scott. 2005. SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota. State Historic Preservation Office. Dobbs, C.A. 1989. Historic Context Outlines: The Contact Period Contexts (ca. 1630 A.D. — 1820 A.D.). Draft. Reports of Investigations No. 39. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology. Submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. MV Gibbon, Guy. 2012. Archaeology of Minnesota, the Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS). 2015. U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Electronic Document. hftp://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/us-dakota-war. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist ("MN OSA") 2009. Minnesota Archaeological Site Form. Terrell, Michelle. 2006. Historical Archaeology of Minnesota Farmsteads: Volume 4, Historic Context Study of Minnesota Farmsteads, 1820-1960. Two Pines Resource Group, LLC, Shafer, Minnesota. 19 Appendix A Deep Testing Report May 29, 2015 Merjent, Inc. 800 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Attn: Peg Bodin E: pboden(cDmerient.com P: 612.746.3663 Irerracon Re: Lennar Lahn Project, Otsego, MN — Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Dear Ms. Boden: Attached please find a map of the Lennar Lahn site in Otsego, MN that illustrates some of the features of the site that we have recently discussed. The map, provided as Figure A, Illustrates the site boundaries on an air photo base together with the Wright County Soils information obtained from USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The figure also includes the "Floodway" and "Flood Fringe" areas as depicted by Sathre-Berquist, Inc. on page 1 of 4 the Lahn Site Concept Plan 102914 prepared for Lennar Homes (also attached). The floodway generally corresponds with the area where homes will be built at the proposed development. The map also depicts a gravel mining area on the southern portion of the site where the native soils have been disturbed. This area is based on analysis of aerial photos, in addition to conditions observed in the field. On the morning of May 5, 2015, while the Merjent field crew was at the site, Terracon representatives Jim de Lambert and Warren Tuel, reviewed the southern portion of the project area and conducted 12 shallow soil probes to verify the area of soils disturbed during gravel mining operations and to confirm general soil types depicted on the Wright County Soils Atlas. The soil probes were advanced to depths of approximately 18 inches at the locations illustrated on Figure A. Soils in the former gravel mining area appear to consist of brown sand to brown loamy sand. Soil test ST -8 is located outside of the gravel mining area but also appears to be located in disturbed soils consisting of dark grey loamy sand with gravel and cobbles. The remaining soil probes appeared to generally correlate with the mapped units in the NRCS Wright County soils atlas. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning this information. Liesch Associates. Inc. - A Terracon Company 13400 15111 Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55441 P [763] 489 3100 F [763] 489 3101 liesch.com terracon.com Lennar Lahn Project Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory : Otsego, Minnesota May 29, 2015 Terracon Project No. MP147329A Sincerely, Terracon Consulta ts, Inc. r V i de Lambert, PG Senior Hydrogeologist Copy: Dean Sather, Merjent Attachments: -Figures A — Site Map REDACTED - Concept Plan 102914 — Lahn Site, 1 Of 4 REDACTED Prepared by Sather-Berquist, Inc. Responsive Resourceful Reliable Page Redacted — Privileged Information Page Redacted — Privileged Information 14Minnesota Historical Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE September 14, 2015 Mr. Paul Tabone Lennar 16305 36th Avenue N, Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 RE: Lennar Lahn Project — residential development Otsego, Wright County SHPO Number: 2015-0650 Dear Mr. Tabone: Using the Power of History to Transform Lives PRESERVING SHARING CONVECTING Thank you for continuing consultation with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. We have reviewed the Phase I Survey report entitled Lennar Lohn Project, Phase 1 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Lennar Lohn Project near Otsego, MN (May 2015) prepared by your consultant, Merjent, Inc. Based on the results of this survey we conclude that there are no historic properties that will be affected by this project. However, we recommend that you consult with the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist regarding site 21WR0130, the Dayton Burial Site. 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 license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Please contact our Compliance Unit at (651) 259-3455 if you have any questions regarding Our comments on this project. Sincerely, oihm, t, r OaWJJA Sarah J. Beimers, Manager Government Programs and Compliance cc: Dean Sather, Merjent, Inc. Minnesota Historical Society. 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651-259-3000 • 886-727-8386 • www.mnhs.org From: Anfinson, Scott (ADM)[mailto:scott.anfinson(a)_state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:49 AM To: Dean Sather <dsather(a)-merient.com> Cc: Koenen, Bruce (ADM) <Bruce.Koenen(cD-state.mn.us>; sarah.beimers(a�mnhs.org Subject: RE: Lennar Development and 21WR0130 Letter I have reviewed the Phase 1 survey report on this project and concur that no eligible archaeological sites and no recorded burials will be affected by the development if the development is restricted to the area within the red line shown on Figure A in the Deep Testing portion of the report. This development area does not include the farmstead south of County Road 38 and east of the old gravel pit. Should the farmstead be included in future development, as suggested by the concept sketch in the report, it should be archaeologically surveyed. With regard to the burial site known as 21WR130, the exact location where the burial came from could not be determined by the State Archaeologist in 1999. There is the possibility of additional burials being present along the northeast face of the former borrow pit immediately adjacent to the above mentioned farmstead. Should any cutting be done in this immediate area, an archaeologist should monitor the work and all excavation should immediately cease if any potential human remains are encountered. An archaeological site form needs to be completed and submitted to OSA that should include MRI -LP -01 and MRJ-LP-02 as well as alpha site 21WRo. Scott Anfinson State Archaeologist