Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-08-11 Council Agenda Packet
Corcoran City Council Agenda August 11, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Commission Representatives* 5.Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity 6.Presentations/Recognitions a.Oath of Office – Officer Abigail Edstrom b.Oath of Office – Officer Tim Spellacy c.15 Years of Service – Reserve Officer Ted Schmidt 7.Consent Agenda a.Draft Minutes of the May 12, 2022 Council Work Session* b.Financial Claims* c.Northwest Trails Resolution of Support* d.Notice of Decision – Corcoran Farms EAW* e.Wright Hennepin Electric Final Plat & Development Agreement* f.CSAH 101 and 105th Avenue Turn Lane Improvements – Pay Request 2 and Final* g.CR 10 and Walnut Lane Turn Lane Improvements – Pay Request 2* h.Municipal Well 1 – Pay Request 3* 8.Planning Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Frontages and Fences Ordinance Amendment* 9.Unfinished Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Water Supply – Architecture for the Water Treatment* b.St. Therese/City Center Drive Mass Grading Bid Award* 10.New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Schedule Work Sessions* b.THC Regulation Discussion* 11.Staff Reports 12.2022 City Council Schedule* 13.Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City website at www.corcoranmn.gov. HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 844 4123 3962 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84441233962 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov * STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 4. Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary : The advisory commission representatives for the August 11th Council meeting are as follows: • Planning Commission: Corrine Brummond • Parks and Trails Commission: Lisa Wyffles Financial/Budget: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A CITY OF CORCORAN 1 City Council Work Session Minutes May 12, 2022 – 5:30 pm The Corcoran City Council met on May 12, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. The City Council work session meeting was held in person and the public was present in person and remotely through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Mayor McKee, Councilor Nichols, and Councilor Schultz were present. Councilors Bottema and Vehrenkamp were excused. City Administrator Beise, Parks and Recreation Supervisor Christensen Buck, and Planner Kevin Shay were present. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor McKee called the work session to order at 5:30 pm. 2.Code Updates – Natural Resources City Administrator Beise outlined the transitions or buffers between different code updates. Council discussed code options that allow for flexibility of buffer options Council discussed setbacks and the sequence of the development and buffering. Council noted items they had found in other communities and provided feedback. City Administrator outlined questions related to incentives for natural resource enhancements. Council discussed tree preservation and incentives such as reduced setbacks. Council discussed planting of mature trees and credits for planting on City owned property. City Administrator Beise outlined questions related to mature planting and ecologically significant areas. Council discussed ecologically significant areas and didn’t recommend changes. Council discussed buffers, planning techniques for preserving the rural feel. Council discussed comprehensive plan and amendments to the plan. 3.Unscheduled Items No unscheduled business was heard. 4.Adjournment MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to adjourn. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, and Schultz (Motion carried 3:0) Meeting adjourned at 6:38 pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Administrator Agenda Item: 7a. Agenda Item 7b. Council Meeting Date: 8/11/2022 Prepared By:Maggie Ung Amount Project name $0.00 -$ $753,463.24 753,463.24$ 140,868.47$ 894,331.71$ Date Paid to Amount Description 7/21/2022 ADP Tax 210.00$ Payroll Taxes 7/22/2022 MN Dept of Revenue 171.29$FUEL TAX 7/28/2022 ADP 95,955.43$ Net Payroll and Taxes 8/1/2022 Health Partners 27,804.52$ Employee Health Insurance 8/4/2022 RevTrak 19.95$ Credit Card Fee 8/4/2022 State of MN 5,063.62$ Employee Deferred Comp/Healthcare Savings 8/4/2022 RevTrak 191.19$Credit Card Fee 8/4/2022 State of MN 11,452.47$ Healthcare Savings Payout Total 140,868.47$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR APPROVAL Auto Deductions / Electronic Fund Transfer / Other Disbursements ALL OTHER FINANCIAL CLAIMS Check Register (See attached Check Detail Registers) Total Checks Total of Auto Deductions Total Total Fund #500 = (See attached Payments Detail) FINANCIAL CLAIMS CHECK RANGE FUND #500 ESCROW CLAIMS Paid to SEE THE REGISTER FOR #500 CLAIMS CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 3/7Page: 08/05/2022 10:25 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 07/29/2022 - 08/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32538 55.62 Total For Check 32538 Check 32539 3253941,021.75 08/11/227219MUNICIPAL WELL #1 PAY REQUEST 3EH RENNER & SONS INC07/31/22601-00000-16500 32539(2,051.09)08/11/227219MUNICIPAL WELL #1 PAY REQUEST 3EH RENNER & SONS INC07/31/22601-00000-20610 38,970.66 Total For Check 32539 Check 32540 32540256.22 08/11/2293252BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONEMPLOYEE RELATIONS07/31/22100-41400-50300 3254094.00 08/11/2293252BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONEMPLOYEE RELATIONS07/31/22100-45100-50300 350.22 Total For Check 32540 Check 32541 32541191,815.63 08/11/2207132022CORCORAN ASPHALT ROAD JOB 2218 PAY GMH ASPHALT CORP07/13/22100-43121-50400 191,815.63 Total For Check 32541 Check 32542 32542305.10 08/11/222070313SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL07/31/22601-49400-50380 32542305.10 08/11/222070313SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL07/31/22602-49450-50380 610.20 Total For Check 32542 Check 32543 32543100.00 08/11/2207122022DOT REIMBURSEMENTGREGORY, ERIC07/12/22100-43100-50207 100.00 Total For Check 32543 Check 32544 32544650.00 08/11/22296452022 ANNUAL MAINTENANCEGREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO07/21/22100-43125-50300 650.00 Total For Check 32544 Check 32545 3254522,696.43 08/11/2222-0475SQUAD 574 BUILDUPGUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY07/19/22416-42100-50550 22,696.43 Total For Check 32545 Check 32546 325463,172.00 08/11/221141966TH AVE/GLEASON PKWYHAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 05/27/22408-48005-50300 3,172.00 Total For Check 32546 Check 32547 32547355.39 08/11/220007003599-001PW-250' WIRE CONDUCTOR/1X300' CENTHLS OUTDOOR - BROOKLYN PARK06/17/22100-45200-50221 355.39 Total For Check 32547 Check 32548 3254870.00 08/11/22003401082200PD CAR WASHHOLIDAY COMPANIES08/01/22100-42100-50403 70.00 Total For Check 32548 Check 32549 325491,226.20 08/11/22022022DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENTJESSICA BEISE08/03/22100-00000-21710 1,226.20 Total For Check 32549 Check 32550 325501,012.47 08/11/22062122TUITION REIMBURSEMENTLAWSON, JOSH06/21/22100-42100-50207 1,012.47 Total For Check 32550 Check 32551 3255195.99 08/11/22INV3636490LIGHT BULBSLIGHTBULBS.COM07/14/22100-41900-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 4/7Page: 08/05/2022 10:25 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 07/29/2022 - 08/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32551 95.99 Total For Check 32551 Check 32552 32552524.58 08/11/2268415SQUAD 568 REPAIRLITHGOW AUTOMOTIVE07/27/22100-42100-50403 524.58 Total For Check 32552 Check 32553 3255375.00 08/11/220820222022 SUMMER SOCCER REFEREELIZZY POPPLER08/01/22100-45100-50210 75.00 Total For Check 32553 Check 32554 32554230.00 08/11/221832MANDATORY CHECK-INMARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW, LLC08/01/22100-41900-50300 230.00 Total For Check 32554 Check 32555 3255533.89 08/11/222004CITY HALL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPMENARDS MAPLE GROVE07/18/22100-41900-50403 32555339.30 08/11/2202845NITE TO UNITE STORAGE ITEMSMENARDS MAPLE GROVE08/02/22202-42100-50210 373.19 Total For Check 32555 Check 32556 3255629,820.00 08/11/2207302022JULY 2022 SAC CHARGESMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL08/01/22602-00000-20800 32556(298.20)08/11/2207302022JULY 2022 SAC CHARGESMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL08/01/22602-00000-36200 29,521.80 Total For Check 32556 Check 32557 32557375.00 08/11/2224640SOCCER BACKGROUND CHECKSMN BCA07/27/22100-45100-50300 375.00 Total For Check 32557 Check 32558 3255898.42 08/11/22422995PW-LUBE FIL/FUEL FIL/AIR FILNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran07/25/22100-43100-50220 325584.49 08/11/22421470PW LAMPNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran07/14/22100-43100-50220 3255847.94 08/11/22422471PW-TRANSAXLE DIFFERENTIA/TRANSMISSNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran07/21/22100-43100-50220 150.85 Total For Check 32558 Check 32559 32559460.00 08/11/2208012022DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENTNATALIE DAVIS MCKEOWN08/01/22100-00000-21710 460.00 Total For Check 32559 Check 32560 3256060.00 08/11/2249058536SOIL SAMPLE NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.07/11/22100-45200-50300 60.00 Total For Check 32560 Check 32561 32561293,342.57 08/11/2208032022CO RD 10 & WALNUT LANE TURN LANE IOMANN CONTRACTING COMPANIES08/03/22100-00000-22205-098 32561(14,667.13)08/11/2208032022CO RD 10 & WALNUT LANE TURN LANE IOMANN CONTRACTING COMPANIES08/03/22408-00000-20610 278,675.44 Total For Check 32561 Check 32562 32562260.52 08/11/2208/04/2022UB refund for account: 20007167-23PAWAR, PRITHVIRAJ08/04/22601-00000-22200 260.52 Total For Check 32562 Check 32563 3256351,450.60 08/11/225616SEAL COAT PROJECTPEARSON BROS., INC.07/14/22100-43121-50400 51,450.60 Total For Check 32563 Check 32564 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 5/7Page: 08/05/2022 10:25 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 07/29/2022 - 08/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32564 325642,600.00 08/11/222022STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GOAL SETTINPHILIP KERN07/19/22100-41110-50207 2,600.00 Total For Check 32564 Check 32565 3256575.00 08/11/220820222022 SUMMER SOCCER REFEREESHANE SEIFFERT08/01/22100-45100-50210 75.00 Total For Check 32565 Check 32566 325661,316.00 08/11/2262176PW-LEATHER GLOVES/LENS/BLAST SUITSPESCO, INC07/21/22100-43100-50220 1,316.00 Total For Check 32566 Check 32567 32567310.03 08/11/22391283315-248CELL SERVICE 06/15/22-07/14/22SPRINT07/18/22100-43100-50321 310.03 Total For Check 32567 Check 32568 325681,339.60 08/11/2208012022AUGUST 2022 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY08/01/22100-00000-21709 1,339.60 Total For Check 32568 Check 32569 32569207.00 08/11/221940160PULTE WALCOTT GLENNSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205 32569486.00 08/11/221940163CORCORAN FARMS BUSINESS PARKSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES08/01/22100-00000-22205 32569690.00 08/11/221940153GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205 32569834.78 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-008 32569226.42 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-010 32569440.00 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-013 32569724.50 08/11/221940149COOK LAKESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-017 32569379.20 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-024 32569555.36 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-045 325695,631.88 08/11/221940144LENNAR DEVELOPMENTSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-055 3256928,237.17 08/11/221940143TAVERA LENNARSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-056 32569198.34 08/11/221940150NELSON TRUCKINGSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-076 32569350.00 08/11/221940156PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARKSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-080 325696,020.52 08/11/221940147PULTE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-087 325695,085.50 08/11/221940134STIEG ROAD IMPROVEMENTSSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-087 3256912,506.99 08/11/2219400165AMBERLY 1,2/BELLWETHER 6, 7, 9STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-087 325691,073.86 08/11/221940152RUSH CREEK RESERVESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-098 32569236.00 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-111 325691,368.00 08/11/221940157ST THERESE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-117 325691,784.50 08/11/221940810ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-128 325694,261.00 08/11/221940155RUSH CREEK RESERVE TURN LANESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-00000-22205-130 32569964.50 08/11/221940151NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-42400-50303 32569748.00 08/11/221940133STORMWATERSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-43170-50300 325691,169.00 08/11/221940142TRANSPORTATIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-43170-50300 325692,378.00 08/11/221940167HORSESHOE BEND DRIVESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-43170-50300 32569288.75 08/11/221940138ELM CREEK HUC8 STUDY CULVERT SURVESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-43170-50300 325691,428.50 08/11/221940153GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-43170-50300 32569792.00 08/11/221940153GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22100-45100-50210 325691,155.02 08/11/22194014566TH STREET DESIGN & CONSTRUCTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22408-48005-50300 32569749.50 08/11/221940148CORCORAN TRAIL IMPROVEMENTSSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22408-48007-50300 325692,597.00 08/11/221940154BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DESIGN - CITY OSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22408-48009-50303 325692,940.00 08/11/221940158CITY CENTER DRIVE & 79TH PLACE UTISTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22408-48010-50303 3256912.25 08/11/221940151NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22601-49400-50303 32569389.00 08/11/221940164SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSISSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22601-49400-50303 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 6/7Page: 08/05/2022 10:25 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 07/29/2022 - 08/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32569 325695,921.97 08/11/221940135CORCORAN WELL NO. 1STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22601-49400-50303 3256912.25 08/11/221940151NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES07/01/22602-49450-50303 92,842.76 Total For Check 32569 Check 32570 32570648.64 08/11/2210187821TIRES SQUAD 568SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC07/15/22100-42100-50220 648.64 Total For Check 32570 Check 32571 32571194.70 08/11/2257302-01PW SUPPLIES-DRILL SET/CLITS & COVETERMINAL SUPPLY CO07/16/22100-43100-50210 194.70 Total For Check 32571 Check 32572 32572333.72 08/11/2207-2022JULY 2022 PD UNIFORM CLEANINGTIDE CLEANERS08/01/22100-42100-50417 333.72 Total For Check 32572 Check 32573 32573150.70 08/11/22072022PD INVESTIGATIONS - JULY 2022TRANSUNION RISK & ALTERNATIV08/01/22100-42100-50300 150.70 Total For Check 32573 Check 32574 32574780.00 08/11/2222072800CITY HALL & PD CLEANINGULTIMATE CLEANERS LLC07/28/22100-41900-50401 780.00 Total For Check 32574 Check 32575 3257592.13 08/11/22200932PD-TOXIRAE 3 MONITOR CALIBRATIONULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS INC07/22/22100-42100-50403 92.13 Total For Check 32575 Check 32576 32576466.91 08/11/22477912208COPIER LEASEUS BANKCORP EQUIPMENT FINANC08/01/22100-41920-50210 466.91 Total For Check 32576 Check 32577 325771,043.32 08/11/22127958NIGHT TO UNITE INFLATABLE RENTALSUSA INFLATABLES08/02/22202-42100-50210 1,043.32 Total For Check 32577 Check 32578 32578568.70 08/11/2235029774886UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT07/20/22100-00000-22205 568.70 Total For Check 32578 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 7/7Page: 08/05/2022 10:25 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 07/29/2022 - 08/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number 654,864.51 Fund 100 GENERAL FUND 4,257.26 Fund 202 POLICE DONATION FUND (4,053.61)Fund 408 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 22,696.43 Fund 416 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS 45,859.50 Fund 601 WATER 29,839.15 Fund 602 SEWER Fund Totals: 753,463.24 Total For All Funds: City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-95 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION SPONSORING THE NORTHWEST TRAILS ASSOCIATION TO ACQUIRE STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR FUNDING (2022-2023 SEASON) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran desires to establish a public snowmobile trail in furtherance of its public recreation program; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Trails Association has asked the City of Corcoran to act as a sponsor to help acquire, construct, and maintain its trails; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Trails Association has indicated it will help and assist the City to acquire, construct, and maintain said trail; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota offers financial and technical assistance to the City for the construction of an approved trail; that the trail sponsored by Corcoran would be known as the Snowmobile Trails of Northwest Hennepin County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REOLVED BY THE CITY OF CORCORAN: 1.The City of Corcoran shall apply to the State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, for financial and technical assistance in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations governing said assistance. 2.If said assistance is granted, the City of Corcoran shall contract with the Northwest Trails Association for the acquisition of the necessary interests in land and the subsequent construction and maintenance of the trail. 3.With the exception of the financial assistance provided by the State contract with the City, the City of Corcoran shall not be liable for any costs incurred by the club. The City shall be responsible only for the allocation of funds to the extent of the actual monies provided through the State contract. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 11th day of August, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator Agenda Item: 7c. Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 7d. City Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Topic: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for “Corcoran Farms Business Park” (PID 26-119-23-13-0006) (city file no. 22- 006) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: N/A 1. Request JMMK, LLC has submitted a request for review of a PUD sketch plan to develop a five-lot industrial park consisting of five buildings totaling 726,000 sq.ft. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required for the proposed five lot industrial/business park. The project is located on a 70-acre site. The Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules require a mandatory EAW for new warehousing or light industrial facilities greater than 300,000 gross square feet in cities under 10,000 in population. 2.Comments Received on the EAW Section 4410.1600 of the Environmental Rules states that comments received on the EAW shall address the accuracy and completeness of the material, potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 30-day EAW comment period ended on July 7, 2022. The response to the EAW comments was prepared and is attached as “Record of Decision.” This document includes all written comments submitted by governmental agencies as well as responses to their comments. Figure 1 - Location map Page 2 of 4 3. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making Under Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules, the City is the governmental unit responsible for preparing this EAW and determining whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The purpose of the environmental review process is to provide usable information to the project proposer, governmental decision-makers and the public concerning the primary environmental effects of a proposed project. The EAW should identify measures to protect the environment that can later be imposed as conditions of approval in future development applications. If the EAW identifies significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated or minimized, the City Council would order the preparation of an EIS. An EIS does not necessarily disclose more information about potential impacts; rather, its main purpose is to examine project alternatives and additional mitigative measures to lessen significant impacts identified in the EAW. Furthermore, an EIS is not a means to approve or deny a project, but is an additional source of information to guide decisions. Very few projects move to the EIS stage because, in most cases, the EAW does an adequate job of describing potential impacts and identifying mitigative measures. The statutory standard for requiring an EIS is whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects – it is not whether the EAW has adequately disclosed information about potential impacts. Accordingly, if the City Council determines that the EAW does not disclose sufficient information about the potential impacts. The City Council would request additional information before deciding on the need for an EIS. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that would warrant the preparation of an EIS, the City Council must consider the following factors (Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, Section 4410.1700, Subpart 7): a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; b. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant, whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with Figure 2 - Sketch Plan for EAW Page 3 of 4 approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; c. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The City Council has three courses of action when reviewing an EAW. These actions include: 1. Require additional information to address possible environmental impacts not adequately discussed in the EAW; 2. Make a finding of “no need” for an EIS; or 3. Order an EIS. 4. Public Comment Period The Minnesota EQB advertises the availability of the document and the City transmits the EAW to a standard list of regional and state agencies for comment. The comment period for an EAW is 30 days. During this time period, the agencies and any member of the general public may comment on the EAW. The 30-day comment period ended on July 7, 2022. Comments submitted during the 30-day period should address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and the need for an EIS on the proposed project. After the close of the comment period, staff from Stantec and Landform prepared responses to the comments for review and consideration by the City Council. The response is included in the record of decision. The record of decision is intended to serve as the City’s findings of fact of a decision that an EIS does not need to be prepared for this project. The City received seven comment letters from reviewing agencies. None of these letters stated that the EAW was inadequate or incomplete or identified the need for the preparation of an EIS. 5. Development Review Process If the City Council declares a finding of “no need” for an EIS, the developer could submit a formal development application that addresses any mitigation strategies identified in the EAW. Page 4 of 4 A formal application has two steps: 1. Application for a rezoning to PUD, preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat. This requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Notice of the public hearing will be sent to landowners within 300 ft. of the property, will be published in the newspaper and posted on the City website. The public hearing is an opportunity for comment. 2. Final plat and final PUD plan for phase 1 of the project. Future phases will require final plat and final PUD plan approval. During this formal review process, the City would review and provide recommended changes to the plans submitted by the applicant. This would also start the City work to design any off-site infrastructure improvements that would be needed for this development, including streets and utilities. In addition to the City’s entitlement process, the developer would be required to obtain the permits listed in the EAW. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the resolution declaring a finding of “no need” for an EIS, based on the review of the EAW dated May 11, 2022. Approval of a finding of “no need” for an EIS requires a simple majority vote of the City Council. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-93 Declaring a Finding of “No Need” for an Environmental Impact Statement 2. Record of Decision City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-93 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION DECLARING FINDING OF “NO NEED” FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR “CORCORAN FARMS BUSINESS PARK” PROPOSED BY JMMK, LLC AT 20130 LARKIN ROAD (PID 26-119-23-13-0006) (CITY FILE NO. 22-006) WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for an industrial/business park on August 11. 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 14, the City of Corcoran, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) submitted an EAW for the proposed project on May 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the EAW was published on June 7, 2022 edition of the EQB Monitor, which commenced the required 30-day public comment period that ended on July 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the RGU received seven comment letters that are incorporated by reference in the Record of Decision and all comments and recommendations received from reviewing agencies and other interested parties have been considered; and WHEREAS, responses were prepared for comment letters received and the response to comments are provided in the Record of Decision; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed project does not present a potential for environmental impacts of such significance that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Rules, Section 4410.1700, the RGU shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process, the comments received on the EAW and the criteria established by the EQB to determine whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects as provided in the Record of Decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does make the Negative Declaration on the need for an EIS for the proposed industrial/business park development, based on the Record of Decision, which is hereby approved, adopted and incorporated herein. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-93 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 11th day of August 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator August 11, 2022 Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet Notice of Decision Contents Record of Decision ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Appendix A: Comments and Letters ................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix B: Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” ....................................................................................... Appendix C: Environmental Assessment Worksheet .............................................................................................. Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Record of Decision August 11, 2022 Record of Decision Based on the EAW, the Response to Comments and the Findings of Fact, the City of Corcoran City Council concludes the following: 1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2. The EAW and the development processes related to the Project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified have included proper mitigative responses to be included within the final design of the Project. Mitigation will be required to be provided where impacts are expected to result from Project construction, operation or maintenance. Mitigative measures will be required to be incorporated into project design, and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the applicable permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.4300, Subpart 14, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park development project. Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 3 Response to Comments The Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was approved for distribution to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and persons and agencies on the official EQB distribution list in accordance with EQB rules on May 26, 2022. The EQB published notice of availability in the EQB Monitor on June 7, 2022. The 30-day comment period ended on July 7, 2022. The City of Corcoran received seven EAW comment letters via email. The letters and emails are on file at the City of Corcoran. The following comment letters were sent to the City of Corcoran: Letter 1: Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office – Letter dated May 4,2022 from Sarah j. Beimers, Environmental Review Program Manager to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 2: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St Paul District - Letter dated June 1, 2022 from Daniel Reburn, Project Manager to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 3: Minnesota State Archeologist - Letter dated June 29, 2022 from Jennifer Tworzyanski, Assistant to the State Archeologist to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 4: Hennepin County, MN - Letter/ dated July 1, 2022 from Carla Stueve, PE County Highway Engineer to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 5: Metropolitan Council - Letter dated July 6,2022 from Angela Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 6: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Letter dated July 5, 2022 from Karen Kromar Principal Planner Environmental Review unit, Resource Management and Assistance Division to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 7: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources dated July 7, 2022 from Mellissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW comments received during the 30-day comment period. Comments are provided in italicized text. Letter 1: Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Comment 1: Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Response: Comment noted. The City will include a condition the site plan approval that discovery of any potential archeological evidence shall be cause for stop work and notification of the City for appropriate response and course of action. Comment 2: Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 4 considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Response: Comment noted. Currently the use of federal funds has not been identified for the project. Letter 2: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St Paul District Comment 1: 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. Response: Comment noted. The City will include a condition in the site plan approval that the applicant contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St Paul District prior to submittal of the building permit application. Comment 2: 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. Response: Comment noted. The applicant will be advised. Letter 3: Minnesota State Archeologist Comment 1: While there are no previously recorded archaeological sites, archaeological site leads, or burial within the proposed project area, archaeological sites have been located throughout the region on similar landforms. Therefore, a thorough phase 1a literature review conducted by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to determine the potential for the proposed project to impact previously unrecorded archaeological sites, features, or burials. Response: Comment noted. The City contracted with In Situ to complete a Phase 1A Literature Review. Based upon this review, In Situ determined that the project area has a low potential for significant cultural resources and that no further investigations are warranted. The report dated July 19, 2022 has been made part of the record. Letter 4: Hennepin County, MN Comment 1: We support the proposed site access on Larkin Road. As noted, most of the development traffic is expected to access the site through the County Road 116/Larkin Road intersection. We support the study’s conclusion that new turn lanes will be needed on all intersection approaches including conversion of the existing bypass lanes along County Road 116 to dedicated left and right turn lanes to be reviewed by county staff. Response: Comment noted. The City will ensure that the final site development plans reflect the referenced turn lanes and that the plans are to be reviewed by the County. Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 5 Comment 2: An ‘employee and loading dock entrance’ is also proposed on County Road 50, which county staff does not support. If deemed necessary by City staff, an emergency access only could be considered at this location through the county permit process. If a future public street extension is desired on County Road 50, further coordination will be needed to determine the location and design. We recommend ghost platting for any future street connection(s). Response: Comment noted. Comment 3: We request right of-way dedication along County Road 50 to match a 60-foot half section with the outer 10 feet as an easement (drainage, utility, trail). Response: Comment noted. The City will ensure that the final plat reflects the referenced right of way and that the plans are to be reviewed by the county. Comment 4: We support the proposed incorporation of the Three Rivers Park District planned Diamond Lake Regional Trail through the site. Further coordination will be needed to determine a preferred crossing of County Road 50. Response: Comment noted. During the site review process, the City will initiate discussions between the Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County, the applicant and City staff in order to facilitate a coordinated effort on the trail installation and road crossing as a component of the project. Comment 5: Please ensure stormwater discharge rates remain less than existing flow rates. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatments may be necessary if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Eric Vogel at 612- 596-0316 or eric.vogel2@hennepin.us Response: During the surface water management review of the project by the City, this comment will be incorporated into the review dialogue. Letter 5: Metropolitan Council Comment 1: The EAW notes a public trail will be constructed along the eastern edge of the proposed project area. Three Rivers Park District recently submitted the Diamond Lake Regional Trail Master Plan to the Council for its review and consideration. Segment B3 of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail is planned to travel through the proposed project area. Council staff encourage the proposer (JMMK, LLC) and City to coordinate with Three Rivers Park District to ensure the planned Diamond Lake Regional Trail may be accommodated in or near the planned trail alignment that overlaps a portion of the proposed 70-acre site. Response: Comment noted. During the site review process, the City will initiate discussions between the Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County, the applicant and City staff in order to facilitate a coordinated effort on the trail installation and the crossing of County Road 50. Comment 2: The EAW site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #899 (a 4- square-mile zone in south-central Corcoran). The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) currently expects TAZ #899 to gain +50 jobs during 2020-2040. Should the development Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 6 proceed, several hundreds of jobs would result. City staff can request a TAZ allocation adjustment by contacting Metropolitan Council Research staff. Response: Comment noted. As it relates to the development of this site, future application will be cause for City staff to request a TAZ allocation adjustment from the Metropolitan Council research staff. Comment 3: The City should request a communitywide employment forecast revision at the time of a next comprehensive plan amendment. The subject site’s development and other industrial/ warehouse projects now proposed will advance Corcoran’s employment level beyond the 2030 employment forecast in the next few years. Response: Comment noted. The City will have continued discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff on job growth within the City of Corcoran and will react to the conclusions of those discussions accordingly. Comment 4: The EAW describes intense development of the site with a substantial increase in impervious area (39 acres). The proposed stormwater ponds alone may not be sufficient to manage increased volume and pollutant concentrations from these impervious areas. The proposer may want to consider additional green infrastructure practices such as green roofs and swales to ensure that stormwater requirements are met. The RGU should require detailed calculations or modeling of the stormwater management practices for the entire site before allowing the project to proceed. Response: Comment noted and will be shared with the applicant during the site design review discussions. Comment 5: The City should communicate with Maple Grove, their current water supplier, about the plans to develop this site and collaborate with Maple Grove regarding the potential water demands for the site to ensure those needs will be met into the future. The City should also communicate with the DNR regarding any water appropriation permits needed during the site development. Response: Comment noted and will be acted upon accordingly. Comment 6: Wellhead protection area is currently not present. However, if the City would use the proposed nearby parcel for a future municipal well, part or all of the site would be in a well head protection area including the emergency response area for the City well. Potential contaminant and water management on this site should then be prioritized including road salt, fertilizers and herbicides, and other potential contaminants associated with nearby land uses. A perched water table should also be considered when siting the well and managing water within and around the site. Response: Comment noted and will be acted upon accordingly. Comment 7: We recommend integrating smart irrigation controllers into any irrigation system that would be installed in and around the site. These irrigation controllers are tied to weather stations to better identify water needs. These controllers can help lower water use, particularly during the summer months when resources are more stressed, and lower water bills for the property owner. Planting any landscaped areas with native grasses and pollinator species can Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 7 be both visually appealing and limit the need for watering and other landscape maintenance costs. Response: Comment noted. The applicant will be notified of the suggested actions and technology during the site design review process. Comment 5: This site and proposed use appear to be a good opportunity to incorporate solar into the development plan. Using solar as an energy source can lower expenses for property owners and occupants, while contributing to a more resilient energy grid. Doing so would also lower the carbon footprint of using water resources on the site. Response: Comment noted. The applicant will be notified during the site design review process of the suggested actions and benefits of utilizing solar technology. Letter 6: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (General) Comment 1: Due to the extensive amount of roof area on the proposed Project, this development offers the ideal landscape for hosting a solar power system. As this type of development is energy-Intensive, a solar power system would help to minimize the environmental effects of the Project and reduce its impact on the energy system. Response: Comment noted. The applicant will be notified during the site design review process. of the suggested actions and benefits of utilizing solar technology. Comment 2: If the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit is required and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01 subd, 22 Waters of the state. Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional or exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA, and any surface water impact needs to be described in the application and may require mitigation. In addition, the 401 Water Quality Certification must also be included and becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal license or permit, issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. In addition, the applicant must also submit to the MPCA the Antidegradation Assessment in accordance with water quality standards MN R. 7050.0265 and should review the Antidegradation requirements in 7050.0285. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us. Response: Comment noted. The applicant will be notified of the requirements during the site design review process. Comment 3: South Fork Rush Creek is identified as being within a mile of the Project site, but the EAW does not list the downstream South Fork impaired waters (07010206-732). The impairments include Chloride, E. Coli, and fish bioassessments. This impairment is outside the 1-mile radius but receives flow from the stream next to the Project site. For questions about this impaired water, please contact Amy Timm at 651-757-2632 or Amy.Timm@state.mn.us. Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 8 Response: Comment noted. During the future stormwater review for the project, the City engineering staff will revisit this comment and identify if there are any impacts by the proposed uses. Comment 4: Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project and the increased parking area, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing parking lots and driveways during the winter weather months. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride- resources. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this recommendation with the applicant. Comment 5: Redundant down gradient sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required for any disturbance required within 50 feet of the existing buffers to the wetlands on the site. Response: Comment noted. During the future stormwater review for the project, the City engineering staff will revisit this comment and identify if there are any impacts by the proposed uses. Comment 6: If wet sediment ponds must be utilized for stormwater management due to poorly drained soils, stormwater reuse could be used to reduce stormwater volume as required by the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit). The Project proposer is also strongly encouraged to consider use of green infrastructure practices to help absorb stormwater and reduce discharges from the Project site. Native plantings and trees incorporated into the Project site provide pollinator habitat and also provide greater resilience to increased rainfall due to Minnesota’s changing climate. Questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this recommendation with the applicant. Comment 7: Please be aware that farmsteads have the potential for releases or threatened releases of agricultural chemicals. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the regulatory agency charged with managing the response and cleanup of fertilizers and pesticides. Information regarding the MDA is available on the website at: https://www.mda.state.mn.us/pesticide-fertilizer/spills-cleanup. For questions regarding agricultural chemicals, please contact Cathy Villas-Horns with the MDA at 651-201-6697. For questions regarding waste pesticide containers, please contact Jane Boerboom with the MDA at 651-201-6540. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Letter 7: MN Department of Natural Resources. Comment 1: Page 8, Permits and Approvals. It is very likely that the project will require a DNR Water Appropriations Permit, and this should be listed in Table 3. There are also two DNR Public Waters located within the project area, and any proposed impacts to these features will Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 9 require a DNR Public Waters Work Permit. Please apply for all necessary DNR permits through the Water Permitting and Reporting System: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html Response: Comment noted. It is understood that a DNR Public Water Wetland (Unnamed, 27043000) and a DNR Public Watercourse (County Ditch 16, M-062-004- 002-002) are within the project area. No impacts to the DNR Public Water Wetland are anticipated to result from this project. As part of a future potential street extension, impacts to the DNR Public Water Wetland are anticipated and a DNR Public Waters Work Permit would be required at that time. It is anticipated that impacts to County Ditch 16 would be avoided which will be confirmed as the design develops. If it is determined that impacts to County Ditch 16 are unavoidable, it is understood that a DNR Public Waters Work Permit would be required. The City will include a condition the site plan approval that all required permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction activity. Comment 2: Page 9, Zoning. We encourage the proposer to comply with all shoreland ordinances regarding setbacks and impervious surfaces in order to protect water quality. Response: Comment noted. During site development review, shoreland ordinance impacts are reviewed by the City. Comment 3: Page 14, Groundwater. There is likely a surficial water table present in the project area, given the presence of hydric soils and glacial till. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Comment 4: Page 17, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to irrigate landscaping in the project area since infiltration is likely not feasible based on existing soil types. The reuse of stormwater for irrigation would conserve valuable groundwater and reduce the volume of stormwater and stormwater pollution flowing downstream of the site. Response: Comment noted. During the future stormwater review for the project, the City engineering staff will revisit this comment, work with the applicant to see if the suggested irrigation source can be incorporated into the final design. Comment 5: Page 17, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed mixes and plants in stormwater features in order to provide pollinator habitat. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Comment 6: Page 17, Stormwater. The planned significant increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and City participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments August 11, 2022 10 from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We encourage local governments to request that project proposers who wish to significantly increase impervious surfaces develop a chloride management plan that outlines what BMP’s and strategies will be used to reduce chloride use within the project area. We also encourage cities, counties, and watershed to consider how they may participate in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Comment 7: Page 17, Stormwater. We recommend that the use of erosion control blankets be limited to natural netting, wildlife-friendly materials, and specifically not those that contain plastic. Please be aware that many hydro mulch products contain micro-plastics, and do not use products containing plastics in areas that drain to public waters. Response: Comment noted. During the future stormwater review for the project, the City engineering staff will revisit this comment, work with the applicant to see if the suggested materials can be incorporated into the final design. Comment 8: Page 18, Water Appropriation. It is very likely that construction dewatering will be required for this development and associated utilities. Please note that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the water pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The DNR General Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons and the time of the appropriation is less than one year. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Comment 9: Page 19, Rare Features. We recommend incorporating native plants and seed mixes into development landscaping to the greatest degree possible. Response: Comment Noted. The City will share this comment with the applicant. Comment 10: Page 26, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland, stream, or non-municipal well in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of the water. Please do not use products containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters. Response: Comment noted. The City will include a condition the site plan approval that all required permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction activity and will recommend limiting the use of products containing chloride. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comments and Letters August 11, 2022 Appendix A: Comments and Letters MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER May 4, 2022 Kendra Lindahl City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 RE: Corcoran Farms Business Park T119 R23 S26, Corcoran, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2022-1337 Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above-referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in our Environmental Review Program at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1678 06/01/2022 Regulatory File No. MVP-2021-02137-DCR THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Kendra Lindahl 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55357 Dear Mr./Ms. Lindahl: 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-2021-02137-DCR Applicant: Jeff Minea Project Name: Larkin Road Site Project Location: Section 26 of Township 119 N, Range 23 W, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Latitude: 45.0903235692675; Longitude: -93.5510855446315) Received Date: 06/01/2022 Project Manager: Daniel Reburn (651) 290-5900 Daniel.C.Reburn@usace.army.mil Additional information about the St. Paul District Regulatory Program can be found on our web site at http://www.mvp.usace.army.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 Letter 1 328 West Kellogg Blvd St Paul, MN 55102 OSA.Project.Reviews.adm@state.mn.us Date: 06/29/2022 Kendra Lindahl City of Corcoran klindahl@landform.net Project Name: Corcoran Farms Business Park Notes/Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. While there are no previously recorded archaeological sites, archaeological site leads, or burial within the proposed project area, archaeological sites have been located throughout the region on similar landforms. Therefore, a thorough phase Ia literature review conducted by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to determine the potential for the proposed project to impact previously unrecorded archaeological sites, features, or burials. Recommendations ☐ Not Applicable ☐ No Concerns ☐ Monitoring ☒ Phase Ia – Literature Review ☐ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey ☐ Phase II – Evaluation ☐ Phase III – Data Recovery If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office. Sincerely, Letter 2 Jennifer Tworzyanski Assistant to the State Archaeologist OSA Kellogg Center 328 Kellogg Blvd W St Paul MN 55102 651.201.2265 jennifer.tworzyanski@state.mn.us 7630 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Ph: 952-658-8891 Web: www.insitucrm.com July 19, 2022 Erin Sejkora Project Manager Stantec 7500 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300 Golden Valley, MN 55427 (763) 252-6802 Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com Subject: Phase IA Literature Review for the Corcoran Farms Business Park, City of Corcoran, Minnesota. Dear Miss. Sejkora, This report presents the results of a Phase IA Cultural Resource Literature Review conducted by In Situ Archaeological Consulting, LLC (In Situ) for a proposed 70-acre business park in the City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed project area is located within the legal locations listed shown in Table 1. The proposed project consists of office/warehouse development southwest of Corcoran, MN. Table 1: Legal Locations of the Proposed Project Area Township (T) Range (R) Section(s) 119 North 23 West 26 The proposed project area is approximately 70 acres in size and located on privately-owned land. The literature review was conducted by Abraham Ledezma on July 19, 2022, using files maintained by the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The literature review is being completed as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The literature review will assist the client in identifying the locations of previous cultural resources, locations on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), previous cultural resource inventories, and the potential for cultural resources within and around the project area. BACKGROUND RESEARCH A literature review consisted of identifying any previously recorded archaeological sites and architectural properties within a 2-mile study area surrounding the proposed project area (1 mile from each side of the project area). The task was completed using site data files and previous inventory files maintained by the OSA and at SHPO. In addition, background research was completed by reviewing NRHP data, historic maps, atlases, current aerial photographs, soil maps, topographic and geomorphic data, and other sources that might provide information for the locations of historic-era sites, areas of prior disturbance, etc. (Figures 1-5). The Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA July 19, 2022 Page 2 literature/records search at OSA and SHPO revealed one previously recorded archaeological site, two previously recorded architectural resources, and one previous cultural resource survey within the study area. The data gathered revealed two previously recorded archaeological site within the study area (Table 2). Site 21HE0379 is a precontact artifact scatter that was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Site 21HE0380 is a historic Euro-American homestead that is unevaluated for the NRHP. Neither of these sites are located within the proposed project area. Table 2: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area. Site Legal Description Site Type NRHP Eligibility Within Project Area 21HE0379 SE, SE, NW, Section 27, T119N, R23W Precontact Artifact Scatter Not Eligible for NRHP No 21HE0380 SE, NE, NW Section 27, T119N, R2W Historic Farmstead Unevaluated No The literature review revealed four previously recorded architectural resources within the study area (Table 3). All four historic resources are unevaluated for the NRHP (HE-COC-017, HE- COC-019, HE-COC-025, and HE-COC-026). None of these previously recorded architectural resources are located within the project area. Table 3: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within the Study Area. Site Number Site Name/Type Address/Location NRHP Eligibility Within Project Area HE-COC-017 Farmhouse/Residence 19835 Larkin Rd. Unevaluated No HE-COC-019 Farmstead 6810 Old Settlers Rd. Unevaluated No HE-COC-025 Store/General Store NW Corner Co. Rd. 10 & Co. Rd. 50 Unevaluated No HE-COC-026 St. Thomas Catholic Church/Religious Facility 20000 Co. Rd. 10 Unevaluated No Due to the implementation of Emergency Executive Order 20-20 in response to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic, at the time of this project’s completion, the Minnesota SHPO and OSA offices were closed to contractors and to the public. Due to this, information regarding previous surveys and reports were limited, as most reports were not available at the time. However, for the purpose of this Phase IA investigation, the information regarding previous surveys and reports would only serve as context for the broad research area and i s not directly related to the outcome of the current project. The literature review revealed one previous archaeological survey within the study area (Table 4). Survey MULT-08-07 is the Phase I cultural survey of several expansion of the Zone EF Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA July 19, 2022 Page 3 Northern Natural Gas Pipeline. The previous survey bisects the project area and overlaps for approximately 12.35 acres. No previous sites were recorded within the overlapping section. Table 4: Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within the Study Area. Report Number Title Authors Year MULT-08-07 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Northern Natural Gas Company’s Proposed Northern Lights 2009-2010 Zone EF Expansion Project, Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Freeborn, Hennepin, Rice, Washington, and Wright Counties, Minnesota Andrea C. Vermeer, Laurie S. H. Ollila, Andrew J. Schmidt, and Kent Bakken 2008 BASIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA The project area is located within the Big Woods physiographic region (Wright 1972). This area is characterized by Rolling plains with some lakes, mostly crops with suburban developments. There are no natural bodies of water or watercourse within the project area. Outside of the project area, the closest natural water source is Cook Lake, which is approximately 0.02 mile to the west, and West Swan River, which is approximately 1.39 miles to the east. The nearest water course is the South Fork of Rush Creek, which has an intermittent tributary (County Ditch Number Sixteen) that flows along the eastern edge of the project area. The elevation within the project ranges between approximately 954 and 988 ft above mean sea level. This area is located within the Hayden-Cordova-Peaty muck soil association. The Hayden- Cordova-Peaty much soil association is described as “nearly level to rolling, medium-textured and moderately fine textured soils that developed in glacial till, and level organic soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, SCS 1974 [2022]).” There are eight specific soil series types present within the project area (Table 5). Most of the project area (22.1%) is contained in the Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex soil (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022). The majority (71.8%) of the soils in the project area consist of poorly drained soils. Table 5: Summary of Soil Series within the Project Area. Soil Series Parent Material Drainage Slope Landform Lester Loam (L22C2) Fine-loamy till Well drained 6%–10% Ground moraines, hillslopes Lester loam (L22E) Fine-loamy till Well drained 10%–22% Hillslopes, moraines Cordova loam Till Poorly drained 0%–2% Drainageways and moraines Glencoe clay loam Local alluvium over till Very poorly drained 0%–1% Depressions La Sueur loam (L25A) Fine-loamy till Somewhat poorly drained 0%-3% Hillslopes, ground moraines Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA July 19, 2022 Page 4 Table 5: Summary of Soil Series within the Project Area. Soil Series Parent Material Drainage Slope Landform Hamel, overwash- Hamel complex (L36A) Colluvium over till Somewhat poorly drained 0%–3% Ground moraines Angus loam Fine-loamy till Well drained 2%–6% Hillslopes, ground moraines Hamel-Glencoe complex (L132A) Colluvium over till Poorly drained 0%–2% Ground moraines Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (2022). CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL The project is located largely within existing agricultural fields. The project area consists of slightly undulating terrain, with a slightly higher elevation in the northern portion of the project area; however, the project area is not located on a landform with topographically significant landscape features. The project location does have a few water sources nearby the project area. However, none of these water sources are permanent water sources, but rather are marshlands located to the west and north of the project and an intermittent stream (County Ditch Number Sixteen) located along the eastern side of the project area. This County Ditch Number Sixteen is coded as a canal, meaning that it is a manmade waterway and did not exist during prehistoric times (Home Town Locator 2022). Historic maps depict a sporadic marshland landscape surrounding the proposed project area (Figures 3-5). Typically, archaeological sites that have been found along intermittent streams and near marshlands are short-term occupation sites with low artifact densities (Anderson and Smith 2003; MNDOT 2002). Long-term occupations sites are more likely to occur along permeant water sources, as more resources are readily available. In addition, approximately 71.8 percent of the soils within the project area are classified as poorly drained soils, which coincide with the surrounding marshland landscape. Finally. historic maps did not indicate any prior cultural sites within the project area nor were there any confirmed previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. Due to these factors, the project area has a low potential for significant cultural resources. Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA July 19, 2022 Page 5 REPORT SUMMARY In Situ completed a Phase IA Cultural Resource Literature Review for the proposed 70-acre business park located in the City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The literature/records search revealed two previously recorded archaeological sites, four previously recorded architectural resources, and one previous cultural resource survey within the study area. The previous survey intersects with the proposed project area, however, no archaeological or architectural resources are located within the project area. It is the opinion of In Situ that a Phase I cultural resource management survey is not warranted for this project, and this is based on several factors. The project area consists of slightly undulating terrain, with a slightly higher elevation in the northern portion of the project area; however, the project area is not located on a landform with topographically significant landscape features. The project location does have a few water sources nearby the project area. However, none of these water sources are permanent water sources, but rather are marshlands located to the west and north of the project and an intermittent stream (County Ditch Number Sixteen) located along the eastern side of the project area. This County Ditch Number Sixteen is coded as a canal, meaning that it is a manmade waterway and did not exist during prehistoric. Historic maps depict a sporadic marshland landscape surrounding the proposed project area. Typically, archaeological sites that have been found along intermittent streams and near marshlands are short-term occupation sites with low artifact densities. Long-term occupations sites are more likely to occur along permeant water sources, as more resources are readily available. In addition, approximately 71.8 percent of the soils within the project area are classified as poorly drained soils, which coincide with the surrounding marshland landscape. Finally. historic maps did not indicate any prior cultural sites within the project area nor were there any confirmed previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. Due to these factors, the project area has a low potential for significant cultural resources. Based upon these findings, In Situ recommends no further work for this project. Please contact me at 952.658.8891 or aledezma@insitucrm.com should you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information assembled. Sincerely, Abraham Ledezma, M.S., RPA Principal Investigator Enclosures: Figure 1: Literature Review Topographic Map Figure 2: Literature Review Aerial Map Figure 3: Historical BLM GLO Plat Map Figures 4-5: Historical Topographic Maps Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA July 19, 2022 Page 6 REFERENCES CITED Anderson, David G. and Steven D. Smith 2003 Archaeology, History, and Predictive Modeling: Research at Fort Polk, 1972-2002. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Home Town Locator 2022 Minnesota Gazetteer. Available at: https://minnesota.hometownlocator.com/. Accessed July 19, 2022. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) 2002 Mn/Model Final Report Phases 1-3, 2002: A Predictive Model of Precontact Archaeological Site Location for the State of Minnesota. Available at: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel/P3FinalReport/final_report.html. Accessed January 3, 2020. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022 Web Soil Survey – Hennepin County, MN. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs. usda.gov. Accessed July 19, 2022. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1974 [2022] Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota. In cooperation with Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, State of Minnesota. Wright, H. E. Jr. 1972 Physiology of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume. pp. 561- 578. Minnesota Geological Society. Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI ") ") ")") HE-COC-026HE-COC-025 HE-COC-019 HE-COC-017 MULT-08-07 21HE0380 21HE0379 T. 119N R. 023WSec 26 T. 119N R. 023WSec 23 T. 119N R. 023WSec 25 T. 119N R. 023WSec 24 T. 119N R. 023WSec 27 T. 119N R. 023WSec 22 T. 119N R. 023WSec 35 T. 119N R. 023WSec 36 T. 119N R. 023WSec 34 T. 119N R. 023WSec 14 T. 119N R. 023WSec 13T. 119N R. 023WSec 15 South Fork Rush CreekCounty Ditch Number ThreeTOPOGRAPHIC MAP Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA Hennepin County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend ")Unevaluated Architectural Property Numbered Archaeological Site Previous Survey Project Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Township Boundary NHD Stream/River NHD Waterbody 0 3,200 6,400 Approximate Scale in Feet1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 1. Project location on the USGS1981 Hamel, MN 7.5 minute series topographic map with literature review resources. µ Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI ") ") ")") HE-COC-026HE-COC-025 HE-COC-019 HE-COC-017 MULT-08-07 21HE0380 21HE0379 T. 119N R. 023WSec 26 T. 119N R. 023WSec 23 T. 119N R. 023WSec 25 T. 119N R. 023WSec 24 T. 119N R. 023WSec 27 T. 119N R. 023WSec 22 T. 119N R. 023WSec 35 T. 119N R. 023WSec 36T. 119N R. 023WSec 34 T. 119N R. 023WSec 14 T. 119N R. 023WSec 13T. 119N R. 023WSec 15 South Fork Rush CreekCounty Ditch Number ThreeAERIAL MAP Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA Hennepin County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend ")Unevaluated Architectural Property Numbered Archaeological Site Previous Survey Project Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Township Boundary NHD Stream/River NHD Waterbody 0 3,200 6,400 Approximate Scale in Feet1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 2. Aerial map with previous cultural resources surveys and previously recorded sites. µ Note: Imagery courtesy of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. T. 119N R. 023WSec 26 T. 119N R. 023WSec 23 T. 119N R. 023WSec 25 T. 119N R. 023WSec 24 T. 119N R. 023WSec 27 T. 119N R. 023WSec 22 T. 119N R. 023WSec 35 T. 119N R. 023WSec 36T. 119N R. 023WSec 34 T. 119N R. 023WSec 14 T. 119N R. 023WSec 13T. 119N R. 023WSec 15 HISTORICAL BLM GLO PLAT MAP Corcoran Farms Business Park Phase IA Hennepin County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Township/Range/Section Township Boundary 0 3,200 6,400 Approximate Scale in Feet1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 3. Project location on the 1856 BLM GLO Plat map. µ Note: Imagery courtesy of the USGS. T. 119N R. 023WSec 26 T. 119N R. 023WSec 23 T. 119N R. 023WSec 25 T. 119N R. 023WSec 24 T. 119N R. 023WSec 27 T. 119N R. 023WSec 22 T. 119N R. 023WSec 35 T. 119N R. 023WSec 36T. 119N R. 023WSec 34 T. 119N R. 023WSec 14 T. 119N R. 023WSec 13T. 119N R. 023WSec 15 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Corcoran Farms Business Phase IA Hennepin County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Township/Range/Section Township Boundary 0 3,200 6,400 Approximate Scale in Feet1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 4. Project location on the 1909Rockford, MN 62,500 series topographic map. µ Note: Imagery courtesy of the USGS. T. 119N R. 023WSec 26 T. 119N R. 023WSec 23 T. 119N R. 023WSec 25 T. 119N R. 023WSec 24 T. 119N R. 023WSec 27 T. 119N R. 023WSec 22 T. 119N R. 023WSec 35 T. 119N R. 023WSec 36T. 119N R. 023WSec 34 T. 119N R. 023WSec 14 T. 119N R. 023WSec 13T. 119N R. 023WSec 15 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Corcoran Farms Business Phase IA Hennepin County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Township/Range/Section Township Boundary 0 3,200 6,400 Approximate Scale in Feet1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 5. Project location on the 1958Rockford, MN 62,500 series topographic map. µ Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us July 1, 2022 Ms. Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal Consultant City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW (Observed 6/17/22) Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3995 (Reviewed 6/21/22) Ms. Lindahl: Please consider the following county staff comments regarding the EAW document proposing to redevelop 68 acres of farmland into five industrial/office warehouses buildings (580,000 sf warehouse/145,000 sf office) over multiple phases. Access: We support the proposed site access on Larkin Road. As noted, most of the development traffic is expected to access the site through the County Road 116/Larkin Road intersection. We support the study’s conclusion that new turn lanes will be needed on all intersection approaches including conversion of the existing bypass lanes along County Road 116 to dedicated left and right turn lanes to be reviewed by county staff. An ‘employee and loading dock entrance’ is also proposed on County Road 50, which county staff does not support. If deemed necessary by city staff, an emergency access only could be considered at this location through the county permit process. If a future public street extension is desired on County Road 50, further coordination will be needed to determine the location and design. We recommend ghost platting for any future street connection(s). Right-of-way: We request right of-way dedication along County Road 50 to match a 60-foot half section with the outer 10 feet as an easement (drainage, utility, trail). Bicycle and Pedestrian: We support the proposed incorporation of the Three Rivers Park District planned Diamond Lake Regional Trail through the site. Further coordination will be needed to determine a preferred crossing of County Road 50. Storm Water/Drainage: Please ensure stormwater discharge rates remain less than existing flow rates. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatments may be necessary if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Eric Vogel at 612-596-0316 or eric.vogel2@hennepin.us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved county permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Please ensure the applicant coordinates with the county for the turn lanes and any utility work. Contact: Michael Olmstead, Permits Coordinator at 612-596-0336 or michael.olmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Jason Gottfried at 612-596-0394, jason.gottfried@hennepin.us for any further discussion. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, PE County Highway Engineer Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North , Saint Paul, MN 55101 -1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer July 6, 2022 Kendra Lindahl, City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55357 RE: City of Corcoran - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Corcoran Farms Business Park Metropolitan Council Review. 22770-1 Metropolitan Council District 1 Dear Kendra Lindahl: The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Corcoran Farms Business Park on June 1, 2022. The proposed project is in southeast Corcoran bordered by Larkin Road on the south and CSAH 50 to the north. The project proposes to construct a 70 -acre busine ss park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,394 square feet. The purpose of the project is to allow for development of additional industrial businesses in the City of Corcoran. The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and acc urate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 6. Project Description (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) The EAW notes a public trail will be constructed along the eastern edge of the proposed project area. Three Rivers Park District recently submitted the Diamond Lake Regional Trail Master Plan to the Council for its review and co nsideration. Segment B3 of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail is planned to travel through the proposed project area. Council staff encourage the proposer (JMMK, LLC) and City to coordinate with Three Rivers Park District to ensure the planned Diamond Lake Regional Trail may be accommodated in or near the planned trail alignment that overlaps a portion of the proposed 70 -acre site. Item 9. Land Use (Todd Graham, 651 -602-1322) The EAW site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #899 (a 4-square-mile zone in south-central Corcoran). T he City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) currently expects TAZ #899 to gain +50 jobs during 2020 -2040. Should the development proceed, several hundreds of jobs would result. City staff can request a TAZ allocation adjustment by contacting Met ropolitan Council Research staff . Also, the City should request a communitywide employment forecast revision at the time of a next comprehensive plan amendment . The subject site’s development and other industrial/ warehouse projects now proposed will advance Corcoran’s employment level beyond the 2030 employment forecast in the next few years. Page - 2 | July 6, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Item 11. Water Resources – Stormwater (Joe Mulcahy, 651-602-1104) The EAW describes intense development of the site with a substantial increase in impervious area (39 acres). The proposed stormwater ponds alone may not be sufficient to manage increased volume and pollutant concentrations from these impervious areas. The proposer may want to consider additional green infrastruc ture practices such as green roofs and swales to ensure that stormwater requirements are met. The RGU should require detailed calculations or modeling of the stormwater management practices for the entire site before allowing the project to proceed. Item 11. Water Resources – Water Supply (John Clark, 651 -602-1452) • The City should communicate with Maple Grove, their current water supplier, about the plans to develop this site and collaborate with Maple Grove regarding the potential water demands for the site to ensure those needs will be met into the future. The City should also communicate with the DNR regarding any water appropriation permits needed during the site development. • Wellhead protection area is currently not present. However, if the City would use the proposed nearby parcel for a future municipal well , part or all of the site would be in a well head protection area including the emergency response area for the City well. Potential contaminant and water management on this site should then be prioritized including road salt, fertilizers and herbicides, and other potential contaminants associated with nearby land uses. A perched water table should also be considered when s iting the well and managing water within and around the site. • We recommend integrating smart irrigation controllers into any irrigation system that would be installed in and around the site. These irrigation controllers are tied to weather stations to better identify water needs. These controllers can help lower water use, particularly during the summer months when resources are more stressed, and lower water bills for the property owner. Planting any landscaped areas with native grasses and pollinator spec ies can be both visually appealing and limit the need for watering and other landscape maintenance costs. • This site and proposed use appear to be a good opportunity to incorporate solar into the development plan. Using solar as an energy source can lower e xpenses for property owners and occupants, while contributing to a more resilient energy grid. Doing so would also lower the carbon footprint of using water resources on the site. This concludes th e Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take f ormal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Freya Thamman, Principal Reviewer, at 651 -602-1750 or via email at freya.thamman@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Judy Johnson, Metropolitan Council District 1 Freya Thamman, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator shared \CommDev\LPA \Communities\Corcoran\Letters\Corcoran 2022 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Complete 22770 -1_.docx July 5, 2022 Kendra Lindahl Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55357 Re: Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Corcoran Farms Business Park project (Project) located in Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a new business park development. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. General Comment Due to the extensive amount of roof area on the proposed Project, this development offers the ideal landscape for hosting a solar power system. As this type of development is energy-Intensive, a solar power system would help to minimize the environmental effects of the Project and reduce its impact on the energy system. Water Resources (Item 11) Surface Water • If the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit is required and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01 subd, 22 Waters of the state. Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional or exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA, and any surface water impact needs to be described in the application and may require mitigation. In addition, the 401 Water Quality Certification must also be included and becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal license or permit, issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. In addition, the applicant must also submit to the MPCA the Antidegradation Assessment in accordance with water quality standards Minn R. 7050.0265 and should review the Antidegradation requirements in 7050.0285. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us. • South Fork Rush Creek is identified as being within a mile of the Project site, but the EAW does not list the downstream South Fork impaired waters (07010206-732). The impairments include Chloride, E. Coli, and fish bioassessments. This impairment is outside the 1-mile radius but receives flow from the stream next to the Project site. For questions about this impaired water, please contact Amy Timm at 651-757-2632 or Amy.Timm@state.mn.us. Kendra Lindahl Page 2 July 5, 2022 • Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project and the increased parking area, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing parking lots and driveways during the winter weather months. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources. Stormwater • Redundant down gradient sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required for any disturbance required within 50 feet of the existing buffers to the wetlands on the site. • If wet sediment ponds must be utilized for stormwater management due to poorly drained soils, stormwater reuse could be used to reduce stormwater volume as required by the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit). The Project proposer is also strongly encouraged to consider use of green infrastructure practices to help absorb stormwater and reduce discharges from the Project site. Native plantings and trees incorporated into the Project site provide pollinator habitat and also provide greater resilience to increased rainfall due to Minnesota’s changing climate. Questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Item 12) Please be aware that farmsteads have the potential for releases or threatened releases of agricultural chemicals. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the regulatory agency charged with managing the response and cleanup of fertilizers and pesticides. Information regarding the MDA is available on the website at: https://www.mda.state.mn.us/pesticide-fertilizer/spills-cleanup. For questions regarding agricultural chemicals, please contact Cathy Villas-Horns with the MDA at 651-201-6697. For questions regarding waste pesticide containers, please contact Jane Boerboom with the MDA at 651-201-6540. Kendra Lindahl Page 3 July 5, 2022 We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at Karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar This document has been electronically signed. Karen Kromar Planner Principal Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division KK:rs cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul Amy Timm, MPCA, St. Paul Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester Cathy Villas Horns, MDA, St. Paul Jane Boerboom, MDA, St. Paul Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 July 7, 2022 Kendra Lindahl, AICP City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55304 Dear Kendra Lindahl, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Corcoran Farms Business Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) located within the City of Corcoran in Hennepin County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Page 8, Permits and Approvals. It is very likely that the project will require a DNR Water Appropriations Permit, and this should be listed in Table 3. There are also two DNR Public Waters located within the project area, and any proposed impacts to these features will require a DNR Public Waters Work Permit. Please apply for all necessary DNR permits through the Water Permitting and Reporting System: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html 2. Page 9, Zoning. We encourage the proposer to comply with all shoreland ordinances regarding setbacks and impervious surfaces in order to protect water quality. 3. Page 14, Groundwater. There is likely a surficial water table present in the project area, given the presence of hydric soils and glacial till. 4. Page 17, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to irrigate landscaping in the project area since infiltration is likely not feasible based on existing soil types. The reuse of stormwater for irrigation would conserve valuable groundwater and reduce the volume of stormwater and stormwater pollution flowing downstream of the site. 5. Page 17, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed mixes and plants in stormwater features in order to provide pollinator habitat. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants. 6. Page 17, Stormwater. The planned significant increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We encourage local governments to request that project proposers who wish to significantly increase impervious surfaces develop a chloride management plan that outlines what BMP’s and strategies will be used to reduce chloride use within the project area. We also encourage cities, counties, and watershed to consider how they may participate in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. 7. Page 17, Stormwater. We recommend that the use of erosion control blankets be limited to natural netting, wildlife-friendly materials, and specifically not those that contain plastic. Please be aware that many hydro mulch products contain micro-plastics, and do not use products containing plastics in areas that drain to public waters. 8. Page 18, Water Appropriation. It is very likely that construction dewatering will be required for this development and associated utilities. Please note that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the water pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The DNR General Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons and the time of the appropriation is less than one year. 9. Page 19, Rare Features. We recommend incorporating native plants and seed mixes into development landscaping to the greatest degree possible. 10. Page 26, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland, stream, or non-municipal well in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of the water. Please do not use products containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources CC: Jeff Minea, JMMK, LLC Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” August 11, 2022 Appendix B: Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Environmental Assessment Worksheet August 11, 2022 Appendix C: Environmental Assessment Worksheet 1 Corcoran Farms Business Park Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet Proposer: JMMK, LLC RGU: City of Corcoran May 11, 2022 2 Table of Contents 1.Project Title .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.Responsible Governmental Unit ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4.Reason for EAW Preparation ......................................................................................................................................... 4 5.Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 6.Project Description ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 7.Cover Types .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 8.Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................................................................... 7 9.Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 10.Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms ................................................................................................................. 9 11.Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................................................ 19 13.Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ........................................... 22 14.Historic Properties ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 15.Visual ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16.Air ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 17.Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 18. Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 32 20.Other Potential Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................................... 34 Tables Table 1. Project Magnitude .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Cover Types within the Project Area ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. NRCS Soil Types within the Project Area ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. DNR Public Waters within One Mile of the Project Area ........................................................................................... 12 Table 6. Wetlands within the Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7. MWI Wells within 500 feet of the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 8. Potential Wetland Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of the Project Area ............................................................... 20 Table 10. Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 11. Year 2027 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis ............................................................................. 30 Table 12. Year 2040 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis ............................................................................. 30 Table 13. CR 116/Larkin Road Intersection Operations Analysis with Traffic Signal Control................................................. 31 Table 14. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 31 3 •Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map •Figure 2: Hennepin County Location Map •Figure 3: Site Plan •Figure 4: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map •Figure 5: Farmland and Soil Classifications •Figure 6: Water Resources •Figure 7: Potential Wetland Impacts •Figure 8: County Well Index •Figure 9: MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites Appendix B: Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision Appendix C: FEMA FIRMette Appendix D: MDH Well Log Reports Appendix E: Feasibility Study Report Appendix F: DNR NHIS Concurrence and USFWS IPaC Query Appendix G: Traffic Impact Study Appendix H: SHPO Response Letter Appendices Appendix A: Figures 4 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.eqb.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 Corcoran Farms Business Park 2.Proposer JMMK, LLC Contact person: Jeff Minea Title: Applicant Address: 18805 37th Ave. N. City, State, ZIP: Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: 612-701-7741 Email: jiminea@lee-associates.com 3.Responsible Governmental Unit City of Corcoran Contact person: Kendra Lindahl Title: Planner Address:8200 County Road 116 City, State, ZIP: Corcoran, MN 55357 Email: klindahl@landform.net 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Required: Discretionary: EIS Scoping Citizen petition X Mandatory EAW RGU discretion Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): A mandatory EAW is required in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 14 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Facilities 5 5. Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: Corcoran PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW 1/4 and the SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 26 T 119 R 23W (Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1657 on Certificate of Title No. 1444050) Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Elm Creek GPS Coordinates: 45.09053, -93.55222 Tax Parcel Number: 26-119-23-13-0006 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: •County map showing the general location of the project; See Figure 1 and Figure 2, Appendix A •U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and See Figure 1, Appendix A •Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. See Figure 3, Appendix A 6.Project Description a.Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Project proposes to construct a 70-acre business park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,394 square feet. Project components include construction of warehouse/office buildings, parking areas, access roads, a public trail, sewer/water utility improvements and stormwater ponds. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. 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. 1)Construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. The Project proposes to construct a business park consisting of five buildings of varying size totaling 726,394 square feet. The Project Area includes an approximately 70-acre in the City of Corcoran in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. The Project Area is bordered by Larkin Road along the South and CSAH 50 (Rebecca Park Trail) to the north. Agricultural land is present to the west and industrial/commercial development is present to the 6 east of the Project Area. The Project Area contains seven wetland basins that were delineated in 2021. The wetlands are mostly along the outer edges of the field with two smaller basins toward the center. A DNR protected creek flows allows along the eastern edge of the site. A 50-foot gas line easement crosses the site east/west along the southern portion of the property. A city park is located north of the site across CSAH 50. Figure 1 (USGS Topographic Map) and Figure 2 (Hennepin County Location Map) in Appendix A illustrate the project location. The Project will require the construction of a north/south public street to serve the industrial buildings with associated parking lots. City sewer and water will be brought through the center of the site from the north to the south with a public trail constructed along the eastern edge. The City completed a feasibility study to analyze the infrastructure needs for the site and surrounding area. The Project is proposed to be developed in phases starting from the southern end. As the street and utilities will need to be constructed through the entire site for development to occur, extensive grading is expected to occur across the Project Area as part of the initial phase. The grading will be needed to construct the proposed access road, utilities, trail, stormwater ponds and various retaining walls, specifically along the gas easement. Impacts to wetlands are anticipated in the central portion of the Project Area and along the north end to allow for road access. Minimal impacts to County Ditch 16 will occur to extend the sewer and water utilities currently located on the east side of County Ditch 16 to the Project Area. Minor tree removals will be required near the existing farm buildings and structures. Figure 3, Appendix A provides the proposed site plan. 2)Modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes. No existing equipment or industrial processes are proposed to be modified as part of the Project. 3)Significant demolition, removal, or remodeling of existing structures. Three pole-style farm structures along the eastern edge of the site that will be demolished as part of the Project. 4) Timing and duration of construction activities Site preparation with initial grading may occur Fall of 2022 with most of the first phase construction occurring in the Spring of 2023. The duration of the construction is dependent on the size and location of the first buildings. c.Project magnitude Table 1 summarizes the project magnitude. Table 1. Project Magnitude Description Number Total project acreage 70.4 Linear project length (feet) 8,355 Number and type of residential units Not applicable (N/A) Residential building area (in square feet) N/A Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A 7 Industrial building area (in square feet) Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A Other uses – specify (in square feet) N/A Structure height(s) (feet) 34 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 allow for development of additional industrial businesses in the City of Corcoran. e.Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. 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 Table 2 summarizes the cover types within the Project Area for the existing and proposed conditions. Table 2. Cover Types within the Project Area Cover Types Before (approx.) After (approx.) Wetlands (acres) 6.1 5.9 Deep Water/Streams (linear ft.) 662.5 662.5 Wooded/Forest (acres) 0.75 0 Brush/Grassland (acres) 22.5 10 Cropland (acres) 40 0 Lawn/Landscaping (acres) 0 12.4 Impervious Surface (acres) 1.0 39.0 Stormwater Pond (acres) 0 3.0 Other (describe) N/A N/A TOTAL 70.3 70.3 8.Permits and Approvals 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. 726,394 8 Table 3 identifies permits and approvals anticipated to be required for the proposed Project. Table 3. Permits and Approvals Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be completed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 ESA Consultation To be completed, if required State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Section 401 Certification To be completed MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To be completed Local Hennepin County Driveway Access Permit To be completed, if required Hennepin County Right-of-way Excavation Permit To be completed, if required City of Corcoran EAW / EIS Need Decision Draft prepared City of Corcoran Wetland Conservation Act (Boundary Approval/Replacement Plan) To be completed City of Corcoran Preliminary and Final Plat To be completed City of Corcoran Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be completed City of Corcoran Building Permits To be completed Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Stormwater, Erosion Control, and Site Plan Approval To be completed 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. 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. There is an existing single-family residence on the property and several associated farmstead agricultural buildings. Most of the existing land use of the site is agricultural. On the uncultivated 9 areas, there are scattered clumps of trees and vegetation, natural grasslands and mowed turf areas. Seven wetlands, a drainage ditch and an unnamed perennial stream were identified on the property. The surrounding properties have a variety of existing land uses. The existing and planned land use for the adjacent property to the east is Light Industrial. The properties to the west are rural residential homesteads, Cropland, woods, wetlands, and undeveloped natural open space. See Appendix A Figure 4 for details. 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. The property is currently guided and zoned Light Industrial (I-1) and the eastern portion of the property is in the Shoreland Overlay district. The zoning ordinance permits warehouse and office uses in the overlying I-1 (Light Industrial zoning district), but the applicant will be requesting a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for reduced setbacks. iii.Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The property is bisected on the eastern quarter by the established shoreland district in Corcoran. This impact is identified on Figure 9. b.Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The proposed site design for the property includes planned infrastructure improvements related to streets, utilities, surface water management and treatment. Erosion control measures will be required and utilized per state requirements during construction, and the zoning ordinance addresses noise, smoke odor and other potential negative impacts on surrounding areas that could be encountered with an industrial use of the site. Landscaping installations required with the project development will have known and proven benefits for birds, wildlife, shade cooling, air quality and carbon reduction. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. The project will help the City meet the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goal to “Attract and encourage new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services, and maintain and expand existing businesses in Corcoran. The required setbacks and landscaping for the project is a standard first step in buffering a new use from existing surrounding land uses, the other referenced zoning ordinance protections will be reviewed by the City as part of a formal development application. 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. 10 The surficial and bedrock geology for Hennepin County has been mapped in the Minnesota Geological Survey’s Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County 1. Surficial deposits in the central and northern portion of the Project Area are comprised of loam to clay loam diamict with scattered pebbles, cobbles, and rare boulders. On average, the composition of this very coarse-grained sand fraction is 41 percent shale. The southern portion of the Project Area contains a slightly different surficial deposit makeup. This area is comprised of silt loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand gravel mix with fine grained sand and silt. The bedrock geology of the northern portion of the Project Area consists of St. Lawrence Formation, which is dolomitic, feldspathic siltstone with interbedded, very fine-grained sandstone and shale. The southern portion of the Project Area consists of Jordan Sandstone, a medium- to coarse-grained, friable quartzose sandstone. The Northwest corner of the Project Area contains a small inclusion of the Mazomanie Formation, a fine- to medium-grained, cross-stratified, generally friable, quartzose sandstone. The estimated depth from the land surface to the bedrock surface is approximately 101 to 200 in the north portion of the Project Area and approximately 101 to 150 in the southern portion of the Project Area. According to the surrounding water well logs on the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Source Water Protection Map 2, no wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas are within the Project Area. The Maple Hill Estates Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) and Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Area and would not be affected by the Project. The drinking water supply management area vulnerability ranking is classified as low. No known karst or sinkhole features are present within the Project Area. 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 11.b.ii. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the Project Area is comprised of eight soil types. Soil within the Project Area is associated mainly with moraines and hillslopes. The soil types include Lester loam (ground moraines and hillslopes; well drained), Cordova loam (drainageways on moraines, poorly drained), Glencoe clay loam (depressions, very poorly drained), Le Sueur loam (hillslopes and ground moraines; somewhat poorly drained), Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (ground moraines, somewhat poorly drained), Angus loam (hillslopes and ground moraines; well drained), and Hamel-Glencoe complex (ground moraines, poorly drained). Figure 5, Appendix A identifies soils classifications within and in the vicinity of the Project Area. Table 4 lists hydrologic soil groups. The four hydrologic soil groups are: •Group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. 1 Steenberg, Julia R.; Bauer, Emily J; Chandler, V.W.; Retzler, Andrew J; Berthold, Angela J; Lively, Richard S. (2018). C- 45, Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/200919. 2 MDH. Source Water Protection Map. Available at https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4. Accessed April, 2022. 11 •Group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay later at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D and assigned to dual classes. Table 4. NRCS Soil Types within the Project Area Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Percent Slopes Hydrologic Soil Group Acres Approx. Pct. of Project Area L22C2 Lester loam 6-10 C 14.9 21.6 L22E Lester loam 10-22 C 1.3 1.9 L23A Cordova loam 0-2 C/D 12.3 17.9 L24A Glencoe clay loam 0-1 C/D 4.6 6.7 L25A Le Sueur loam 1-3 C/D 13.7 20.0 L36A Hamel, overwash- Hamel complex 0-3 C/D 15.0 21.8 L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 2-6 C 3.3 4.8 L132A Hamel-Glencoe complex 0-2 C/D 3.6 5.2 Topography within the Project Area is generally flat with no slopes greater than 22 percent identified. Overall, the soil has a slower infiltration rate, which can result in higher runoff potential. Areas that have steeper slopes, measures will be considered during construction to help prevent erosion. Measures will include, erosion control blankets, along with native vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. 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 12 List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Surface Waters A review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) geospatial data determined that no lakes, trout streams or trout lakes 3, wildlife lakes 4, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes 5, or outstanding resource value waters 6 are present within the Project Area. One county ditch (County Ditch 16, M-062-004-002-002) is located within and along the eastern edge of the Project Area. Thirteen unnamed surface water features and one named surface water feature (Rush Creek, South Fork) are present within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. Figure 6, Appendix A identifies surface waters in the vicinity of the Project Area. DNR Public Waters Two DNR Public Waters and Watercourses are partially located within the Project Area (Figure 6, Appendix A). Table 5 lists DNR Public Waters and Public Watercourses within the Project Area and within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. Table 5. DNR Public Waters within One Mile of the Project Area Name Public Water ID Type Public Waters Within the Project Area Unnamed 27043000 Public Water Wetland Unnamed (County Ditch 16) M-062-004-002-002 Public Watercourse Public Waters Within a One Mile Radius of the Project Area Unnamed 27042400 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042600 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042700 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042800 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042900 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043100 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043200 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043700 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043800 Public Water Wetland Unnamed (East Portion) 27043901 Public Water Wetland Rush Creek, South Fork M-062-004-002 Public Watercourse Unnamed Stream M-062-012 Public Watercourse 3 DNR. 2020. State Designated Trout Streams, Minnesota. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-trout-stream- designations. Accessed April 2022. 4 DNR. 2016. Designated Wildlife Lakes. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-designated-wildlife-lakes. Accessed April 2022. 5 DNR. 2016. Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Areas. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-migratory- waterfowl-areas. Accessed April 2022. 6 DNR. 2020. Lakes of Biological Significance. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-lakes-of-biological-signific. Accessed April 2022. 13 Wetland Resources Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data, time-lapsed aerial imagery, and a wetland delineation performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on August 19, 2021, seven wetlands are present within the Project Area (Figure 6, Appendix A). Appendix B provides the wetland delineation report and Notice of Decision. Wetland 1/1a is located along the eastern boundary of the Project Area and consists of a shallow marsh that drains into an unnamed creek that flows into a system of culverts. Wetland 1/1a is classified as a partially drained shallow marsh/ wet meadow, palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd). Wetland 2 is located along the northeast border of the Project Area and is identified by field verification as a wet meadow palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B). Wetland 3 is located in the north central and northwestern boundary of the Project Area and consists of a shallow open water basin and wet meadow. Wetland 3 is classified in the NWI database as a PUBFx and by field verification as a PEM1B/PUBGx wetland. Wetland 4 is located along the western edge of the Project Area and consists of a wet meadow wetland. Wetland 4 was not identified within the NWI but was determined as a PEM1A through field verification. Wetland 5 is located on the western edge of the Project Area and classified as a partially drained shallow marsh and wet meadow and is classified by the NWI as a PEM1A. Wetlands 6 and 7 are located in the south central and southeastern areas of the Project Area and are both classified as farmed seasonally flooded basins and where not mapped on the NWI. Field verification classified both of these wetlands as palustrine emergent (PEM1Af) wetlands. Table 6 summarizes wetlands delineated in the Project Area. Figure 6, Appendix A identifies wetlands and other aquatic resources within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. Appendix B includes the wetland delineation report and WCA Notice of Decision. Table 6. Wetlands within the Project Area Wetland ID Circular* 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) 1/1A Type 3/2 PEM1Cd Partially Drained Shallow Marsh / Wet Meadow Narrowleaf cattail, reed canary grass, stinging nettle and giant goldenrod. 0.63 2 Type 2 PEM1B Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, swamp milkweed, various sedges, and lesser timothy and red clover. 0.26 3 Type 2/5 PEM1B/ PUBGx Shallow Open Water / Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, swamp milkweed, various sedges, with lesser amounts of timothy and red clover. 0.39 4 Type 1 PEM1A Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, various sedges with lesser amounts of timothy and unknown fleabane. 0.27 5 Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/ PEM1Bd Partially Drained Shallow Marsh / Wet Meadow Narrowleaf cattail, reed canary grass, jewelweed, river bulrush, hedge bindweed, stinging nettle, swamp milkweed, and lake sedge. 4.39 14 Wetland ID Circular* 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) 6 Type 1 PEM1Af Farmed Seasonally Flooded Basin Stunted soybean crop with scattered yellow nut sedge. 0.35 7 Type 1 PEM1Af Farmed Seasonally Flooded Basin Reed canary grass, yellow foxtail, Pennsylvania smartweed, and lesser amounts of timothy. 0.14 *Type 1 wetland types include seasonally flooded basins or flats; Type 3 wetlands indicate inland shallow fresh marshes. MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List County Ditch 16, Assessment Unit Identification (AUID) 07010206-761, is designated as impaired based on the MPCA’s draft 2022 impaired waters list. The impaired stream runs along the eastern side of the Project boundary. (Figure 6, Appendix A). County Ditch 16 is impaired for aquatic life. Floodway/Floodplain A FIRMette was generated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) mapping tool7, which indicates that the Project Area is located within Zone X, an area with minimal flood hazard. Appendix C includes the FEMA FIRMette for the Project Area. 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, 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. 1.Depth to groundwater Based on a review of domestic water wells located near the Project Area, the depth to static water level ranges from 20 feet and 150 feet with an average depth to static water levels of 62 feet. 2.MDH Wellhead Protection Area The Project Area is not within a MDH Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) or Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)8. 3.Onsite and/or nearby wells A search of the MDH Minnesota Well Index (MWI) database indicates that there are zero wells present within the Project Area9. Twenty wells are present within a 500-foot radius of the 7 FMEA. 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. Available at: FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search By Address. Accessed April 2022. 8 MDH. Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer. Available at: https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4. Accessed April 2022. 9 MDH. Minnesota Well Index. Available at: https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/mwi/. Accessed April 2022. 15 Project area. Table 7 tabulates documented wells within 500 feet of the Project Area based on the MDH MWI database. Figure 8 in Appendix A identifies the locations of wells in the vicinity of the project. Appendix D provides the MDH well log records. Table 7. MWI Wells within 500 feet of the Project Area Well ID Use Type Status Elevation (msl ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Static Water Level (ft.) 104845 Domestic Active 963 203 55 118887 Domestic Active 961 197 60 148105 Domestic Active 956 323 150 168654 Domestic Active 965 75 20 192837 Domestic Active 994 231 80 259743 Public Active 951 N/A N/A 421780 Domestic Active 972 315 55 470764 Domestic Active 957 254 53 479959 Domestic Active 973 252 65 511975 Domestic Active 958 230 55 551597 Industrial Active 970 240 65 563093 Industrial Active 978 253 68 592153 Domestic Active 976 83 55 594127 Domestic Sealed 981 195 65 597473 Domestic Active 974 251 70 607761 Domestic Active 965 178 65 638346 Domestic Active 974 167 64 728690 Domestic Active 979 187 65 728994 Domestic Active 980 250 60 755332 Industrial Active 975 252 65 b.Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i.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. On behalf of the City of Corcoran, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) completed a feasibility study to evaluate infrastructure improvement recommendations. Sewer service for 16 the proposed development will be via a tie-in to the existing 18-inch trunk sewer located near the northeast corner of the parcel. In accordance with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Proposer will be required to construct an 18-inch sewer southward through the development to the southern parcel line along Larkin Road. Appendix E includes the feasibility study report. In addition to the primary 18-inch trunk sewer, two sewer stubs must also be constructed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west parcel line must be constructed at approximately the same installation depth as the 18-inch sewer (i.e., as deep as possible, allowing for proper tie-in at the tee manhole). An 8-inch sewer lateral to the southeast corner of the parcel must also be constructed to serve the parcels located further east. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the Proposer will be required to limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). This is the volume of wastewater that has been planned for in the Comprehensive Plan. This is particularly important given that the Rush Creek Reserve development (located north of this Project and downstream in the local sewershed) is in the process of building a new wastewater lift station to replace the previously used lift station on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 10. The new lift station is adequately sized to accommodate planned wastewater flows from this and other developments, but any unplanned increase could potentially exceed this lift station’s design capacity. Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. Where both sewer and potable water utilities are being installed in parallel, the easements must be wide enough to accommodate the required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines. 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. The Project does not propose to discharge to a SSTS. 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. The Project would not result in wastewater discharges to surface waters. 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. Pre-Construction Stormwater Runoff Under existing conditions, the Project Area primarily consists of agricultural land, wetlands, and rural residential property. Surface water runoff drains towards existing wetlands areas and roadway ditches. No existing stormwater features are present within the existing Project Area. Pollutants 17 typically associated with agricultural areas include pesticides, sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) from fertilizers, and metals. Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Although elimination of agriculture can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite ponding and filtration (Best Management Practices or BMPs), construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, rooftops, and sidewalks increase the volume to nearby surface waters. The increased impervious surface areas will result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will be constructed to mitigate stormwater runoff rate, volumes, and pollutant loading. It is anticipated that the project will include wet sedimentation ponds with filtration benches to provide stormwater treatment. Onsite stormwater flow will be directed into these BMP’s and away from the impaired waterway on the eastern border of the Project Area identified as County Ditch (07010206-761). Figure 3, Appendix A identifies the preliminary locations for the proposed stormwater BMPs. The proposed drainage design will be confirmed as the project design is developed and will comply with all applicable local and state regulatory requirements. The MPCA will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater permit to be obtained for the project and all design since more than one acre of land will be disturbed by the proposed project. Project construction will adhere to NPDES permitting requirements. The Project will also adhere to the City of Corcoran and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) stormwater requirements. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in accordance with MPCA and City of Corcoran stormwater requirements. A SWPPP be prepared during final project design and submitted for approval prior to construction of the project. Erosion control will utilize temporary sediment basins with ditches and check dams (sized per permit guidance), temporary ground cover where construction has paused, and perimeter control to avoid erosion and sedimentation throughout the site. Stockpiles will be stabilized when not in use and have the stockpile perimeter controlled. All permanent slopes 4:1 or steeper will have erosion control blankets installed. Section 23 of the General Stormwater Permit identifies additional controls and conditions required for construction sites within one mile of an impaired water. The Project will be required to utilize additional best management practices (BMPs) during construction as specified in the Construction Stormwater permit due to the proximity of the Project Area to County Ditch 16, a designated impaired water. These BMPs include stabilizing soils within seven days after the construction activity in that portion of the site temporarily pr permanently ceases and providing a temporary sediment basin where five or more acres drain to a common location. In addition, if the Project will disturb 50 or more acres, the SWPPP must be submitted to the MPCA 30 days prior to obtaining the Construction Stormwater permit. iii.Water Appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and 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. 18 The water supply for the Project will be consistent with the water supply planned for all of Southeast Corcoran. Under a contract to provide water service, the City of Maple Grove will continue to supply Southeast Corcoran with up to a peak of five million gallons per day (MGD). The infrastructure feasibility study completed by Stantec identified multiple service operation for varying watermain layouts and sizes within and outside of the Project Area. A 12-inch watermain within the Project Area is required, running north to south through the Project Area to the connection to the 12-inch trunk main near CSAH 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16- inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Road and Blue Bonnet Drive. Construction of the 12- inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course along Larkin Road is critical to ensure target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park. Appendix E provides the feasibility study report which includes a detailed summary of the watermain improvements recommended as part of this Project. iv. Surface Waters b)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. Seven wetlands are located within the Project Area covering a combined 5.9 acres. Complete avoidance of these wetland will not be feasible with the proposed project. For the purposes of this EAW, potential wetland impacts were estimated based on a 25-foot buffer from proposed improvements including buildings, access roads, and parking areas. Based on the preliminary conceptual design, it is anticipated that the Project will avoid impacts to Wetland 2 and Wetland 3. The Project is anticipated to encroach into portions of Wetland 1/1A, Wetland 3, Wetland 6, and Wetland 7. Impacts to Wetland 5 would occur as a result of a future public road extension project and would not result for this Project. Minimization of impacts to wetlands will be evaluated as the project design advances. Figure 7, Appendix A illustrates the potential impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. Table 8 identifies the potential wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project. Table 8. Potential Wetland Impacts Wetland ID Circular 39 Cowardin Size (Acres onsite) Potential Impact (acres) Wetland 1/1A Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd 0.63 0.021 Wetland 3 Type 2/5 PEM1B/PUBGx 0.39 0.071 Wetland 5 Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd 4.39 0.11* Wetland 6 Type 1 PEM1Af 0.35 0.35 Wetland 7 Type 1 PEM1Af 0.14 0.14 Total 5.9 0.7* 19 *Potential impacts anticipated as part of a future public road extension project. Impacts to wetlands are regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of Corcoran is the WCA local governmental unit (LGU). It is anticipated that impacts to regulated wetlands will be mitigated through wetland banking credits within the same Wetland Bank Service Area. The Project Area is located in Wetland Bank Service Area 7. Current regulations require wetland impacts within this area of the state are replace at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Mitigation for unavoidable permanent wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with all regulations and requirements in place at the time of final design and permitting. Wetlands that are avoided will be required to comply with the City of Corcoran’s Municipal Code 10 wetland buffer requirements outlined in 1050 Subpart 5 section C. One surface water identified as a (27043000) DNR Public Water Wetland located on the central western border of the Project Area may be impacted by a future public road extension. The Project will not impact this DNR Public Water Wetland. The Project has been designed to not accommodate the future public road extension. Coordination with the DNR would need to be completed and a DNR Public Waters Work Permit would be required at the time that the future public road extension is proposed. c)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 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. The Project would not directly impact or alter surface water features. No surface waters will be directly impacted by the Project. County Ditch 16 extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. As discussed in Item 11.b.ii of this EAW, additional BMP requirements will be required given the proximity of the Project to County Ditch 16, a designated impaired water. 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. A review of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) 10 City of Corcoran. 2019. City of Corcoran Municipal Code. Available at: https://corcoranmn.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=15543764&pageId=15584702.Accessed April 2022. 20 database11 was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. No WIMN records are located within the Project Area. Table 9 summarizes MPCA potentially contaminated sites within 500 feet of the Project Area. Figure 9, Appendix A illustrates the location of potentially contaminated sites within and in close proximity to the Project. Table 9. MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of the Project Area Site Name Site ID MPCA Program Status Approx. Distance from Project Area (ft.) Direction in Relation to Project Area Pauls Corcoran Service 189764 Petroleum remediation/leak site (LS0002461) Inactive (leak reported 1990 – site closed 2001) 140 North Pro Drywall and Painting Inc. 232524 Hazardous waste; one time generator (MNS000333008) Active (registered 2019, 2020, 2021) 180 East Countryside Service 149808 Hazardous waste; very small quantity generator (MNS000223917) Active (registered 2015) 280 North Miller Brothers 99843 Aboveground tank (TS0124251) Active (registered 2006) 288 East Gazelle Marketing 126692 Construction stormwater (C00024481) Active (coverage issuance 2007- 2022) 330 East An additional review of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) WIMN database 12 was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. No records were identified with the Project Area or within a 500-foot buffer. The MPCA and MDA reviews did not identify any known potentially contaminated sites or hazardous materials within or within the vicinity of the Project Area that would be exposed or exacerbated by the construction of the proposed Project. In the event that potentially contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials are encountered during construction, plans will be developed to properly handle and treat contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Any contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials encountered during construction will be handled and disposed of in accordance with MPCA and any other applicable requirements. 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. Construction Waste 11 MPCA. Undated. What’s in My Neighborhood. Available at: What's in My Neighborhood | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (state.mn.us). Accessed. April 2022. 12 MDA. 2022. What’s in My Neighborhood? - Agricultural. Available at: https://app.gisdata.mn.gov/mda-agchem/. Accessed. April 2022. 21 Construction wastes will be typical of office/light industrial developments. Construction wastes will be primarily non-hazardous and would be managed as municipal solid waste (MSW) or construction/ demolition debris. Hazardous wastes in the form of used oils/lubricants, waste paints, or other materials may be generated during construction. The contractor will be required to manage and dispose of all construction-generated waste in accordance with MPCA requirements and all other applicable regulatory requirements. Construction wastes will either be recycled or stored in approved containers and disposed of in the proper facilities. Any excess soil material that is not suitable for use onsite would become the property of the contractor and would be disposed of properly. All solid waste will be managed according to MPCA and other regulatory requirements. Construction will require demolition of three pole-style farm structures found within the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Solid wastes generated from the demolition of the existing structures would be disposed of as construction/demolition debris at a permitted landfill. Hazardous waste may be generated during Project construction from demolition of the existing farmstead and barn structures. If encountered, regulated materials such as asbestos, lights, and other regulated wastes will be abated and properly disposed of at a permitted facility. A pre-demolition hazardous materials survey will be completed prior to the start of demolition activities. If any regulated materials such as asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint and other regulated materials/wastes are present, an abatement plan will be prepared to address removal and proper disposal of regulated materials identified in the hazardous materials survey. If required, a comprehensive abatement closeout report would be prepared following abatement and demolition activities, which will document the removal, management, and disposal of any regulated materials. Operational Waste The project would generate solid waste during operation of the development, which is anticipated to include office and warehouse uses. Solid waste generated during operation of the development will be typical of waste generated by these office/light industrial uses and would be primarily managed as mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides a list of estimated solid waste generate rates for office, industrial, service, and other establishments for general planning purposes 13. Based on estimated solid waste generate rates of 1.42 lbs. per 100 square feet per day for office/warehouse uses, it was estimated that the Project may produce approximately 1,340 tons of MSW per year. The collection of MSW would be managed by a waste hauler licensed by the City of Corcoran. The Project will adhere to all MPCA requirements and other regulations pertaining to the use, handling, and disposal of solid waste. Recycling areas will be provided in compliance with the Minnesota State Building code. 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 13 CalRecycle. 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed April 2022. 22 chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. The Project is not anticipated to include permanent chemicals/hazardous materials storage or use during its operation. No above – or below-ground storage tanks are planned for permanent use within the Project Area. If this changes, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan will be prepared by a Minnesota Professional Engineer pursuant to federal regulations. Construction equipment may require the limited use of potentially hazardous materials, such as gasoline or diesel fuels, motor oils, hydraulic fluids, and other lubricants. Vehicles responsible for the transportation of hazardous materials will be equipped with spill kits for rapid response to any spills and refueling procedures will be implemented to eliminate leakage. Additionally, all fuels, oils, and lubricants will be stored in containment apparatuses while not in use or when being stored. Construction staff will be trained to spot and appropriately respond to potential spills. In the event that a leak or spill incident occurs, the contractor will be required to respond in accordance with MPCA containment and remedial action procedures. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan will be prepared by a Minnesota Professional Engineer pursuant to federal regulations. 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. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate or require storage of hazardous wastes during its construction or operation. Item12.c describes the potential storage and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the Project. 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 in near the site. The vegetative land cover within the proposed Project Area primarily consists of active agricultural land including lowland grassland around the identified wetlands. Due to the dominance of agricultural land throughout the Project Area, there is limited habitat available for use by wildlife (woodlands, water resources, prairie, etc.). The Project Area borders the City of Corcoran to the east and north which includes residential and warehouse buildings. The identified wetlands within and surrounding the Project Area along with surrounding agricultural fields may provide limited habitat for migratory birds. Other common species that may be present within the Project Area are urban wildlife species, such as deer, coyotes, fox, mice, rabbits, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, toads, salamanders, and turtles (DNR 2022)14. b.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-1005) and/or correspondence number (ERDB N/A) 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. 14 DNR. 2022a. Minnesota Animals. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/animals/index.html. Accessed March 2022. 23 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Under Stantec’s Limited License to Use Copyrighted Material (LA-1005) related to Rare Features Data, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was searched in March 2022 to identify species within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. The NHIS search indicated one record within the proposed Project Area including the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator; state special concern species). No other records of listed species were identified within the Project Area or a one-mile buffer. A concurrence request was submitted to the DNR for review in April 2022. Appendix F provides the response received from the DNR generated through the DNR’s Minnesota Conservation Explorer system. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eggs. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers. Other threats include degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swan was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population. (DNR 2022b)15. The Project Area consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitats for the trumpeter swan such as small ponds and lakes. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with an unnamed waterbody which is approximately 0.85 miles southeast of the Project Area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Project will have no impact on the trumpeter swam. Native Plant Communities and Sites of Biodiversity Significance Native plant communities, biodiversity sites, and Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) were reviewed within the Project Area and within a one-mile buffer using the Stantec’s NHIS license (LA- 1005). No native plant communities, biodiversity sites, or RSEAs were noted within the Project Area. However, one RSEA was noted within the one-mile buffer. A RSEA of outstanding significance was identified approximately 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Area. The site is located outside of the proposed Project Area and would not be impacted by the proposed Project. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 15 DNR 2022b. Rare Species Guide Trumpeter Swan. Available at: Cygnus buccinator : Trumpeter Swan | Rare Species Guide | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. 24 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool (USFWS 2022)16 was reviewed to identify federally listed species within the Project Area. Two species were identified that have the potential to occur within the Project Area: the northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; threatened) and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; candidate). Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Suitable roosting, forage, and travel habitat for northern long-eared bats (NLEB) in the summer consists of a wide variety of forested and wooded habitats. While roosting, NLEB is generally found in deep crevices in areas such as forests and woodlots (i.e., live trees and/or snags greater than or equal to three inches diameter at breast height that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. NLEB roosts in both live trees or snags (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et al. 2003)17,18,19. During winter months, NLEB hibernate in caves or abandoned mines (Foster and Kurta 1999). The NLEB is federally listed as threatened due to marked population declines caused by white-nose syndrome. Hennepin County is not listed as a county with documented white-nose syndrome according to the White- nose Syndrome Response Team individual spread maps (White-nose Syndrome Response Team 2021)20. Stantec also used its MDNR NHIS license agreement (LA-1005), and according to the NHIS database, no known roost trees or hibernaculum are in the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. The MDNR maintains a list of townships containing documented NLEB maternity roost trees and/or hibernacula entrances. Based on a review of this list, the Project Area is not within 0.25 mile of a known, occupied hibernaculum, or within 150 feet of a known, occupied maternity roost trees (MDNR and USFWS 2021)21. The Project Area is primarily composed of agricultural land, and it does not contain potentially suitable summer roosting habitat (continuous forested areas) or potentially suitable overwintering habitat (caves or abandoned mines). Additionally, no known maternity roost trees or known hibernacula were identified in the NHIS review or in the MDNR and USFWS joint document. No tree clearing is anticipated to occur within the Project Area. As such, the Project will have no effect on the NLEB. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) The monarch butterfly is a candidate for federal listing due to habitat loss, relating mainly to the loss of milkweeds and native prairies. This species exists in two main populations within the United States divided by the Rocky Mountains: the eastern population that overwinters in the mountains of Mexico, and the western population that overwinters along the southern pacific coast of California (United States 16 USFWS 2022. IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 2022. 17 Sasse, D.B., and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Bats and forests symposium. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Working Paper 23:91-101. 18 Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat. (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80:659–672. 19 Owen, et al. 2003. Homerange size and habitat use by northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150: 352-359. 20 White-nose Syndrome Response Team 2021. 2006-2021 Spread Map. Available at: https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/. Accessed March 2022. 21 MDNR and USFWS 2021. Townships Containing Documented Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula Entrances in Minnesota. Available at: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota_nleb_township_list_and_map.pdf. Accessed March 2022. 25 Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service undated)22. This species generally occurs in areas with high densities of nectar sources, preferably native prairies with nectar species such as black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), narrow-leaved coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia), and rough blazing star (Lastris aspera). Foraging species such as these are utilized by adults for feeding, but the presence of milkweed (genus Asclepias) is required for breeding habitat as it is the only plant on which the larvae can feed (MDNR 2022c and National Wildlife Federation undated)23,24. The Project Area consists primarily of agricultural land and does not contain suitable feeding habitat (native prairies) or breeding habitat (high density of milkweeds) to support the monarch butterfly. 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 Area is not anticipated to have any impacts or adverse effects on the state-listed trumpeter swan as suitable habitat to support the breeding cycle of this species, such as small ponds or lakes, is not present within the Project Area. No native plant communities, biodiversity sites, or RSEAs were identified within the Project Area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have any impacts on these sites. The Project Area is not anticipated to have impacts or adverse effects on federally threatened and endangered species in the Project Area due to the lack of suitable habitat for the NLEB and monarch butterfly. Although the Project Area is unlikely to provide suitable summer habitat for the NLEB, under the Final 4(d) Rule of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), tree clearing, although not expected, is not prohibited as there are no records of NLEB maternity roost trees or a hibernaculum within the Project Area or a 0.25- mile buffer. Please note that this species may be up-listed from threatened to endangered by the USFWS within the next few months. Further consultation with the USFWS may be required but is not expected. The US Department of Agriculture’s National Invasive Species Information Center provides information regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent or mitigate invasive species establishment or movement. The Minnesota DNR also provides guidance on preventing the spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Guidance for implementation can be referenced at https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/resources-indexed?f%5b0%5d=field_location:108 Urban wildlife may be impacted with the removal of agricultural land. However, these habitat generalist species, such as deer, coyotes, fox, mice, rabbits, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, toads, salamanders, and turtles are typically adaptive to development activities and would likely relocate to similar undeveloped areas in the vicinity or continue to live in the remaining undeveloped areas within the Project Area. d.Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, 22 United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service undated. Migration and Overwintering. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Monarch_Butterfly/migration/. Accessed November 2021 23 MDNR 2022c. Butterfly Gardens. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gardens/butterfly/index.html. Accessed March 2022. 24 National Wildlife Federation undated. Monarch Butterfly. Available at: https://www.nwf.org/Educational- Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Invertebrates/Monarch-Butterfly. Accessed November 2021. 26 plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. Minimal tree removal will likely be required during construction of the Project. The extent of tree clearing will be determined as the final design develops and minimized to the extent possible. Removal of vegetation will avoid the NLEB pupping season from June 1 through August 15, when possible. Construction activities that involve soil disturbance can result in the introduction and spread of invasive species. Minnesota statutes (Chapter 18) and local ordinances regulate the management of noxious weeds and invasive species. Best management practices during construction activities and operation within the Project Area should be implemented to minimize the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species at the site. These practices include cleaning mud and debris off of construction equipment and clothing and staying on designated roads and trails. Sightings of any rare species during construction of activities will be reported to the MDNR Nongame Wildlife specialist and the City of Corcoran will follow the guidance that is received to avoid impacts. JMMK will manage the cutting and disturbance of native species during construction and when applicable, replant the native species that were removed or affected by construction activities. 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. Appendix H includes a letter from the Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office with their determination that no known historical structures, archeological sites or cultural properties are on or near the project site. 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 Area currently consists primarily of agricultural land with wooded field edges that border sections of the Project Area. No designated scenic views or vistas are present in the vicinity of the Project. The landscape immediately surrounding the site consists of undeveloped agricultural land to the west, Larkin Road to the south, CSAH 50 to the north, industrial and commercial buildings to the east, and residential uses that border the north and south of the Project Area. The primarily visual impact will the transition of views from undeveloped and agricultural land to buildings, parking lots, and stormwater basins. The development is not expected to include industries that would emit vapor plumes. The Project Area is zoned by the City of Corcoran as light industrial. The Project will be required to adhere to the City of Corcoran’s ordinance requirements including building height and form, landscape screening, and lighting (City of Corcoran Municipal Code 2022)25. The existing tree lines and vegetation along sections of the Project Area will 25 City of Corcoran Municipal Code. Available at: TITLE I (civiclive.com). Accessed March 2022. 27 partially serve as a buffer for nearby residents. Tree removal and wetland impacts will be minimized to the extent possible primarily around the edges of the Project Area boundary. 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 Project does not include heavy industrial uses that would have significant emissions. The Project includes light industrial uses consisting of office and warehouse buildings. These facilities may utilize natural gas and electric-powered equipment, which would emit low levels of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and criteria pollutants, such as Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). An inventory of potential electric and natural gas equipment to be installed at these facilities is not known at this time as prospective tenants have not been finalized. Generally, air emissions associated by these types of office and light industrial uses are relatively low and the facilities would not require an air permit. However, future tenants would be responsible for determining air permit applicability or exemption determinations based on the equipment to be installed with the facility prior to starting construction. 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 Project Area is located in a CO maintenance area. The Project is expected to generate increased vehicular traffic, which will result in a relatively small increase in CO emissions and other vehicle related emissions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) developed a CO hot spot screening method designed to identify intersections that may result in CO emissions that exceed air quality standards. MnDOT’s screening method assumes that intersections with a total daily traffic volume exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day may result in potential CO impacts that exceed air quality standards. A traffic impact study was completed for the Project, which is discussed in Item 18 of this EAW. Based on this study, intersections within the study area would not generate traffic exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day. Therefore, it is not anticipated that vehicle emissions generated by the project would have the potential to significantly impact CO air pollution. 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. The Project is not anticipated to produce dust or odors during its operation, but it may generate temporary dust and odors during construction. Sensitive receptors to these dusts and odors would include residents to the north and west of the Project Area. Potential odors would likely be associated with exhaust from diesel engines and fuel storage. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard 28 dust control measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the duration of exposed soils to the extent possible. Dust levels after construction is complete would be minimal as all surfaces will be paved or revegetated. With these mitigations in place, the quality of life for nearby residences is not anticipated to be affected. 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. 1)Existing noise levels/sources in the area Existing noise sources include vehicle traffic along CSAH 50, County Road (CR) 116, and CSAH 10 to the north and east of the Project Area. Other existing noise sources include commercial and industrial uses east of the Project Area. 2)Nearby sensitive receptors The noise receptors nearest to the Project Area include rural residential areas located to the west and south of the Project Area. The closest rural residential properties are approximately 100 to 200 feet from the Project Area. Rush Creek Reserve, a residential development, is currently under construction along CSAH 10, north of the Project Area. Additionally, Corcoran City Park is located on the north side of CSAH 50, across from the Project Area. 3)Conformance to state noise standards The Project will minimize noise disturbances caused by the construction of the Project to the extent possible and will adhere to the noise regulations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 7030.0030 and Corcoran City Ordinances 1060.090 and 82.03 subpart 5 (MPCA 2015 and City of Corcoran Municipal Code 2022)16,26 The regulations state that construction activities are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (MPCA 2015)6. 4)Quality of life The Project consists of office and warehouse uses that would not emit noise levels exceeding state noise standards. Construction of the Project will temporarily result in elevated noise levels. Construction noise would be temporary and will adhere to local ordinance requirements. No construction or operation hours would occur during nighttime hours. Construction equipment will be properly muffled and maintained in working order. This Project is not anticipated to affect the quality of life for nearby residents. The Project will be required to adhere to State and city noise regulations. 18. Transportation 26 MPCA 2015. Noise rules in Minnesota. Available at: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. 29 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) Existing and proposed parking spaces The existing Project Area consists of an agricultural area with a few farm buildings and structures. No existing parking areas are present within the Project Area. The Project would provide approximately 1,077 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed development. 2)Estimated total average daily traffic generated It is anticipated that the Project will generate 2,072 trips per day. Table 10 summarizes daily and peak hour traffic under build conditions. Table 10. Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size (sq. ft.) Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Weekday Daily Total Trips Office 145,278 221 209 1,575 Warehouse 581,118 99 105 497 Total 320 314 2,072 3)Maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence The maximum peak hour traffic generated is 320 trips during a.m. peak hour (7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.). Table 10, above, summarizes peak hour traffic generation estimates resulting from the Project. 4)Source of trip generation rates Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 5)Availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes No transit routes or pedestrian facilities are present in the Project Area. 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. A traffic impact study was completed to evaluate opening year (year 2027) and future (year 2040) traffic volumes and determine the effects of the proposed project on traffic congestion in the area. The traffic impact study includes relevant figures including existing traffic volumes, future peak traffic volumes, 726,394 30 proposed development layout, and access locations. Appendix G includes the complete Traffic Impact Study. A summary of the results of the traffic impact study is provided in the following paragraphs. The traffic impact study was completed using Synchro software for the following intersections: •CSAH 10/CR 116 •CSAH 10/CSAH 50 •CR 116/Larkin Road •Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive Traffic capacity results are present in terms of level of service (LOS) which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F denotes an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Typically, intersection LOS A through D is considered to be acceptable traffic flow conditions. Table 11 and Table 12 summarize the results of the intersection operations analysis for the year 2027 and 2040 conditions, respectively. Appendix G includes the traffic impact study which provides additional details. Table 11. Year 2027 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2027 No Build LOS 2027 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C A/D A/D Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive NB stop A/A A/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak Hours under Year 2027 No Build and Build conditions. Table 12. Year 2040 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2040 No Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C B/F C/F Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive NB stop A/A A/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. 31 Under future year 2040 Build conditions, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours during year 2040 No Build and Build conditions. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. CR 116/ Larkin Road Intersection The eastbound movements at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection operates at a LOS F during the 2040 Build conditions. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this intersection. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. Table 13 summarizes the results of this analysis. Table 13. CR 116/Larkin Road Intersection Operations Analysis with Traffic Signal Control 2027 Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour B/B B/B B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures Table 14 summarizes recommended measures to mitigate potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development. Table 14. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures Intersection Short-Term Measures Long-Term Measures CSAH 10/ CR 116 • No improvements needed • No improvements needed CSAH 10/ CSAH 50 • No improvements needed • No improvements needed CR 116/ Larkin Road • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. • Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. • Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. 32 Intersection Short-Term Measures Long-Term Measures Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive •Construct a westbound right turn lane. •No additional improvements needed. 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. It is anticipated that the Project would be constructed in phases with the majority of the construction of the first phase of the Project occurring in the Spring of 2023. The timeline of project construction will depend on market conditions and may vary from the current foreseeable construction timeline. 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. Several residential and senior living development are currently under review by the City. These proposed developments are primarily concentrated towards the eastern portion of the City of Corcoran along CR 116 which extends north to south approximately 2,000 feet east of the Project Area. The Rush Creek Reserve development is currently under development approximately 500 feet north of the Project Area between CSAH 10 and CR 116. The current phase of the residential development will include total of 106 units including 29 single family homes, 16 twin-homes, 15 basement villas, and 27 townhomes. The development will also include wetland areas, common open space, and trail facilities. As noted in Item 11.b.iii of this EAW, a new wastewater lift station is being constructed to replace the previously used lift station on CSAH 10 as part of this project. The Pioneer Trail Business Park Project proposes construct a five-lot industrial/business park with a total of ten buildings and a new public road on an approximately 56-acre site at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. The Project would include a mini storage/self-storage, gas/convenience, office, warehousing, retail, and light manufacturing uses. An EAW for the Pioneer Trail Business Park Project has been distributed for public comment. Full development of the business park is not anticipated to occur until 2026 and would be dependent on market conditions. 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. Potential impacts that were considered as part of the cumulative potential effects evaluation include waters resources, wetlands, public infrastructure, and loss of agricultural land, and transportation. Water Resources The project will convert undeveloped agricultural land into a proposed business park, which will increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Item 11 of this EAW, the proposed 33 additional impervious surface area is expected to result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Other proposed developments in the area resulting in the conversion of agricultural and rural residential land to commercial, industrial and residential developments will similarly increase the area of impervious surfaces. These future developments will be required to implement stormwater BMPs to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts in accordance with all City, ECWMC, and MPCA approval and permitting requirements. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to water quality and quantity are not anticipated. Public Infrastructure As discussed in Item 11, water supply for the Project will be provided through the City of Maple Grove under an existing contract with the City of Corcoran. Water supply for the Project will be consistent with the water supply planned for the Southeast Corcoran area. It is noted that the City is requesting that the Proposer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). As discussed in Item 11, sewer and watermain improvements will be required to provide services to the Project. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the Proposer will be required to limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day) which is consistent with the volume of wastewater planned for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Corcoran regulates future development thought its land use policies and zoning requirements. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the potential for future municipal well exploration areas and future studies to evaluate sewer and water extension to Southwest Corcoran. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to public infrastructure are not anticipated. Wetlands As described in Item 11, it is anticipated that the Project will impact approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands, which conservatively includes impacts associated with a future potential public road extension to the Project Area. Potential wetland impacts will be confirmed during final design and permitting of the Project. Planned development in the vicinity of the Project may also impact wetlands in the surrounding area. Wetlands are protected by state and federal laws, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and WCA, which require avoidance of wetland impacts when possible, and when avoidance is not possible, impacts must be minimized and mitigated. Adverse cumulative impacts to wetlands are not anticipated given the federal and state regulations that mandate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Agricultural Land The Project will convert existing agricultural land to a business park development. Planned development in surrounding areas along CR 116 may also convert agricultural land to other land uses. The City of Corcoran guides development through the City’s land use plan and zoning ordinance. The Project is consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Project Area and adjacent properties for future Light Industrial development. The City of Corcoran through their land use policies and zoning requirements, regulates future development and can protect agricultural land from future development as appropriate. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to agricultural land are not anticipated. Transportation 34 A Traffic Impact Study for the Project was completed that incorporated future traffic growth and recommended mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. Appendix G includes the Traffic Impact Study. Future developments in the surrounding area that are anticipated to increase traffic congestion, would be required to complete a traffic impact study and identify mitigation measures to address these impacts. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to traffic congestion are not anticipated. 20.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 additional environmental effects are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Potential environmental effects have been addressed in Items 1 through 19. 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 EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature ________________________ Date ____05/31/2022___________ Title ___Consulting City Planner_____________________________ Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix A Figures Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure1: USGS Topographic Map 05.17.22 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW • Corcoran, MN 0 500 1,000 Feet Legend Site Hennepin County SITE Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityFigure 2: Hennepin County Location Map 05.17.22 Cororan Farms Business Park • Corcoran, MN 0 5 10 Miles Legend Site Hennepin_County County Boundaries Hennepin CountyHennepin County SITE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEBUILDING BFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=119,462LOT SIZE=387,843PARKING STALLS=238BUILDING AFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=77,116LOT SIZE=267,389PARKING STALLS=161BUILDING CFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=168,517LOT SIZE=428,922PARKING STALLS=236BUILDING DFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=97,055LOT SIZE=361,694PARKING STALLS=125751.0159.0120.118.024.0648.1260.0220.0463.0485.0159.0265.0492.0224.0120.032.118.0120.6120.032.018.024.0120.0120.0129.924.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.0EMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE &LOADING DOCKENTRANCE DRIVELOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLLOADING DOCKACCESSEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGLOADING DOCK ANDEMPLOYEE ACCESS20' PARKING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACKSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPOND18.018.018.024.018.020.018.024.017.018.024.018.024.018.0L0T LINEL0T LINEL0T LINE10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAILPARKING STALLS=23810% OFFICE=60 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=72 STALLS20% OFFICE=120 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=64 STALLS(ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=16110% OFFICE=39 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=47 STALLS20% OFFICE=78 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=42 STALLS(ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=12510% OFFICE=49 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=59 STALLS20% OFFICE=97 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=52 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=23610% OFFICE=85 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=102 STALLS20% OFFICE=169 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=90 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)RETAINING WALLL0T LINEL0T LINECONNECT TOEXISTINGSANITARYCONNECT TOEXISTINGWATERMAINCONNECT TOEXISTINGWATERMAINRETAINING WALL18.018.018.018.018.018.0BUILDING EFFE=974.00LOADING DOCK=970.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=264,246LOT SIZE=1,079,874PARKING STALLS=341PARKING STALLS=34110% OFFICE=132 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=158 STALLS20% OFFICE=264 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=141 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)24.018.018.0FUTURE STREETEXTENSIONTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACLOADING DOCKACCESS300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMIT300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMIT300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMITL0T LINENSCALE IN FEET0100 200LOUCKSW:\2021\21442\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 02 /23 / 2022 10:8 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTALSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSPROFESSIONAL SIGNATUREQUALITY CONTROLCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.CADD QUALIFICATIONLARKIN ROADFEASIBILITYCORCORAN, MNLEE & ASSOCIATES5353 GAMBLE DRIVE, SUITE 106MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416UTILITY PLANFigure 323CIVIL LEGEND 4/27/2022 Figure 4: 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Map 05.17.22 Corcoran Farms Business Park • Corcoran, MN 0 200 400 Feet Legend Site Hennepin_County Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water Parcel Boundaries SITE Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ $+10$+50 Commerce StW75th Ave N Buckskin TrAuger Ave Larkin Rd L49A L49A L49A L49A L25AL25A L25A L25A L25A L25A L25A L132A L24A L25A L132A L36A L37B L37B L37B L37B L37B L36A L36A L36A L37B L37B L37B L37B L37BL37B L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22E L22E L22D2 L22D2 L22D2 L22D2 L24A L24A L24A L24A L24A L24A L23A L23A 23 26 T119 R23W Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area Mapunit Symbol,Mapunit Name L132A,Hamel-Glencoe complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes L22C2,Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22D2,Lester loam, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22E,Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes L23A,Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes L24A,Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes L25A,Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L36A,Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L37B,Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes L49A,Klossner soils, depressional, 0 to 1 percent slopes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:6,000 0 250 500 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Soil Classifications 5 FIGURE 5 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_!(!($+50 $+116 $+10 75th Ave NCain RdOl d S e t t l ers R dTrail La 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Abilene L a Gleason RdWCorcoranTrE CorcoranTrMeister Rd Maple Hill RdHorseshoe TrKalk RdUnnamed(west portion) (27043902) Unnamed (27044000) Unnamed (27042500) Unnamed (27043700) Unnamed (27043100) Unnamed (27043800) Unnamed (27042400) Unnamed (27042600) Unnamed (27043000) Unnamed (27042900) Unnamed (27042800) Unnamed (27042700) Unnamed (27043200) Unnamed(east portion) (27043901)RushC reek,S o uth F ork (M-062-0 0 4-002)Unnamed Creek(M-062-004-002-004)UnnamedStream (M-06 2 -012)UnnamedCreek ( M -062-004-002-002)Rush Creek, South Fork 07010206-760 (FishesBio; InvertBio) County Ditch 16 07010206-761 (FishesBio) 15 1314 22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Maple Grove Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend 1 Mile Radius Project Area Field Delineated Wetland !( 2022 MPCA Impaired Streams (Draft) Minnesota Public Waters Delineations Public Water Watercourse Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Waters Basins NHD - Flowline NHD - Waterbody NWI Circular 39 Class 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat 2 - Wet Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog Riverine Systems Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Water Resources Map 6 FIGURE 6 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ Wetland 3 Potential Impact 0.001 ac. Wetland 1/1A Potential Impact 0.02 ac.Wetland 5 Potential Impact 0.11 ac. Wetland 6 Potential Impact 0.35 ac. Wetland 7 Potential Impact 0.14 ac. Wetland 3 Potential Impact 0.07 ac. Wetland 1/1A Potential Impact 0.001 ac. $+10$+50 Auger A v e Larkin Rd Wetland 2 Building A Building B Building CBuilding D Building E Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-28 By: kjmuellerLegend Potential Wetland Impact Field Delineated Wetland Business Park Concept Plan Road/Trail/Parking Future Street Extension Stormwater Pond Building Footprint Loading Dock Project Area Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-28T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Potential Wetland Impacts 7 FIGURE 7 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A!A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A $+50 $+116 $+10 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Blue Bonnet Dr22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Corcoran 162838 735496 143364 192803 766104 157803 421780 104845 766105766106 400849162756 183900 457850 140161 418439 140125 152582 420170 158311 148105 104756 118887 737570 248503 259743 155316 168654 104798 266119 431415 248498 418433 266495 266499 450279 470764 592153 415893 492601 489020 752470 460094 418412 450281435842 506579 597473 563093 635243 489022 450334435804 647388 644889 607761 511975479959 638346 464199 630065 615243 725324 594127 728994 728690 635290 531546 571699 607755 648517 688035678810 595250 442473 537410 450335 435876 551597 191186 460076 452505 501470 197322 735701 660581538256 460062 478397 498353 507120 655063 500320 464041 197432 510606 169204 538247 810852 274923 188265 192837 755332 450371 538281 500319 532990 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend County Well Index !A Commercial !A Domestic !A Industrial !A Irrigation !A Monitor Well !A Public Supply 500 ft Radius 1/2 mi Radius Project Area Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT, MNDOH 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:14,400 0 600 1,200 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW County Well Index 8 FIGURE 8 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ !. !.!. !. !." " " "" " " " " " " " ! !! !! ! ## # $+50 $+10 $+116 Commerce St E Larkin Rd CommerceStW75th Ave N Auger Ave BuckskinTrBlue Bonnet DrW Corcoran TrE CorcoranTrAbilene La Gazelle Marketing Minnegasco Corcoran 2016 Downtown Corcoran Sewer and Water Improvements Phils Quality Automotive Custom Filtration Inc LITHGOW AUTOMOTIVE INC Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens Westside Wholesale Tire Inc SE Corcoran 2020 Trunk Watermain Improvements Western Excavating Midstate Crane Service A1 Outdoor Power Corcoran Crossroads LLC Concrete Science Pro-Tech Auto Repair Featherbrook Farm Rush Creek Reserve Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens Countryside Service Pro Drywall and Painting Inc Treptau Implement Company Sunram Construction Inc Corcoran Pet Care Center Miller Brothers Corcoran Auto Parts Pauls Corcoran Service Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-05 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area 500 ft Buffer MPCA Sites Program Name !.Multiple Programs "Feedlots "Hazardous Waste !Investigation and Cleanup !Stormwater #Tanks Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Stantec, Hennepin Co., MnGeo, MnDOT, MPCA 3. Background: 2020 color 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:9,600 0 400 800 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-05T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW MPCA WIMN Potentially Contaminated Sites 9 FIGURE 9 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix B Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision Larkin Road Site City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Loucks Associates by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2021-166) October 11, 2021 Larkin Road Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 3 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 4 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4 4.3 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 5 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 7 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 8 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Information D. Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment 1 Larkin Road Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 68.63-acre Larkin Road Site was inspected on August 19, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed seven wetlands within the site boundaries. • The soil survey showed Cordova (Predominantly Hydric), Hamel-Glencoe (Predominantly Hydric) and Glencoe (Hydric) and Hamel, overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the property. Soil mapping units are summarized in Table 2. • The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed one DNR Public Wetland: Unnamed (27- 430W) on the western portion of the site, and one DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) flowing north along the eastern border of the site. • The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Canal/Ditch flowing north along the eastern border of the site. • Seven wetlands delineated within the site boundaries are summarized in Table 3. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 2 2.OVERVIEW The 68.63-acre Larkin Road Site was inspected on August 19, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 26, Township 119 North, Range 23 West, City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The site was situated west of CR-116, south of CR- 50 and north of Larkin Road (Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Hennepin County PID #: 2611923130006 The site consisted of farm fields, agricultural storage units and rural residential housing. The topography of the site sloped from an elevation of 988 ft MSL on the southern and north central portions of the site down to a low of 954 ft MSL on the northern portion. Surrounding land use consisted of single-family residential, farmland and rural residential. Seven wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 does represent an official survey. 3.METHODS 3.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located using Trimble R1 GPS Units. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 3 Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2018 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Areas in agricultural cropland that exhibited potential wetland signatures on aerial photography and with low or depressional topography were reviewed generally following methods described in Using Aerial Imagery to Assess Wetland Hydrology (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2010) and Guidance for Submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and Wetland Conservation Act Local Governmental Units in Minnesota, Version 2.0 (USACE 2015). These methods use aerial photography and antecedent precipitation conditions to identify areas that have wetland hydrology signatures during periods of typical precipitation. Available years of Farm Service Agency (FSA) aerial photography were reviewed for the site to determine long-term hydrology. In cases where additional aerial photography was relevant, available, and necessary to make hydrology determinations, we reviewed aerial photography from other sources such as the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGEO) and Google Earth. Signatures at locations of potential wetlands on aerial photographs were interpreted and classified using seven codes (Table 1). Wetland hydrology was assumed to be present within areas exhibiting wetland signatures in more than 50% of years with normal climatic conditions based on antecedent precipitation. Table 1. Aerial photograph interpretation codes Code Classification CS Crop stress DO Drowned out NC Not cropped SW Standing water WS Wetland signature AP Altered pattern NV Normal vegetation This analysis used only aerial photographs taken following periods of precipitation within the normal range as determined using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool (Minnesota Climatology Office 2015). This tool classifies antecedent precipitation as Normal (N), Wet (W) or Dry (D) by comparing precipitation during the three months preceding the estimated date of aerial photography to the 30-year average from 1981-2010. Dates of aerial imagery were determined from the MnGeo database and July 1 was used as the estimated date of FSA aerial photography. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 4 4.RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed seven wetlands mapped within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Cordova (Predominantly Hydric), Hamel-Glencoe (Predominantly Hydric) and Glencoe (Hydric) and Hamel,overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the property. Soil types mapped on the property are listed below in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015 showed one DNR Public Wetland: Unnamed (27-430W) on the western portion of the site, and one DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) flowing north along the eastern border of the site (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Canal/Ditch flowing north along the eastern border of the site (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on August 19, 2021. Seven wetlands were identified and delineated on the property based on field observations and aerial photography (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following descriptions of the wetlands and adjacent uplands reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation and crops were actively growing at that time. Precipitation conditions were typical based on the Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database method, and drier than the normal range based on available 30-day rolling total precipitation (Appendix C). Wetland descriptions are shown on the following page on Table 3. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Larkin Road Site Symbol Soil Name Acres % of Area % Hydric Hydric Category L22C2 Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 14.9 21.60% 2 Predominantly Non-Hydric L22E Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes 1.3 1.90% 0 Non Hydric L23A Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.3 17.90% 95 Predominantly Hydric L24A Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 4.6 6.70% 100 Hydric L25A Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13.7 20.00% 15 Predominantly Non-Hydric L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 15 21.80% 45 Partially Hydric L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 3.3 4.80% 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric L132A Hamel-Glencoe complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.6 5.20% 90 Predominantly Hydric Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 5 4.3 Other Areas Tributary 1 (T1) was a perennial tributary that flowed north along the eastern portion of the site boundary. Tributary 1 corresponded to DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004- 002-002) and encompassed approximately 662.5 linear feet within site limits. 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Recent, available Google Earth, MNGEO and FSA photo years were assessed for wet/normal/dry climatic conditions using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool. Available aerial photographs from the 6 most recent and available normal years (2006, 2010, 2012, 2018, 2019 and 2020) were used for the offsite hydrology review (Table 4). Table 4. Decision matrix for offsite hydrology review. Source Photo Date Date Used for Climate Assessment Climatic Conditions FSA 7/1/2019 (Assumed) 7/1/2019 Normal FSA 8/31/2017 9/1/2017 Wet FSA 9/27/2015 10/1/2015 Normal (Late Season) FSA 7/12/2013 7/12/2013 Wet FSA 9/12/2010 9/12/2010 Normal FSA 7/31/2009 8/1/2009 Dry FSA 7/30/2008 8/1/2008 Dry FSA 7/1/2003 (assumed) 7/1/2003 Wet FSA 5/6/1991 5/6/1991 Wet MN GEO April 4-10, 2020 4/4/2020 Most Recent Wet Photo MN GEO 5/1/2018 5/1/2018 Normal MN GEO April 9-22, 2016 4/15/2016 Dry MN GEO March 25- April 4, 2012 4/1/2012 Normal MN GEO April 23, 2008 5/1/2008 Wet MN GEO April 17-18, 2006 5/1/2006 Wet Google Earth 5/11/2020 5/11/2020 Normal Google Earth 4/5/2017 4/5/2017 Dry Google Earth 10/11/2014 10/11/2014 Normal (Late Season) Google Earth 6/6/2006 6/6/2006 Normal Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 6 Results - Twelve areas showing a wet signature on the 2020 MNGEO photo – most recent wet photo – were included in the review. The location of Areas A – L are shown on Figure 7. Photographs for each year of review and the Wetland Hydrology Recording from Aerial Imagery - Recording Form are included in Appendix D. Area A was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and did not show any wet signatures on normal aerial photographs. This area did not require field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Area B was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of normal aerial photographs. This area did not require field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Area C was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 33% of normal aerial photographs. This area required field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point AA (SP-AA) which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Point AA was taken within a relatively flat area that was dominated by healthy soybean crop within the east central portion of the site (See Figure 2). Area D was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, was not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 50% of normal aerial photographs. This area required field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. Geomorphic position was not applicable due to proximity of functional catch basins. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point BB (SP-BB) and Sample Point CC (SP-CC), which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Points BB & CC were taken within depressional areas that were dominated by healthy soybean crop (See Figure 2). Area E was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, was not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 83% of normal aerial photographs. This area was determined to be wetland based on the recording decision matrix and was confirmed during the field visit. The boundaries of this area were determined during the offsite aerial review, which expands the eastern boundary of Wetland 5 into the adjacent soybean crop field. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 5-1W (SP5-1W), which can be found within Appendix B. Areas F, G, J and K were mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, were not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of normal aerial photographs. These areas did not require field verification and were determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 7 Areas H and I were mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, were not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 67% of normal aerial photographs. These areas were determined to be wetland based on the recording decision matrix and were confirmed during the field visit. Area H coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 6-1W (SP6-1W) and Area I coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 7-1W (SP7-1W), which can be found within Appendix B. Area L was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, mapped as a PEM1Af wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of aerial photography during normal precipitation years. This area required field verification based on the recording form decision matrix and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point DD (SP-DD), which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Point DD was taken within a mowed hillslope that was dominated by Reed canary grass, stinging nettle and unknown grasses within the southern portion of the site (See Figure 2). This area was upslope of a culvert that drained south under Larkin Road. 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), (2) delineation concurrence under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and (3) Approved Jurisdictional Determination under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act for delineated Wetland 6. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 8 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Kyle Uhler Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator Will Effertz, Ecologist / Soil Specialist Report Prepared by: Will Effertz, Ecologist / Soil Specialist Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: October 11, 2021 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Map Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,250 Feet Site Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap CR - 50 CR - 116 Larkin Road !( !( !( !(XY XYXY XY # # # SP-AA SP-BB SP-CC SP-DD Wetland 7 Wetland 7Wetland 1 / 1A Wetland 6 Wetland 5 Wetland 4 Wetland 3 Wetland 2 SP7-1 SP6-1 SP5-1 SP5-2 SP4-1 SP3-1SP3&2-1U SP2-1 SP1-1 T r i b u t a r y 1 : P e r e n n i a l t i b u t a r yUn n am e d C r e e k (M - 0 6 2 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 )Ap p r o x im a t l e y 6 6 2 . 5 L i n e a r F e e t O n - S i t e 964 962966 9709689609589 7 2 974 956 976978980984982952 986 9 5 4 988950 990 9489929 4 6 956948 964 958 990972950 988964 960 976974 966974980964962 9 6 6 972964984 964 970 962950 972 974980974 9709 6 2 970968 988 966 97496897297695 6 978968966960 980 958978 9 6 2 972950 964966980970962956982960970964948948 972990 978956962 958 968964964966970978960968964 976 972958978 966974964 9 7 6 980982 956954 982966986974 954 9589 6 4 9589 5 2 958 97 4968984 972976 964 974 99 0 97297698696 2 984954982 964964960 962 964958 96 0 958 984 962 966968972 966 974968958 978954 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet #Catch Basin XY Culvert Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) Transect !(Sample Points Site Boundary Wetland Boundaries Upland Area Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland ID Size (Acres) 1/1A 0.63 2 0.26 3 0.39 4 0.27 5 4.39 6 0.35 7 0.14 PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1A PEM1Ad PEM1Af PEM1Cd PABG PEM1C PEM1AdPEM1C PEM1C PUBFxPABGx PEM1Cx PABGx PEM1C PEM1C PUBGx Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary PABG PABGx PEM1A PEM1Ad PEM1Af PEM1C PEM1Cd PEM1Cx PUBFx PUBGx Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USFWS L23A L36A L23A L37B L25A L22C2 L24A L24AL24A L132A L132A L22C2 L25A L22C2 L25A L22C2 L37B L25A L25A L23A L37B L22E L25A L22C2 L22C2 L36A L22C2 L37B L49A L22E L22D2 L37B L49A L25A L36A L22C2 L22C2 L24A L24A L22C2L22C2 L37B L37B L37BL23A L37B Figure 4 - Soil Survey Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Partially Hydric Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS See narrative for soil series information. Unnamed (27-430 W) Unnamed (27-438 W) Unnamed (27-432 W) Unnamed (27-429 W) Unnamed(west portion) (27-439-02 W) Unnamed (27-431 W) Unnamed (27-428 W) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Public Waters Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Watercourse Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Hydro Junction Artificial Path Canal/Ditch Connector Stream/River Lake/Pond Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USGS 964 962966 970968960958972974956 976978980982984952 988 9 5 4 986990 9509489929 4 6 9 6 2 964 968976948 948982 966976 964956 960974 970986 962966 972972 980982972988 980984 986 964 974 958960950 962 9649 6 2 9 6 2 978976 96295497497496497096 0 972 974 970976 962960 978962960964964 958 976958 958 960 962964 974 966964958962 95 6 9729729 6 6 978 9669809 6 4 966990990 972966 974974968 964980978974958950 96 2 990974964 964 966 976978966 978 968 956964 956964976 962956988 960 970982974954 982 984956974984974954 96496895 8 964 97 6 984972970 982 972 96 4976958 972970956 956970966954966984 984966968956 964960976968 966968972958 978966 966974 970 976 962978 954Figure 7 - Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : MN Geo, 2020 (Most Recent Wet Photo) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 1 of 12 Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetlan d, tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form (see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties, townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state -owned land). The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre- application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential a pplicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations . • For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A. • For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B. • For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. • For local road authority activities that qualify for the state’s local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 2 of 12 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District’s website at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information box. Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary informati on required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure t hat the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the require d information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: 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: Jeff Minea/JMMK, LLC Mailing Address: 18805 37th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: 612-701-7741 E-mail Address: jminea@lee-associates.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Will Effertz, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road #130, Orono MN 55331 Phone: Cell : 952-290-6340 E-mail Address: thg Will@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Hennepin City/Township: Corcoran Parcel ID and/or Address: 20130 Larkin Road, #2611923130006 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S26 T119N R23W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): ------------------------------------ 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): 70 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. Currently agricultural production site and proposing an industrial development. Delineation was performed per the attached map and report. Needing confirmation of wetland boundaries and type for potential impacts per the attached site plan. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 TBD Wetland fill undetermined undetermined Undetermined unknown Hennepin 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: 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. Signature: Date: September 30, 2021 I hereby authorize Loucks, Inc. 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 Form – Revised May 2021 Page 5 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this reque st 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 ar ea (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 absen t on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP1-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 95 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 3 0 95 380 0.00% N 0 Phleum pratense 20 Y Schizachyrium scoparium 10 N FACU Dactylis glomerata Trifolium pratense 40 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Asclepias syriaca 20 Y FACU 0 4.00 95 380 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N FACU 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was located near ditch, therefore, hydrology is significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assumed depleted under thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP1-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Cd , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 90 180 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 0 0 100.00% Y0 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Urtica dioica 10 N FACW 0 2.14 105 225 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 15 45 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 1If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was located near ditch, therefore, hydrology is significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. Y Acer negundo 15 Y FAC Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 4.00 80 320 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Trifolium pratense 60 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 15 N FACU Asclepias syriaca 5 N N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 80 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 80 320 0.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP2 & 3-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP2 & 3-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 4 to 10 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 18 to 24 10YR 3/1 93 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches 10YR 4/1 5 D M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10 to 18 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 2If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.35 85 200 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 10 N FACU Carex vulpinoidea 10 N Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 70 140 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 15 60 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP2-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP2-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 3If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 100 250 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 25 Y FACU Carex vulpinoidea 15 N Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 75 150 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 1 25 100 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP3-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP3-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 12 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam 12 to 20 10YR 2/1 94 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 20 to 24 10YR 4/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10YR 4/1 3 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP4-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 115 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 20 40 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 45 180 50.00% N 0 Phalaris arundinacea 20 N Asclepias syriaca 20 N FACU Poa Pratensis 50 Y FAC (Plot size:5 ft Radius Trifolium repens 25 Y FACU 0 3.22 115 370 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 50 150 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 16 to 24 10YR 3/1 94 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 10YR 4/1 2 D M Loam 10 to 16 10YR 2/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam 0 to 10 10YR 2/2 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP4-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly-Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 4If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 20 20 0 0 0 2.29 105 240 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 20 N FACU Carex stipata 20 N Erigeron annuus 5 N FACU Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 105 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- OBL 60 120 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 25 100 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP4-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP4-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam 16 - 24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located in area dominated with healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soybean farm field, therefore, soil and vegetation are significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 22 to 24 10YR 5/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0 to 22 10YR 3/1 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP5-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FAC 15 30 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Setaria pumila 10 N Carex stipata 60 Y OBL (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phalaris arundinacea 15 N FACW 0 1.41 85 120 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 60 60 10 30 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 5If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X 22 - 25 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 25 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 16 - 22 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP5-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 40 120 0 3.60 100 360 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Poa Pratensis 40 Y FAC (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 30 Y FACU Taraxacum officinale 15 N Trifolium pratense 15 N FACU N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 60 240 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-2UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP5-2U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 22 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 22 to 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 26 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 24 to 26 10YR 4/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel Complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 5If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 55 55 0 0 0 1.84 95 175 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N FACW Carex stipata 40 Y OBL (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 15 Y FACU Scirpus atrovirens 15 Y Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Solidago gigantea Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 95 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- OBL 20 40 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 4 3 20 80 75.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-2WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP5-2W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 10 - 22 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 22 - 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated with healthy soybean crop. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP6-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP6-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10 to 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located within area with drowned out soybean crop, vegetation is assumed based on hydrology indicators. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP6-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 10 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 0 0 0.00% Y 0 Glycine max 10 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 10 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 10 50 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 6If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13)X True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X 16 to 24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area H during offsite aerial review and showed 67% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 10 - 16 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP6-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP7-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP7-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 24 10YR 2/1 100 Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assume depleted below thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression/Swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly Hydric) NWI Classification: 1 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 7If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 5 15 0 2.35 100 235 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 65 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Persicaria pensylvanica 15 N FACW Phleum pratense 15 N Setaria pumila 5 N FAC Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 80 160 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 15 60 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP7-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP7-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 8 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assumed depleted below thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches):8 inches Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Within close proximity to gasline Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 8 inches. Coincided with Area I during offsite aerial review and showed 67% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-AAMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Y Le Sueur Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 10 to 16 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 5/1 15 D M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Coincided with Area C during offsite aerial review and showed 33% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 16 to 24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/1 10 D M Clay Loam 6 to 10 10YR 2/1 85 10YR 5/1 15 D M Clay Loam 0 to 6 10YR 2/1 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP-AA Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soybean farm field, therefore, soil and vegetation are significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-BBMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-BB Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 8 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Loam 8 to 24 10YR 2/1 94 10YR 4/6 3 D M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area D during offsite aerial review and showed 50% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10YR 5/1 3 D M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X NA Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius NA 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-CCMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-CC Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 8 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 8 to 20 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 10YR 5/1 10 D M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area D during offsite aerial review and showed 50% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 20 to 24 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-DDMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 70 140 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 2 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Urtica dioica 10 N Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Poa pratensis 20 Y FAC 0 2.22 90 200 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 20 60 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was mowed and close to nearby culvert, therefore, vegetation and hydrology was significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 5 inches. Area was effectively drained with culvert present downslope, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area L during offsite aerial review and showed 17% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches):5 inches Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Compacted Gravel Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 to 5 10YR 2/1 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Loam Gravel inclusions Sampling Point:SP-DD Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Information 10/4/21, 9:33 PM Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456440&passYutm83=4992829&passcounty=Hennepin…1/1 Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | about us Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 119N township name: Corcoran range number: 23W nearest community: Corcoran section number: 26 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, August 19, 2021 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: July 2021 second prior month: June 2021 third prior month: May 2021 estimated precipitation total for this location:2.66R 1.22R 3.30R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.42 3.47 2.44 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.84 5.08 4.02 type of month: dry normal wet normal dry normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)10 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5/30/21 6/14/21 6/29/21 7/14/21 7/29/21 8/13/21 8/28/21Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precip daily precip 30d rolling total 30 -day rolling total normal precip range Site Visit Climate Conditions Larkin Road Site, Corcoran Site Visit: 8/19/2021 Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX D Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment Corcoran, MN: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2021 (latitude: 45.08758 longitude: 93.55352) Target: T119 R23 S26 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre (inches) Jan 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD .87 Feb 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD .59 Mar 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 2.84 Apr 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 2.38 May 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 3.65 Jun 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 1.00 Jul 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 2.64 Aug 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 5.16 Sep 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 3.20 June/July/August Daily Records Date Precip. Jun 1, 2021 0 Jun 2, 2021 0 Jun 3, 2021 .02 Jun 4, 2021 0 Jun 5, 2021 0 Jun 6, 2021 0 Jun 7, 2021 0 Jun 8, 2021 0 Jun 9, 2021 m Jun 10, 2021 m Jun 11, 2021 0 Jun 12, 2021 0 Jun 13, 2021 0 Jun 14, 2021 0 Jun 15, 2021 0 Jun 16, 2021 0 Jun 17, 2021 0 Jun 18, 2021 0 Jun 19, 2021 0 Jun 20, 2021 .01 Jun 21, 2021 .28 Jun 22, 2021 0 Jun 23, 2021 0 Jun 24, 2021 .06 Jun 25, 2021 0 Jun 26, 2021 0 Jun 27, 2021 .15 Jun 28, 2021 .05 Jun 29, 2021 .25 Jun 30, 2021 .18 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.42 0.40 1.16 1.85 2.44 3.47 2.42 3.02 1.88 1.27 1.01 0.57 16.13 25.88 25.96 70% 0.81 0.87 1.94 2.93 4.02 5.08 4.84 4.78 4.40 3.09 2.05 1.41 20.85 31.49 32.06 mean 0.71 0.67 1.62 2.61 3.32 4.32 3.86 4.04 3.34 2.41 1.58 1.06 18.88 29.54 29.36 Date Precip. Jul 1, 2021 0 Jul 2, 2021 0 Jul 3, 2021 0 Jul 4, 2021 0 Jul 5, 2021 0 Jul 6, 2021 .22 Jul 7, 2021 0 Jul 8, 2021 0 Jul 9, 2021 0 Jul 10, 2021 0 Jul 11, 2021 0 Jul 12, 2021 0 Jul 13, 2021 0 Jul 14, 2021 2.00 Jul 15, 2021 0 Jul 16, 2021 0 Jul 17, 2021 0 Jul 18, 2021 0 Jul 19, 2021 0 Jul 20, 2021 0 Jul 21, 2021 0 Jul 22, 2021 .10 Jul 23, 2021 0 Jul 24, 2021 .20 Jul 25, 2021 0 Jul 26, 2021 0 Jul 27, 2021 0 Jul 28, 2021 .12 Jul 29, 2021 0 Jul 30, 2021 0 Jul 31, 2021 0 Date Precip. Aug 1, 2021 0 Aug 2, 2021 0 Aug 3, 2021 0 Aug 4, 2021 0 Aug 5, 2021 0 Aug 6, 2021 0 Aug 7, 2021 .25 Aug 8, 2021 .10 Aug 9, 2021 .12 Aug 10, 2021 0 Aug 11, 2021 .13 Aug 12, 2021 0 Aug 13, 2021 .02 Aug 14, 2021 0 Aug 15, 2021 0 Aug 16, 2021 0 Aug 17, 2021 0 Aug 18, 2021 0 Aug 19, 2021 0 Site Visit Aug 20, 2021 0 Aug 21, 2021 .65 Aug 22, 2021 0 Aug 23, 2021 .13 Aug 24, 2021 .93 Aug 25, 2021 .20 Aug 26, 2021 0 Aug 27, 2021 1.85 Aug 28, 2021 .03 Aug 29, 2021 .75 Aug 30, 2021 T Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable): Wetland Hydrology from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: Larkin Road Site Date: 8/19/2021 County: Hennepin County Investigator: W. Effertz Legal Description (T, R, S): S26 T119N R23W Summary Table Date Image Taken (M- D-Y) Image Source Climate Condition (wet, dry, normal)i Image Interpretation(s) Area: A Area: B Area: C Area: D Area: E Area: F Area: G Area: H Area: I 5/11/2020 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS SS* SS* SS* NSS SS* SS* 7/1/2019 (Assumed) FSA Normal NV NV DO* DO* NV NV NSS DO* NSS 5/1/2018 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS SS* SS* NSS NSS NSS SS* 4/1/2012 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS NSS SS* NSS NSS SS* WS* 9/12/2010 FSA Normal NV AP* AP* NV WS* NV NSS SS* SS* 6/6/2006 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS NSS SS* NSS SS* NSS NSS Normal Climate Condition Area: A Area: B Area: C Area: D Area: E Area: F Area: G Area: H Area: I Number of normal years 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Number with wet signatures 0 1 2 3 5 1 1 4 4 Percent w ith wet signatures 0% 17% 33% 50% 83% 17% 17% 67% 67% Date Image Taken (M-D- Y) Image Source Climate Condition (wet, dry, normal)i Image Interpretation(s) Area: J Area: K Area: L 5/11/2020 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS 7/1/2019 (Assumed) FSA Normal NSS NV DO* 5/1/2018 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS 4/1/2012 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS 9/12/2010 FSA Normal DO* NV NV 6/6/2006 Google Earth Normal NSS SS* NSS Normal Climate Condition Area: J Area: K Area: L Number of normal years 6 6 6 Number with wet signatures 1 1 1 Percent w ith wet signatures 17% 17% 17% KEY WS - wetland signature SS - soil wetness signature CS - crop stress NC - not cropped AP - altered pattern NV - normal vegetative cover DO - drowned out SW - standing water NSS – no soil wetness signature Other labels or comments: • Use above key to label image interpretations. It is imperative that the reviewer read and understand the guidance associated with the use of these labels. If alternate labels are used, indicate in box above. • If less than five (5) images taken during normal climate conditions are available, use an equal number of images taken during wet and dry climate conditions and use as many images as you have available. Describe the results using this methodology in your report. _________________________________ i Use MN State Climatology website to determine climate condition when image was taken. Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable):____________ Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: Larkin Road Site Date: 8/19/2021 County: Hennepin County Investigator:W. Effertz Legal Description (T, R, S): S26 T119N R23W Use the Decision Matrix below to complete Table 1. Hydric Soils present1 Identified on NWI or other wetland map2 Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Field verification required3 Wetland? Yes Yes >50% No Yes Yes Yes 30-50% No Yes Yes Yes <30% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No >50% No Yes Yes No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No <30% No No No Yes >50% No Yes No Yes 30-50% No Yes No Yes <30% No No No No >50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No <30% No No 1 The presence of hydric soils can be determined from the “Hydric Rating by Map Unit Feature” under “Land Classifications” from the Web Soil Survey. “Not Hydric” is the only category considered to not have hydric soils. Field sampling for the presence/absence of hydric soil indicators can be used in lieu of the hydric rating if appropriately documented by providing completed field data sheets. 2 At minimum, the most updated NWI data available for the area must be reviewed for this step. Any and all other local or regional wetland maps that are publicly available should be reviewed. 3 Area should be reviewed in the field for the presence/absence of wetland hydrology indicators per the applicable 87 Manual Regional Supplement, including the D2 indicator (geomorphic position). Table 1. Area Hydric Soils Present Identified on NWI or other wetland map Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Other hydrology indicators present1 Wetland? A NO NO 0 33 33 N/A NO B NO NO 17 N/A NO C NO NO 33 NO NO D YES NO 50 NO NO E YES NO 83 YES Wetland 5 F YES NO 17 N/A NO G YES NO 17 N/A NO H YES NO 67 YES Wetland 6 I YES NO 67 YES Wetland 7 J YES NO 17 N/A NO K YES NO 17 N/A NO L YES YES 17 NO NO 1 Answer “N/A” if field verification is not required and was not conducted. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Google Earth - June, 2006 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : FSA - September, 2010 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Mn Geo - April, 2012 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Mn Geo - May, 2018 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : FSA - July, 2019 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Google Earth - May, 2020 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: City of Corcoran County: Hennepin Applicant Name: Jeff Minea – LMMK, LLC Applicant Representative: N/A Project Name: 20130 Larkin Road LGU Project No. (if any): Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 10/25/2021 Date of LGU Decision: 11/17/2021 Date this Notice was Sent: 11/30/2021 WCA Decision Type - check all that apply ☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase) ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420) Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only) Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits: NA ☐ Bank Credits: NA Bank Account Number(s): Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any) ☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied List Conditions: Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other: Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify): 1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project- specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid. LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify): ☒ Summary: Will Effertz of Kjolhaug submitted a completed wetland boundary/type application on behalf of Jeff Minea on October 25, 2021. The site was reviewed by Lucas Mueller (LGU), Paul Stewart (Hennepin County), and Will Effertz (Kjolhaug) on October 22, 2021. The TEP generally agreed with the wetland boundaries and types depicted in the Kjolhaug report but requested three changes after observing Wetlands 4 and 5 in the field. - Reduction of Wetland 4 to better fit the topography on the site - Extension of northern portion of Wetland 5 to better fit topography - Addition of ditch feature within Wetland 5 BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2 Kjolhaug made the changes based on the TEPs recommendations and submitted a revised Existing Conditions figure on October 26, 2021. The LGU approves the updated Wetland Boundary/Type Application as submitted by Kjolhaug on 10/26/2021. 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. Attached Project Documents ☐ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): No Loss Application Appeals of LGU Decisions If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail. The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Send to: Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision? ☐ Yes1 ☒ No 1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process. Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable) Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski , Hennepin SWCD ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Carlson ☒ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Kevin Mattson – City of Corcoran ☒ DNR Representative: Wes Saunders-Pearce ☒ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: Elm Creek Watershed District ☒ Applicant: Jeff Minea ☒ Agent/Consultant: Will Effertz-Kjolhaug Optional or As Applicable: ☒ Corps of Engineers: ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only): ☐ Members of the Public (notice only): ☐ Other: Signature: Date: 11/30/2021 This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3. Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix C FEMA FIRMette National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 4/28/2022 at 4:23 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 93°33'26"W 45°5'40"N 93°32'48"W 45°5'14"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix D MDH Well Log Reports Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031104845 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed OLEK, RON 119 23 W 26 ABAABD 203 ft.203 ft.08/12/1976 Elevation 963 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20123 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 25 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY W/GRAVEL 25 45 MEDIUMGRAY GRAVEL & SAND 45 60 SOFTBROWN CLAY (GRAVELLY)60 78 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY (GRAVELLY)78 151 MEDIUMGRAY SHALE W/SANDROCK 151 162 MEDIUMGREEN SANDROCK 162 203 HARDGRN/WHT Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 162 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 203in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 162Open Hole From ft. To ft.203 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 162 ft. cuttings ft. ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 104845 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade FLINT & WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 08/12/1976 ft.75 hrs.5 Pumping at 60 g.p.m. 50 feet Southwes Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 5BA8 0.5 230 1296 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 CLARK, F. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 151 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456834 4993611 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031118887 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ETZEL, GERG 119 23 W 26 ABAABC 197 ft.197 ft.02/26/1976 Elevation 961 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20137 50 CR HAMEL MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness TOP SOIL 0 7 SOFTBLACK CLAY 7 43 SOFTBLUE GRAVEL DIRTY 43 117 CLAY 117 140 SOFTBLUE CLAY & GRAVEL DIRTY 140 166 HARD ROCK 166 197 HARD Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 166 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 197in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 166Open Hole From ft. To ft.197 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 118887 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.60 Measureland surface 02/20/1976 50 feet East Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 02/26/1976 BV-75 0.5 230 84 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Pumarlo Well Co.27023 PUMARLO, F. Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence 166 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456806 4993618 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031148105 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/16/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed SCHUTTE, PHIL 119 23 W 26 BAADDA 323 ft.323 ft.12/13/1977 Elevation 956 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20225 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 140 SANDROCK 140 232 SOFT ROCK 232 323 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 233in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 323in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 233Open Hole From ft. To ft.323 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To well grouted, type unknown ft. ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 148105 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.150 Measureland surface 12/13/1977 ft.160 hrs.3 Pumping at 70 g.p.m. feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 0.75 126 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, S. Remarks Jordan-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 140 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456462 4993468 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031168654 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/16/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed MELCHER, 119 23 W 26 DBBCDA 75 ft.75 ft.10/11/1979 Elevation 965 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Welded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20204 CIMARRON CI CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 18 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 18 45 MEDIUMBLUE CLAY & ROCK 45 68 MEDIUMRED/BRN SAND & GRAVEL 68 75 SOFTYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 70in. To ft. lbs./ft. stainlessScreen?Make JOHNSONXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 2 12in.ft.705 75 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 70 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 168654 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.20 Measureland surface 10/11/1979 ft.20 hrs.2 Pumping at 20 g.p.m. 50 feet Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 10/11/1979 SD1250 0.5 230 2042 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Mc Alpine's Well Co.27186 MCALPINE, G. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-yellow Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456568 4992687 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Name on mailbox Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031192837 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/24/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ASEHLIMEN 119 23 W 26 CABAAD 231 ft.231 ft.05/03/1983 Elevation 994 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20417 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 20 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 20 70 MEDIUMBLUE SAND 70 83 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 83 89 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 89 106 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 106 182 MEDIUMBLUE SHALE & SANDROCK 182 185 HARDBLU/GRY SANDROCK AND 185 231 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 185 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 185in. To ft. 4 231in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 185Open Hole From ft. To ft.231 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 192837 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.80 Measureland surface 05/03/1983 feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes X Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, G. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence 182 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456248 4992788 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 11/16/2015Tax Records Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031259743 County Hennepin Entry Date 04/22/2003 Quad Hamel Update Date 03/10/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CORCORAN 119 23 W 23 DCCD null null Elevation 951 ft.Elev. Method Calc from DEM (USGS 7.5 min or equiv.)Drill Method Drill Fluid Address Use public supply/non-comm.-transient Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Stratigraphy Information Screen?MakeType Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 259743 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Minnesota Department of Health GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456563 4993728 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 07/05/2002Info/GPS from data Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031421780 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed FEEHAN, JIM 119 23 W 26 BAAADB 315 ft.315 ft.06/12/1986 Elevation 972 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20305 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 36 MEDIUMYEL/BLU SAND & CLAY 36 90 MEDIUMGRY/BRN CLAY 90 140 HARDGRAY CLAY ROCKS SHALE 140 182 MEDIUMGRY/GRN SHALE 182 240 HARDGREEN SANDROCK 240 315 HARDWHITE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 197 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6 197in. To ft. 4 315in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 197Open Hole From ft. To ft.315 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 197 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 421780 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MCDONALD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 06/12/1986 ft.55 hrs.3 Pumping at 50 g.p.m. 75 feet East Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 06/16/1986 18 KL 1 230 1884 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Mc Alpine's Well Co.27186 MCALPINE, G. Remarks St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City/Mazomanie Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 182 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456421 4993592 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031470764 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 02/02/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CHANNEL, ED 119 23 W 26 ABBAAA 254 ft.254 ft.11/16/1990 Elevation 957 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20209 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 24 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 24 42 MEDIUMBLUE GRAVEL 42 68 M.HARDGRAY GRAVEL/ CLAY 68 89 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 89 150 MEDIUMGRAY CLAY 150 170 MEDIUMBLUE SHALE 170 200 MEDIUMBLU/GRY SANDROCK 200 254 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 204 20in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 204in. To ft. 4.2 254in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 204Open Hole From ft. To ft.254 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 204 ft. bentonite ft. 204 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 470764 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.53 Measureland surface 11/16/1990 ft.70 hrs.3 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 feet Northwes Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 11/20/1990 50CN1-0.5 230 1290 Submersible X Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT JR. A Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 170 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456652 4993619 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 08/22/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031479959 County Hennepin Entry Date 03/29/1993 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed PATNODE, 119 23 W 26 ABBBBB 252 ft.252 ft.07/13/1992 Elevation 973 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20239 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 28 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 28 76 MEDIUMBLUE CLAY 76 130 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 130 210 MEDIUMGRAY SANDSTONE 210 252 M.HARDGRY/GRN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 217 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 217in. To ft. 4 252in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 217Open Hole From ft. To ft.252 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 217 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 479959 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model 4X5.5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade MYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 07/13/1992 ft.80 hrs.14 Pumping at 35 g.p.m. 50 feet Southwes Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 08/02/1992 J712 0.75 230 1293 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 CORDELL, T. Remarks Tunnel City Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 210 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456480 4993615 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031511975 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed MALJEWSKI, 119 23 W 26 ABABBC 230 ft.230 ft.03/05/1990 Elevation 958 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20201 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 27 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 27 42 BLUE GRAVEL 42 67 M.HARDGRAY GRAVEL / CLAY 67 89 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 89 149 MEDIUMGRAY SHALE 149 171 MEDIUMBLU/GRY SANDROCK/ SHALE 171 230 HARDBLU/GRY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 176 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 176in. To ft. 4 230in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 176Open Hole From ft. To ft.230 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 76 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 511975 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model 5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX GOULD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 03/05/1990 ft.75 hrs.2.5 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 03/13/1990 11AM07-412 0.75 1590 Submersible X Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, A. Remarks Jordan-St.Lawrence Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 149 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456686 4993599 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031551597 County Hennepin Entry Date 12/10/1996 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 ACAACD 240 ft.240 ft.02/22/1995 Elevation 970 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20150 75TH AV N CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 31 BROWN SANDY CLAY 31 56 BROWN SAND & CLAY 56 70 SOFTGRAY SAND & GRAVEL 70 86 SOFTGRAY CLAY 86 135 GRAY FINE SAND 135 150 SOFTGRAY CLAY 150 168 BROWN FRANCONIA 168 180 SOFTLT. GRY FRANCONIA 180 240 GREEN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 180 10.7in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.7 30in. To ft. 6.2 101in. To ft. 4 240in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 181Open Hole From ft. To ft.240 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To neat cement ft. 180 ft.2.3 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 551597 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 BAKERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SNAPPY At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeXX GRUNDFOS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 02/22/1995 ft.85 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 100 feet North Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 03/01/1995 25S15-9 1.5 230 26105 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Renner E.H. Well 71015 PRAUGHT, V. Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 168 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456798 4993127 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031563093 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/08/1997 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed HICKS 119 23 W 26 AACCCA 253 ft.253 ft.09/17/1996 Elevation 978 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 7545 COMMERCE ST CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 17 SOFTYELLOW CLAY 17 36 MEDIUMGRAY GRAVEL 36 64 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY & GRAVEL 64 92 MEDIUMRED/BRN CLAY 92 103 MEDIUMGRAY CLAY HARD STICKY 103 172 BLUE SHALE 172 176 MEDIUMLT. BLU SANDSTONE / SHALE 176 205 MEDIUMBRN/TAN SHALE HARD STICKY 205 208 BROWN SANDSTONE / SHALE 208 212 MEDIUMBLUE SANDSTONE GREEN 212 237 HARDVARIED SANDSTONE PINK 237 253 HARDVARIED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 180in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 30in. To ft. 6.2 180in. To ft. 3 253in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 180Open Hole From ft. To ft.253 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 30 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 563093 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SU4X5.5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.68 Measureland surface 09/17/1996 ft.68 hrs.2 Pumping at 60 g.p.m. 162 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 10/17/1996 A 35-300 3 230 35126 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Stevens Well Co.27194 NEMITZ, T. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 172 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456903 4993251 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031592153 County Hennepin Entry Date 06/04/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed STEINE, GENE 119 23 W 26 ABDBAD 83 ft.83 ft.02/03/1997 Elevation 976 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20125 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 15 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY / GRAVEL 15 69 MEDIUMBROWN SAND / GRAVEL 69 83 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 73in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 83in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make CRESTLINEXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 18in.ft.7310 83 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft.40 73 ft. high solids bentonite ft. 40 ft.2.5 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 592153 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MEYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 02/03/1997 ft.70 hrs.3 Pumping at 15 g.p.m. 75 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 02/03/1997 J711P 0.75 230 1268 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456764 4993385 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031594127 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/21/1997 Quad Hamel Update Date 09/08/2020 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCDAC 195 ft.195 ft.03/07/1997 Elevation 981 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20400 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 30 SOFTBROWN CLAY 30 84 SOFTGRAY SILTY CLAY 84 130 MEDIUMRED CLAY 130 175 MEDIUMGRAY SANDSTONE / SHALE 175 193 MEDIUMWHT/BLU CLAY / ROCK 193 195 HARDRED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 175in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 30in. To ft. 6 195in. To ft. plasticScreen?MakeXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 10in.ft.17520 195 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SEALED 07-19-2005 BY 30714 Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 30 ft.3 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 594127 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 03/07/1997 ft.85 hrs.2 Pumping at 25 g.p.m. 50 feet Northwes Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 03/12/1997 0.75 230 10100 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Bergerson-Caswell 27058 HOLMEN, G. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-St. 175 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456230 4992897 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031597473 County Hennepin Entry Date 06/04/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 ABDAAC 251 ft.251 ft.07/24/1997 Elevation 974 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20110 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 8 BROWN SAND 8 13 CLAY 13 36 BROWN GRAVEL 36 68 CLAY W/ GRAVEL 68 95 BROWN STICKY CLAY 95 181 GRAY HARD & STICKY CLAY 181 192 RED/BLU SHALE W/ SANDSTONE 192 251 BLUE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 233in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.5 30in. To ft. 6.5 191in. To ft. 4.5 233in. To ft. 4 251in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 233Open Hole From ft. To ft.251 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 40 ft.3 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 597473 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade STA-RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.70 Measureland surface 06/06/1997 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. 50 feet North Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 07/24/1997 0.75 120 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, R. Remarks St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 192 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456843 4993385 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031607761 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/03/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CHRISTOPHER, 119 23 W 26 ABADBA 178 ft.178 ft.11/15/1997 Elevation 965 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20175 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 59 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 59 76 SOFTGRAY CLAY 76 140 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 140 178 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 158in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 178in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make CRESTLINEXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 15in.ft.15810 178 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 35 ft.2 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 607761 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SAU45.5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MEYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 11/15/1997 ft.120 hrs.2 Pumping at 35 g.p.m. 50 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 11/15/1997 3NFL7-12 0.75 230 12120 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456819 4993510 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031638346 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/19/2000 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed PATNODE, TOM 119 23 W 26 ABBBBB 167 ft.167 ft.12/30/1999 Elevation 974 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20239 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 86 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 86 94 SOFTBROWN CLAY/ GRAVEL 94 155 MEDIUMGRAY SAND/GRAVEL 155 167 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 157 2in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 167in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make BIG FOOTXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 15in.ft.15710 167 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft.0 40 ft.4 Sacks cuttings ft.40 157 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 638346 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASSPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX STA RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.64 Measureland surface 12/30/1999 ft.130 hrs.3 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 01/11/2000 1 230 12100 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller A. Ruppert Well 30714 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456472 4993615 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031728690 County Hennepin Entry Date 01/02/2007 Quad Hamel Update Date 02/04/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 07/24/2006 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCACD 187 ft.187 ft.09/21/2005 Elevation 979 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To WeldedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20410 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 24 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 24 146 MEDIUMGRAY ROCKY CLAY 146 164 MEDIUMGRAY SAND & ROCK 164 187 SOFTVARIED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 167 0in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.7 20in. To ft. 6.2 187in. To ft. plasticScreen?MakeXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 10in.ft. 187 ft.ft. 4 15in.ft.16720 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 50 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 728690 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 09/15/2005 ft.150 hrs.2 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 50 feet Northeas Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 09/21/2006 1.5 220 20100 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Bergerson Caswell, Inc. 1767 LESTER, T. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456207 4992945 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031728994 County Hennepin Entry Date Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 09/26/2005 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCDAB 250 ft.250 ft.07/19/2005 Elevation 980 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20400 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 32 SOFTBROWN CLAY & GRAVEL 32 81 SOFTGRAY CLAY & GRAVEL 81 130 MEDIUMRED CLAY 130 178 MEDIUMGRAY SANDROCK / SHALE 178 250 MEDIUMGREEN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 186 0in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 186in. To ft. 4.5 250in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 186Open Hole From ft. To ft.250 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft.0 40 ft.3 Sacks cuttings ft.40 166 ft. neat cement ft.166 186 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 728994 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASSPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX STA RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.60 Measureland surface 07/19/2005 ft.150 hrs.3 Pumping at 20 g.p.m. 50 feet South Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 07/19/2005 0.75 230 12100 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller A. Ruppert Well 30714 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Jordan-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Jordan-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-Tunnel 178 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456224 4992902 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031755332 County Hennepin Entry Date 05/14/2008 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/24/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 04/22/2008 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed GAZELLE 119 23 W 26 ABDDAB 252 ft.252 ft.01/15/2008 Elevation 975 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Qwik gel Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20115 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 16 YELLOW CLAY 16 34 GRAY SAND / GRAVEL 34 52 ORANGE GRAVEL W/ CLAY 52 106 GRAY CLAY 106 162 BROWN SHALE / SILTSTONE 162 209 BRN/GRN SILTSTONE 209 252 BRN/GRN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 172in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 172in. To ft. 4 252in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 172Open Hole From ft. To ft.252 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 42 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 755332 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SU4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AY MCDONALD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 12/28/2007 ft. hrs. Pumping at 75 g.p.m. 55 feet Northwes Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 12/29/2007 23075D3SJL 0.75 230 10105 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller TL Stevens Well Co., Inc. 1838 STEVENS, J. Remarks Jordan-St.Lawrence Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-Tunnel 162 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456839 4993303 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 11/16/2015Address verification Angled Drill Hole Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix E Feasibility Study Report Corcoran Farms Business Park Feasibility Study May 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 i Table of Contents CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project..........................................................................2.2 Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................2.3 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................2.4 Table 4: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.5 Table 5: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.5 Table 6: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 7: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 8: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 9: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control............................................................................................................................................2.7 Table 10: 8-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course...................................................3.3 Table 11: 12-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course..................................................3.4 Table 12: 8-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course.........................................................3.4 Table 13: 12-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course.......................................................3.5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Plan Figure 2: Water System Layout Figure 3: Scenario 2B Fire Flow Figure 4: Scenario 2B Pressure Figure 5: Scenario 5B Fire Flow Figure 6: Scenario 5B Pressure Figure 7: Scenario 6B Fire Flow Figure 8: Sewer Layout LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans Appendix B Stormwater Guidelines CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 1.0 Introduction MAY 2022 1.1 INTRODUCTION Lee and Associates is proposing to construct a business park consisting of five buildings totaling over 700,000 square feet. The site is consistent with the City’s Master Sewer and Water Plans and will develop approximately 70-acres in Southeast Corcoran that is currently agricultural. The main access will be on Larkin Road. The site layout is somewhat affected by a 50-foot gas-line easement crosses the site east/west along the southern portion of the property. This Feasibility Study is the basis for identifying infrastructure improvements to support the development and City infrastructure. The Feasibility Study is incorporated into an ongoing Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.1 TRANSPORTATION 2.1 BACKGROUND This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: · CSAH 10/CR 116 · CSAH 10/CSAH 50 · CR 116/Larkin Road · Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS For purpose of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed development is assumed to consist of the following uses: · Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse · Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse · Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse · Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse · Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by Larkin Road on the south, existing residential uses on the west and north, and existing commercial uses on the east. Near the site location, Larkin Road is a two-lane rural section roadway. CSAH 10, CSAH 50, and CR 116 are two lane roadways with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Blue Bonnet Drive is a local two-lane roadway. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are described below. CSAH 10/CR 116 - This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. CSAH 10/CSAH 50 - This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the eastbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and through movements. CR 116/Larkin Road - This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn bypass lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.2 Weekday traffic volume data was recorded at the existing intersections in March, 2022. Existing traffic volume data is presented later in this report. 2.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: · 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. · 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. · 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. · 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. · 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Office 145,278 SF 194 27 221 35 174 209 1575 Warehouse 581,118 SF 76 23 99 29 76 105 497 Totals 270 50 320 64 250 314 2072 Note: SF=square feet Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.3 The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: · 30 percent to/from the east on CSAH 10 · 30 percent to/from the south on CR 116 · 20 percent to/from the north on CR 116 · 10 percent to/from the west on CSAH 10 · 10 percent to/from the west on Larkin Road Development trips from Table 1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 10/CR 116 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 19 205 93 16 65 37 22 67 26 56 269 30 2027 No-Build 21 232 105 18 74 42 25 76 29 63 304 34 2027 Build 21 232 131 23 74 42 29 86 31 63 358 34 2040 No-Build 30 320 145 25 101 58 34 104 41 87 420 47 2040 Build 30 320 171 30 101 58 38 114 43 87 474 47 CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 1 - 167 - - - 72 40 - - 191 1 2027 No-Build 1 - 189 - - - 81 45 - - 216 1 2027 Build 1 - 189 - - - 81 49 - - 242 1 2040 No-Build 2 - 260 - - - 112 62 - - 298 2 2040 Build 2 - 260 - - - 112 66 - - 324 2 CR 116/Larkin Road EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 10 17 4 20 4 10 1 103 9 0 354 7 2027 No-Build 11 19 5 23 5 11 1 117 10 0 401 8 2027 Build 27 33 20 23 81 11 82 117 10 0 401 93 2040 No-Build 16 27 6 31 6 16 2 161 14 0 552 11 2040 Build 32 41 21 31 82 16 83 161 14 0 552 96 Larkin Rd/Blue Bonnet Dr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - 31 0 0 12 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 No-Build - 35 0 0 14 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 Build 23 35 0 0 14 200 0 0 0 92 0 11 2040 No-Build - 48 0 0 19 - 0 - 0 - - - 2040 Build 23 48 0 0 19 200 0 0 0 92 0 11 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.4 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 10/CR 116 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 35 106 32 19 251 49 105 336 15 34 83 35 2027 No-Build 40 120 36 21 284 55 119 380 17 38 94 40 2027 Build 40 120 41 23 284 55 143 430 22 38 107 40 2040 No-Build 55 165 50 30 391 76 164 524 23 53 129 55 2040 Build 55 165 55 32 391 76 188 574 28 53 142 55 CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 6 - 101 - - - 213 202 - - 53 4 2027 No-Build 7 - 114 - - - 241 229 - - 60 5 2027 Build 7 - 114 - - - 241 253 - - 65 5 2040 No-Build 9 - 158 - - - 332 315 - - 83 6 2040 Build 9 - 158 - - - 332 339 - - 88 6 CR 116/Larkin Road EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 8 6 5 12 11 4 6 417 26 7 126 16 2027 No-Build 9 7 6 14 12 5 7 472 29 8 143 18 2027 Build 88 77 81 14 30 5 27 472 29 8 143 38 2040 No-Build 12 9 8 19 17 6 9 650 41 11 197 25 2040 Build 91 79 83 19 35 6 29 650 41 11 197 45 Larkin Rd/Blue Bonnet Dr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - 19 0 0 33 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 No-Build - 21 0 0 37 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 Build 6 21 0 0 37 58 0 0 0 224 0 26 2040 No-Build - 30 0 0 51 - 0 - 0 - - - 2040 Build 6 30 0 0 51 58 0 0 0 224 0 26 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: · Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. · Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.5 · Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. · Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented below. 2022 Existing Table 4: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal B/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 No-Build Table 5: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.6 2027 Build Table 6: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/D A/D Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 No-Build Table 7: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 Build Table 8: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop B/F C/F Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic Signal Warrants at CR 116/Larkin Road As shown above, the eastbound movements operate at LOS F during the 2040 Build scenarios at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.7 The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on CR 116 is 50 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. Intersection Operations at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Table 9: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/B B/B 2040 Build B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. 2.6 FINDINGS · The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. · All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. · The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.8 · Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access · Short term – Intersection should be constructed as required per City practice for new development projects. Construct westbound left turn land and westbound right turn lane. Construct eastbound left turn lane. Construct southbound approach with a dedicated left turn land and a through/right turn lane. Long term – Construct eastbound right turn lane with additional development to the south. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.1 WATER 3.1 BACKGROUND The water supply for the Corcoran Farms Business Park development will be the same as planned for all of SE Corcoran. Under a contract to provide water service, Maple Grove will continue to supply SE Corcoran with up to a peak of 5 million gallons per day (MGD). Multiple service options were evaluated, each consisting of varying watermain layouts and sizes within and outside of the development. Evaluations were conducted using the computer modeling software WaterCAD, which simulates the water system’s response to average and peak demands and firefighting scenarios. Each condition creates different responses in the water system. The modeling results help to identify and evaluate the various options for supplying water to the Corcoran Farms Business Park development. It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran water supply analysis draft report (Stantec draft report dated April 5, 2022), this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed municipal well parcel within the development. Proposed Municipal Well Parcel CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.2 3.2 MODEL AND WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS A map of the pipe network that was used for this modeling work is shown on Figure 2. The water system performance was evaluated just before and after the point at which the future water tower and booster station would be constructed. Per the most recent SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis, a 1-million-gallon (MG) water tower would be constructed near the point at which the maximum day demand (MDD) reaches 1,250 gpm (1.8 MGD). This was the total demand placed on the modeled pipe network used for this study. The water tower was assumed to be constructed somewhere just east of the downtown area, and the booster station would be constructed concurrently with the tower at a location just inside Corcoran at the Maple Grove connection (i.e., near node J-C2 as shown on Figure 2). For modeling purposes, the hydraulic grade line at the Maple Grove Connection was assumed to be 1098 ft MSL (as confirmed by a review of the Maple Grove WaterCAD model), and for scenarios including the water tower, the water level within the tank was assumed to be 1146 ft MSL (i.e., three-quarters full). The southern boundary of Corcoran Farms Business Park coincides with the route of a planned 16-inch trunk main that is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system. This evaluation considers the construction of this trunk water main concurrent with this development, which provides the opportunity to open trench this pipe along the edge of the business park, thus avoiding future disturbance. This alternative is evaluated in Scenarios 3, 6 and 9. Scenarios 1, 4 and 7 evaluate fire flow and pressures within the development without any looping (connecting to the 12-inch near County Road 50), and Scenarios 2, 5 and 8 evaluate the looping proposed by the developer, between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North. Additionally, sub-scenarios were evaluated to determine the effect of different watermain diameters within the development (scenarios denoted with the suffix “a” included all 8-inch pipes within the development and those denoted with the suffix “b” include a 12-inch pipe bisecting the development from north to south), and the effect of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd), which will provide an additional distribution pipe between the Maple Grove connection and the Western Water Loop along County Road 116 (scenarios 4-6 were run with the 12-inch connection turned on in the model, but without the water tower and booster station). For commercial/industrial areas, a target fire flow of 3,000 gpm (3-hour duration) during the maximum day was assumed. New commercial/industrial buildings are assumed to be sprinklered and, as such, most of these buildings will ultimately have a lower acceptable target. However, 3,000 gpm is deemed a reasonable overall target, and allows for some conservatism in this safety-driven parameter. 3.3 SCENARIOS 1-3: WITHOUT PLANNED 12-INCH ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SHAMROCK GOLF COURSE All scenarios described in this section were performed with the planned 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11 turned off, reflecting current conditions. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.3 Scenarios 1a, 2a, and 3a evaluated the watermain looping within the development, with all three scenarios assuming an 8-inch main connecting to the 12-inch watermain near County Road 50 (J-D4) and extending to the southern edge of the development at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr (Node J-L4). Scenario 1a included no looped piping (a single dead-end pipe), while Scenario 2a included an 8-inch loop to the existing 8-inch stub on 75th Ave N (J-D9) and Scenario 3a included the 16- inch loop along Larkin Rd to connect J-L4 to the 16-inch main on County Road 116 (J-C11). The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 10. Table 10: 8-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 1a Scenario 2a Scenario 3a Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 59.3 1,998 59.3 1,978 59.3 1,951 J-D9 975 50.6 1,864 50.6 1,906 50.6 1,887 J-L1 980 48.4 1,192 48.4 1,685 48.4 1,856 J-L2 968 53.6 1,155 53.6 1,767 53.6 1,891 J-L3 972 51.9 1,042 51.9 1,768 51.9 1,862 J-L4 970 52.8 997 52.8 1,548 52.7 1,827 As shown in Table 10, maximum day pressures are within the ideal range of 45-60 psi. Modeling also indicates that during the peak hour (of the maximum day, a condition of rare occurrence), pressures in the downtown area fall by approximately 7-8 psi. This means the lowest expected pressure within Corcoran Farms Business Park for these scenarios is approximately 42 psi, which is above the recommended minimum of 35 psi. However, fire flows are below the 3,000-gpm target, even for the two looped scenarios. Note that J-D4, which is representative of most of the existing downtown nodes, is capped at approximately 2,000 gpm fire flow. Scenarios 1b, 2b, and 3b were the same as 1a, 2a, and 3a except that the model assumed 12-inch main instead of 8-inch main bisecting the development from J-D4 to J-L4. Connecting loops retained the same diameter pipe as before (8-inch between J-L3 and J-D9, and 16-inch between J-L4 and J-C11). The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 11. Figures 3 and 4 show the fire flow and pressure results, respectively, for Scenario 2b. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.4 Table 11: 12-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 1b Scenario 2b Scenario 3b Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 59.3 1,998 59.3 1,973 59.2 1,928 J-D9 975 50.6 1,864 50.6 1,918 50.6 1,903 J-L1 980 48.4 1,975 48.4 1,964 48.4 1,909 J-L2 968 53.6 1,975 53.6 1,962 53.6 1,900 J-L3 972 51.9 1,951 51.9 1,961 51.9 1,887 J-L4 970 52.8 1,927 52.8 1,961 52.7 1,877 As shown in Table 11, the 12-inch improved fire flow for the stubbed scenario (1a vs. 1b), but fire flows remain below the 3,000-gpm target for all scenarios. It is noted that most of the existing downtown nodes are capped at approximately 2,000 gpm fire flow, indicating a potential bottleneck within the system in conveying high flows from the Maple Grove connection to this general area within Corcoran. 3.4 SCENARIOS 4-6: WITH PLANNED 12-INCH ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SHAMROCK GOLF COURSE All scenarios described in this section were performed with the planned 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11 turned on, reflecting planned future conditions. Given the results of Scenarios 1-3, Scenarios 4-6 were evaluated to see if fire flows in the downtown area, including the Corcoran Farms Business Park, could be improved to meet the 3,000-gpm target. Scenarios 4a, 5a, and 6a were the same as 1a, 2a, and 3a except for the addition of the 12-inch along the north side of the golf course. All mains within Corcoran Farms Business Park were assumed to be 8- inch. The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 12. Table 12: 8-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 4a Scenario 5a Scenario 6a Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 60.6 3,161 60.6 3,555 60.6 3,603 J-D9 975 52 2,564 51.9 2,914 52 2,578 J-L1 980 49.7 1,337 49.8 2,058 49.8 2,425 J-L2 968 54.9 1,273 55 2,194 55 2,719 J-L3 972 53.2 1,136 53.2 2,138 53.3 3,080 J-L4 970 54.1 1,080 54.1 1,798 54.1 3,296 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.5 As shown in Table 12, maximum day pressures are marginally improved over those of Scenarios 1-3, improving by about 1 psi at all nodes. Modeling also indicates that during the peak hour (of the maximum day), pressures in the downtown area fall by approximately 3-4 psi. This means the lowest expected pressure within the Corcoran Farms Business Park for these scenarios is approximately 47 psi, which is above the recommended minimum of 35 psi. More importantly, fire flows in the downtown area approach or exceed the 3,000-gpm target. However, nodes within the Corcoran Farms Business Park remain short of the target, even for the looped scenarios (e.g., 2,425 gpm at J-L1 for Scenario 6a). This suggests that 8-inch watermain within the development is not sufficient to meet target fire flow prior to the construction of the water tower. Scenarios 4b, 5b, and 6b were the same as 4a, 5a, and 6a except that the model assumed 12-inch main instead of 8-inch main bisecting the development from J-D4 to J-L4. The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 13. Figures 5 and 6 show the fire flow and pressure results, respectively, for Scenario 5b. Figure 7 shows the fire flow results for Scenario 6b. Table 13: 12-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 4b Scenario 5b Scenario 6b Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 60.6 3,162 60.6 3,449 60.6 3,465 J-D9 975 52 2,564 51.9 3,043 52 2,584 J-L1 980 49.8 2,492 49.8 2,954 49.8 3,382 J-L2 968 54.9 2,492 55 2,992 55 3,366 J-L3 972 53.2 2,373 53.2 2,979 53.3 3,353 J-L4 970 54.1 2,322 54.1 2,860 54.1 3,344 As shown in Table 13, the results of Scenario 4b indicate that a non-looped distribution system within the development would not be acceptable from a fire flow perspective, in addition to water quality concerns associated with long dead ends. However, fire flow results for Scenarios 5b and 6b effectively meet or exceed the 3,000-gpm target for most nodes except those at dead end nodes (i.e., J-L4 for Scenario 5b and J-D9 for Scenario 6b). Note that in the case of J-L4, this dead-end stub would ultimately be connected to the planned trunk watermain along Larkin Rd. Comparing the results of Scenario 2b and Scenario 5b demonstrates the effect of the 12-inch main along the northern edge of Shamrock Golf Course – its construction would greatly improve available fire flows in and around downtown Corcoran, including Corcoran Farms Business Park. Although both looping options can provide the desired 3,000 gpm fire flow within the development once the 12-inch is installed along the golf course, Scenario 6b (with the 16-inch along Larkin Rd) provides approximately 400-500 gpm additional fire flow at each node within the business park. An additional benefit to this alternative is that it would avoid future disturbance along the edge of the business park when this trunk main ultimately needs to be constructed to serve the greater SE Corcoran water system. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.6 3.5 SCENARIOS 7-9: POST-TOWER AND BOOSTER STATION For scenarios 7-9, the same in-development looping and pipe sizing scenarios were modeled as described above, but with the water tower and booster station, along with the 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11, turned on. These scenarios represent the planned future conditions just after the construction of SE Corcoran’s first water tower, which is expected once total system MDD reaches approximately 1.8 MGD. For all scenarios with the water tower and booster station on, pressures within Corcoran Farms Business Park range from 72-80 psi on the maximum day. Apart from the non-looped scenarios with 8-inch dead ends, available fire flow exceeded the 3,000-gpm target for all nodes within downtown, including Corcoran Farms Business Park. These results indicate that adding the currently planned 1 MG tower with a hydraulic grade line of 1,156 feet (with the accompanying booster station) will provide acceptable results for all pressure and fire flow scenarios that were evaluated, with the exception of non-looped 8-inch dead ends. 3.6 FINDINGS The following key findings and recommendation are made: · Looping of watermain within the development is required; for example, by looping between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North, such as shown on the developer’s submitted utility plan, or by extending the planned 16-inch trunk watermain from County Road 116 along Larkin Rd and connecting to the development at the Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr intersection. · While fire flow within the business park is not necessarily a driver for installing the 16-inch main along Larkin Rd, the development presents an opportunity to open trench this pipe (which is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system) now to avoid future disturbance. · If the planned 16-inch trunk main along Larkin Rd is not constructed concurrently with this development, provide an easement for future construction of this trunk watermain along the development boundary on Larkin Rd. · 12-inch watermain within the development is required, running north-south through the development between connection to the 12-inch near County Road 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16-inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr. · Construction of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd) is critical to ensure future target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including Corcoran Farms Business Park. It is assumed that this pipe will be constructed prior to the first water tower in SE Corcoran, however timing is uncertain. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.7 · It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis draft report, this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 4.0 Sewer MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 4.1 SEWER 4.1 SEWER LAYOUT Sewer service for the proposed development will be via a tie-in to the existing 18-inch trunk sewer located near the northeast corner of the parcel. In accordance with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the developer will construct 18-inch sewer southward through the development to the southern parcel line along Larkin Road (Figure 8). Utilizing the two sewer slopes shown on Figure 8 should yield a sewer invert at Larkin Road that meets the target invert in the Comprehensive Plan (942.5). In addition to the primary 18-inch trunk sewer, two sewer stubs must also be constructed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 8). A 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west parcel line must be constructed at approximately the same installation depth as the 18-inch sewer (i.e., as deep as possible, allowing for proper tie-in at the tee manhole). This will provide service to new developments located to the west of this development. An 8-inch sewer lateral to the southeast corner of the parcel must also be constructed to serve the parcels located further east (e.g., future connection of Larkin Road parcels). The sewer invert at the southeast corner should be 950.0 (approximately 20-foot depth), and a drop manhole may be utilized at the tie-in to the 18-inch trunk sewer, as appropriate. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). This is the volume of wastewater that has been planned for in the MCES-approved Comprehensive Plan. This is particularly important given that the Rush Creek Reserve development (located north of this proposed development and downstream in the local sewershed) is in the process of building a new wastewater lift station to replace the previously used lift station on County Road 10. The new lift station is adequately sized to accommodate planned wastewater flows from this and other developments, but any unplanned increase could potentially exceed this lift station’s design capacity. Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. Where both sewer and potable water utilities are being installed in parallel, the easements must be wide enough to accommodate the required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines. Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18- inch sewer). 4.2 FINDINGS The following key findings and recommendations are made: · Developer to construct the 18-inch trunk sewer as shown on Figure 8. · Developer to construct the 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west and the 8-inch lateral sewer stub to the east as shown on Figure 1. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 4.0 Sewer MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 4.2 · Developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). · Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. · Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18-inch sewer). · Developer shall provide stubs to adjacent parcels. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 5.0 Water Resources MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 5.1 WATER RESOURCES 5.1 REGULATORY OVERVIEW Stormwater management regulations in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) the City’s Guidelines, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and MS4 requirements. Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which was reissued in October of 2021. Among other goals, both documents include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more state water quality standards. City guidelines lay out the required modeling parameters, preferred BMPs and some construction materials. City approval is required prior to application for the WMO approval process. Further City review occurs with construction plan approval process. 5.2 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE The proposed development is situated in the South Fork of Rush Creek watershed, and drains east, northwest and eventually north towards the City Park and the South Fork of Rush Creek. Existing land use in the proposed development is agricultural and topography is gently rolling/flat with a maximum topography difference of approximately 25 feet. The urbanizing MUSA areas undergo changes from agricultural to non-agricultural land use that presents challenges where land use will change from row crops to commercial/industrial. 5.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The development on the parcel was agricultural use of the land would cease, replaced by both pervious open space and impervious surfaces that will impact stormwater runoff. Although elimination of agriculture can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite ponding and filtration (Best Management Practices or BMPs), construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, rooftops, and sidewalks increase the volume to nearby surface waters. Turn lane improvements to HWY 55 and Pioneer Trail would also increase CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 5.0 Water Resources MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 5.2 impervious surface area and, like neighborhood roads and driveways, would require practices to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation is accomplished by aligning development plans with City requirements and WMO/MS4 stormwater regulations. Corcoran’s Local Plan, in agreement with the Commission’s WMP, requires that development plans over 1-acre disturbed area be submitted to the City and the Commission for review. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the developer’s plans for stormwater management during and after construction meet the Commission’s rules regarding the rate, volume and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, along with other rules regarding wetland alteration, erosion and sediment control and other aspects of surface water protection. The City focuses on rates of discharge, downstream impacts and long-term construction sustainability. This adherence to Commission rules on water quality (BMPs) is one of the strategies Corcoran has chosen to also meet its TMDL obligations to reduce nutrients. The implementation plan calls on Corcoran to apply these standards when land use changes, a strategy that is predicted to have the net result of improving, or not further degrading, the water quality of stormwater runoff. Stormwater modeling guidelines are in Appendix B and may be updated prior to development’s final construction plan approval. Complementing the Local Plan, Corcoran’s SWPPP requires plan review, construction site erosion and sediment control, and post-construction stormwater management. Construction site inspections by the City’s consultant will begin with land-disturbing activity and end with final stabilization of exposed soils and City acceptance of the development. After construction, the City would enter an agreement with tany developer’s common area association or similar group to ensure that stormwater Best Management Practices continue to function and are maintained as intended. 5.4 FINDINGS Onsite · Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development to meet City guidelines and in accordance with regulations of the WMO. · To move towards meeting load reduction goals, the City’s Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development. · Ponding areas and limits will be closely reviewed for adjacent properties Offsite Offsite conveyance impacts for the development will be further explored as follows: · Drainage path along the north side of to ensure CR 50 conveyance is free flowing The City is exploring a stormwater fee that may be incorporated in 2022. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 6.0 Financing MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 6.1 FINANCING Financing options of the development necessary for infrastructure and to mitigate impacts typically follow the approach of: · On-site infrastructure is managed by the developer · Trunk sewer, water and potentially stormwater area charges are due at time of final plat. o Oversizing for sewer and water piping receive credit against the TLAC fees associated with piping, · Off-site projects are typically managed by the by City (engineering, bidding and construction management) through an escrow provided by developer. The financial package will be further detailed and negotiated as the project moves forward and culminates in the overall Developer Agreement with the overall preliminary plat approval which is updated for each phase of the development. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for other developments in Corcoran. Transportation · The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. · All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. · The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. · Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access Short term – Intersection should be constructed as required per City practice for new development projects. Construct westbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane. Construct eastbound left turn lane. Construct southbound approach with a dedicated left turn land and a through/right turn lane. Long term – Construct eastbound right turn lane with additional development to the south. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.2 Water The following key findings and recommendation are made: · Looping of watermain within the development is required; for example, by looping between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North, such as shown on the developer’s submitted utility plan, or by extending the planned 16-inch trunk watermain from County Road 116 along Larkin Rd and connecting to the development at the Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr intersection. · While fire flow within the business park is not necessarily a driver for installing the 16-inch main along Larkin Rd, the development presents an opportunity to open trench this pipe (which is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system) now to avoid future disturbance. · If the planned 16-inch trunk main along Larkin Rd is not constructed concurrently with this development, provide an easement for future construction of this trunk watermain along the development boundary on Larkin Rd. · 12-inch watermain within the development is required, running north-south through the development between connection to the 12-inch near County Road 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16-inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr. · Construction of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd) is critical to ensure future target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including Corcoran Farms Business Park. It is assumed that this pipe will be constructed prior to the first water tower in SE Corcoran, however timing is uncertain. · It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis draft report, this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. Sewer The following key findings and recommendations are made: · Developer to construct the 18-inch trunk sewer as shown on Figure 8. · Developer to construct the 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west and the 8-inch lateral sewer stub to the east as shown on Figure 1. · Developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). · Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.3 · Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18-inch sewer). · Developer shall provide stubs to adjacent parcels Water Resources Onsite · Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development to meet City guidelines and in accordance with regulations of the WMO. · To move towards meeting load reduction goals, the City’s Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development. · Ponding areas and limits will be closely reviewed for adjacent properties Offsite Offsite conveyance impacts for the development will be further explored as follows: · Drainage path along the north side of to ensure CR 50 conveyance is free flowing The City is exploring a stormwater fee that may be incorporated in 2022. FIGURES Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckPage 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: 2. Data Sources: Loucks 3. Background: Site Plan Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Site Plan 1 EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE BUILDING B FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=119,462 LOT SIZE=387,843 PARKING STALLS=238 BUILDING A FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=77,116 LOT SIZE=267,389 PARKING STALLS=161 BUILDING C FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=168,517 LOT SIZE=428,922 PARKING STALLS=236 BUILDING D FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=97,055 LOT SIZE=361,694 PARKING STALLS=125 751.0 159.0 120.1 18.0 24.0 648.1 260.0 220.0 463.0 485.0 159.0 265.0 492.0 224.0 120.0 32.1 18.0 120.6 120.0 32.0 18.0 24.0 120.0120.0 129.9 24.024.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE & LOADING DOCK ENTRANCE DRIVE LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCKLOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL LOADING DOCK ACCESS EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING LOADING DOCK AND EMPLOYEE ACCESS 20' PARKING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACK STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND 18.0 18.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 24.0 17.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 L0T LINE L0T LINE L0T LINE 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL PARKING STALLS=238 10% OFFICE=60 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=72 STALLS 20% OFFICE=120 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=64 STALLS (ENOUGH STALLS FOR 20 80) PARKING STALLS=161 10% OFFICE=39 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=47 STALLS 20% OFFICE=78 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=42 STALLS (ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) PARKING STALLS=125 10% OFFICE=49 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=59 STALLS 20% OFFICE=97 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=52 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 20 80) PARKING STALLS=236 10% OFFICE=85 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=102 STALLS 20% OFFICE=169 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=90 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) RETAINING WALL L0T LINE L0T LINE CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN RETAINING WALL 18.018.018.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 BUILDING E FFE=974.00 LOADING DOCK=970.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=264,246 LOT SIZE=1,079,874 PARKING STALLS=341 PARKING STALLS=341 10% OFFICE=132 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=158 STALLS 20% OFFICE=264 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=141 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) 24.0 18.0 18.0 FUTURE STREET EXTENSION TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC LOADING DOCK ACCESS N SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 LOUCKS W:\2021\21442\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 01 /24 / 2022 11:55 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION LARKIN ROAD FEASIBILITY CORCORAN, MN LEE & ASSOCIATES 5353 GAMBLE DRIVE, SUITE 106 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 SITE PLAN C2-1 23 CIVIL LEGEND Anoka County Carver County Dakota County Hennepin County Ramsey County Scott County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 8'' Pipe from J-D4 to J-L4 for "a" Scenarios; 12'' Pipe for "b" Scenarios 8'' from J-L3 to J-D9 on for Scenarios 2,5,8 16'' from J-L4 to J-C11 on for Scenarios 3,6,9 12'' from J-C11 to J-C15 off for Scenarios 1-3 Booster Pump off for Scenarios 1-6 Booster Pump on for Scenarios 7-9 Tower 1 off for Scenarios 1-6 HGL=1146 (3/4 full) for Scenarios 7-9 4567101 456747 456710 4567101 4567116 456710 4567116 Zirc onLaN62nd Pl VagabondLa N66t hPl N 65th Pl Ur b andaleLa Vagabond La Horseshoe Tr Pinto Dr6 3rd Pl Foxberry Dr67th Ave NOldSturbridge DrCommerceStCommerceSt WTro y L a N68 th A ve N 64t h A v e N 63rd Ave N Settlers Rd 6 3rd P lN Urban d aleLaMedi n aLa keDrZirco n L a 6 2nd A v eHunter Rd FieldstoneBlvd 81st P l Vag a b o n d L a P a r k Trail DrUr b a ndaleL a NTrail La 68t h Pl N Olde Sturbridge Rd 66th Ave N HunterL a 81st Pl N 75th Ave N Elm S tValleyVi e wRdCSAH 101Hackamore RdSnyder RdBass Lake Rd Ol d S e t t l e r s R d A bil e n e L a CSAH 10 Troy LaHackamore Rd BrocktonLa NCSAH 50 Gleason RdBlue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd CS A H 1 0 Maple Hill RdCR-116Pump 1 T-1 Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 J-C1 J-C2 J-C3 J-C4 J-C16 J-D5 J-D10 J-D3 J-R2 J-R27 J-R24 J-R17 J-R19 J-R16 J-R5 J-D6 J-D7 J-R8 J-R9 J-R6 J-R7 J-R15 J-R10 J-R11 J-R14 J-R12 J-R13 J-R1 J-R3 J-R20 J-R21 J-D8 J-D9 J-D1 J-D2 J-R22 J-R23 J-D4 J-R18 J-R26 J-R4 J-C13 J-C11 J-C10 J-C15 J-L4 J-C19J-W1 J-W5 J-W9 J-W8 J-C20 J-W2 J-W4 J-W7 J-W6 J-R28 J-R30 J-R29 J-R31 J-R32 J-C14 J-C12 J-B1 J-B2 J-B3 J-R25 J-C22 J-W10 J-B4 J-B5 J-B6 J-B7 J-S6 J-S7 J-S8 J-S9 J-S10 J-S11 J-S15 J-S14 J-S13 J-S12 J-S4 J-S5 J-S3 J-S2 J-S1 J-W11 J-L1 J-L2 J-L3 J-S4 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Larkin Industrial Development Municipal Boundary Parcels 8'' Watermain 12'' Watermain 16'' Watermain 20" Watermain 24'' Watermain !(Water Nodes !(Pump !(Tank !A Wells Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:14,400 0 1,200 2,400 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Water System Layout 2 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County $$ $ $ $$$$$$$$$$$!>!> !>!> Existing 18" Sewer 456710456750 BuckskinTrCSAH 10 75th Ave N Larkin Rd Auger Ave Larkin Rd CSAH 50 12'' Stub @ 0.22% 8'' Stub @ 0.40% 18'' @ 0.20% 18'' @ 0.15% Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Project Area County Parcels $Existing Sewer Existing Sanitary Manhole $Proposed Sewer Lines !>Proposed Manholes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Aerial Photograph (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05T119N, R23W, S25 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Sewer Layout 8 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAugerAve CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH 1 0 6 8 th Pl N 75th Ave N Bass L a k e R d Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 2,055.1 gpm 1,983.3 gpm 1,803.5 gpm 1,962.7 gpm 1,925.6 gpm 1,793.3 gpm 1,888.8 gpm 1,918.0 gpm 1,986.7 gpm 1,987.4 gpm 1,973.4 gpm 3,977.4 gpm 1,783.4 gpm 3,243.1 gpm 1,960.8 gpm 1,249.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,120.6 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 2,597.8 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,845.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 1,987.6 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,993.5 gpm 1,995.6 gpm 1,995.6 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,996.8 gpm 1,997.8 gpm 2,003.5 gpm 2,044.3 gpm 2,011.3 gpm 1,747.2 gpm 2,046.8 gpm2,046.3 gpm 1,963.9 gpm 1,962.4 gpm 1,960.8 gpm 2,026.9 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 2b Fire Flow 3 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH10 6 8 th Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake Rd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd46.7 psi 50.0 psi 63.8 psi 53.4 psi 54.9 psi 48.4 psi 51.5 psi 51.5 psi 50.2 psi 49.3 psi 50.6 psi 52.4 psi 52.4 psi 59.3 psi 51.4 psi 38.0 psi 46.4 psi 51.9 psi 47.4 psi 50.0 psi 48.4 psi 45.6 psi 55.1 psi 48.6 psi 55.1 psi 43.0 psi 46.5 psi 55.2 psi 57.1 psi 53.6 psi 53.6 psi 54.1 psi 61.4 psi 61.4 psi 53.6 psi 50.6 psi 50.6 psi 59.3 psi 58.1 psi 54.9 psi 64.0 psi 54.2 psi58.9 psi 48.4 psi 53.6 psi 51.9 psi 58.0 psi Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pressure !(45-65 psi !(30-45 psi Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 2b Pressure 4 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH10 6 8 th Pl N 75th Ave N Bass L a k eRd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,884.0 gpm 3,406.8 gpm 3,299.1 gpm 3,708.4 gpm 3,610.0 gpm 2,210.4 gpm 3,531.4 gpm 3,043.3 gpm 3,762.0 gpm 3,109.0 gpm 3,448.9 gpm 4,332.7 gpm 3,240.3 gpm 4,427.6 gpm 2,859.5 gpm 1,408.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,116.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,103.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,844.5 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,318.1 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,220.1 gpm 3,175.4 gpm 3,175.4 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,065.4 gpm 2,938.4 gpm 3,128.4 gpm 3,845.4 gpm 2,488.3 gpm 1,953.7 gpm 3,478.6 gpm3,858.4 gpm 2,954.3 gpm 2,992.0 gpm 2,979.0 gpm 3,415.9 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 5b Fire Flow 5 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrCommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH 1 0 6 8 th Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake Rd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill RdMaple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 46.7 psi 50.0 psi 63.8 psi 54.6 psi 56.3 psi 49.8 psi 52.8 psi 52.8 psi 51.5 psi 50.7 psi 51.9 psi 53.7 psi 53.7 psi 60.6 psi 51.4 psi 39.4 psi 46.0 psi 53.2 psi 48.6 psi 50.0 psi 48.4 psi 45.4 psi 55.0 psi 49.4 psi 55.1 psi 42.9 psi 46.4 psi 55.2 psi 58.4 psi 54.9 psi 54.9 psi 55.4 psi 62.7 psi 62.7 psi 54.9 psi 51.9 psi 51.9 psi 60.6 psi 59.3 psi 56.2 psi 65.3 psi 55.4 psi60.2 psi 49.8 psi 55.0 psi 53.2 psi 59.3 psi Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pipes Pressure !(65-85 psi !(45-65 psi !(30-45 psi Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 5b Pressure 6 Note: Pressures for Scenario 6b are similar Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH10 6 8 th Pl N 75th Ave N Bass L a k eRd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,674.7 gpm 3,491.7 gpm 3,329.0 gpm 3,502.8 gpm 3,435.2 gpm 2,247.3 gpm 3,386.9 gpm 2,584.4 gpm 3,545.3 gpm 3,256.8 gpm 3,465.4 gpm 4,337.8 gpm 3,296.6 gpm 4,498.7 gpm 3,344.1 gpm 1,409.2 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,117.2 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,274.8 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,844.6 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,501.1 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,511.9 gpm 3,463.6 gpm 3,402.4 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,326.0 gpm 3,165.0 gpm 3,397.2 gpm 3,634.3 gpm 2,596.3 gpm 1,983.4 gpm 3,648.0 gpm3,647.8 gpm 3,382.3 gpm 3,366.1 gpm 3,352.6 gpm 3,559.4 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pipes Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 6b Fire Flow 7 APPENDIX A Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans !O !O !O #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #*City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPio n e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Ro a d 1 0 Horseshoe Trl Co u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersR d Stie g R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd Morin Lake Scott Lake Jubert Lake Goose Lake Cook Lake 456710 R u s h C reekRushCreek South F o r k Ru sh Creek SouthForkR u sh C r eek2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\Trunk Water System.mxd Date: 1/15/2019 Time: 1:36:40 PM User: ShuJC0243 Existing WatermainProposed Watermain !O Potential Water Tower Locations #*Existing Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #*Proposed Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #* Emergency Connection withNeighboring Communities(Normally Closed) #*Potential Water Storage #*Potential Booster StationPotential Future Well Exploration AreasMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAFuture MUSA Expansion AreaParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 9-2Trunk Water System 137 !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H #* Lift Station 2 and Existing Forcemain will not be needed in Proposed Condition City of Maple GroveCity of Medina Morin Lake Goose Lake County Road 116Horseshoe Trl BridlePathAbilene Ln Homestead Trl C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 County Road 50 GleasonPkwyWillow DrHunterRdCorcoranTrlWMaple Hill RdCorcoranTrlEMohawk DrTrail Haven RdLarkin RdCain RdO ld Se t t l e r s RdKalk RdMeister Rd Schutte Pl Strehler RdBlue Bonnet DrS outh F o rk R u s h C r e e k SE-A SE-A SE-O SE-AO SE-AP SE-AQ SE-AT SE-ASSE-AR SE-D SE-K SE-M SE-C SE-I SE-H SE-B SE-F SE-E SE-G SE-N SE-T SE-L SE-S SE-J SE-R SE-Q SE-P SE-AM SE-V SE-ZSE-Y SE-U SE-X SE-W SE-AESE-AJ SE-AC SE-AB SE-AD SE-AASE-AK SE-AU SE-AV SE-AISE-AHSE-AG SE-AF SE-18 SE-36 (LS) SE-37 SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 SE-4 SE-5 SE-6 SE-7SE-8 SE-9 SE-10 SE-11 SE-12 SE-13 SE-14 SE-15 SE-16 SE-17 SE-19 SE-20 SE-21 SE-22SE-23 SE-24 SE-25 SE-26 SE-27 SE-28 SE-29 SE-30 SE-31 SE-32 SE-33 SE-34 (LS) Elm Creek Interceptor SE-35 MCES Lift Station 8'' 1 2 ' ' 15'' 6''18''8''18''8''1 2 ' ' 8''15''8''15' '10''15"6''8''15"10''18''18''15''30''15''18''12"10''12''1 5 ' '10''8''12''(10''Eq)30''15''12''15"15''10'' 18'' 1 2 ' ' 8'' 456710 456750 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1,800 0 1,800900 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\SE Proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer.mxd Date: 1/15/2019 Time: 1:32:33 PM User: ShuJC0243!Existing Gravity !Proposed Gravity !Proposed Gravity (Lateral)Existing ForcemainProposed ForcemainExisting MCES Forcemain(Interim Size Shown) #*MCES Lift Station !H Sewer Node (LS) = Lift StationSewer SubdistrictsMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 7-3Proposed Trunk SanitarySewer System - SE District 117 APPENDIX B Stormwater Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development March 2019 Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information · Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries · Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. · Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project · Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has inputs that can vary by user. To minimize resubmittals, review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. · Electronic model shall be submitted · Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) · Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 · Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. · SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration · The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised · Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified · A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation · If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. · If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins · Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event · Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly · Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). · Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. · CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features · Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from increased impervious via development · Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs · The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the EOF · EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow · Overland EOFs are preferred, however if a second pipe serves as an EOF then modeling will include a 100-year event using the second pipe (EOF) as the only outlet (primary outlet plugged). Rear Yards · Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile. Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Sump Connections · Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection · Others will have access to rear yard stormsewer. Offsite Impacts Adjacent Parcels · City will review adjacent parcels (downstream and upstream) for impacts from volume, point discharge, etc. and may require off site improvements. City will assist in coordination of any off site work. · Off site water quality improvement projects may be determined by the City for assistance with compliance with City’s TMDL approach of implementing improvements upon development. · FEMA modifications may be necessary due to development and implemented by City. Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix F DNR NHIS Concurrence and USFWS IPaC Query Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 1 of 6 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: Corcoran Farms Business Park Project Proposer: JMMK, LLC (JMMK) Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Structure Removal or Bridge Removal;Wetland impacts (e.g., discharge, runoff, sedimentation, fill, excavation) TRS: T119 R23 S26 County(s): Hennepin DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: State EAW Project Description: The Project proposes to construct an industrial park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,000 square feet. Project components include ... Existing Land Uses: The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. Surrounding land uses include commercial/industrial uses to the east, agricultural ... Landcover / Habitat Impacted: The Project will convert existing agricultural land into an industrial park. It is anticipated that tree clearing (approx. 0.75-1 acre) will be required. Waterbodies Affected: A DNR Public Water Watercourse (County Ditch 16) extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Seven wetlands were delineated within the Project ... Groundwater Resources Affected: No impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Species of Special Concern Comments Recommendations Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 2 of 6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 April 29, 2022 Natural Heritage Review #: 2022-00293 Erin Sejkora Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 7500 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300 Golden Valley , MN 55427-4886 RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park See Cover Page for location and project details. Dear Erin Sejkora, As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Based on this review, the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all seven of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided during the months of June and July. Ecologically Significant Area No ecologically significant areas have been documented in the vicinity of the project. State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No state-listed endangered or threatened species have been documented in the vicinity of the project. State-Listed Species of Special Concern Taxonomic Group Common Name Scientific Name Water Regime Habitat Federal Status Vertebrate Animal Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Littoral Zone of Lake, Marsh 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 3 of 6 The above table identifies state-listed species of special concern that have been documented in the vicinity of your project. If suitable habitat for any of these species occurs within your project footprint or activity impact area, the project may negatively impact those species. To avoid impacting state- listed species of special concern, the DNR recommends modifying the location of project activities to avoid suitable habitat or modifying the timing of project activities to avoid the presence of the species. Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. For further assistance, please contact the appropriate DNR Regional Nongame Specialist or Regional Ecologist. Species-specific comments, if any, appear below. Federally Listed Species The Natural Heritage Information System does not contain any records for federally listed species within one mile of the proposed project. However, to ensure compliance with federal law, please conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. 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. 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 and the project description provided on the cover page. If project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 4 of 6 Links: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 5 of 6 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 6 of 6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 7500 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300, Golden Valley MN 55427-4886 April 29, 2022 File: 227704868 Attention: NHIS Review Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 Saint Paul, MN 55155 Good afternoon, Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) on behalf of JMMK, LLC (JMMK) is assisting the City of Corcoran with developing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park (Project). The Project is located on an approximately 70-acre parcel at 20130 Larkin Road in the City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota in Township 119N, Range 23W, Section 26 (Project Area; Figure 1). The purpose of this letter is to seek concurrence on the determinations of state- listed species within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. Project Description The Project proposes to construct an industrial park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,000 square feet. Project components include construction of warehouse/office buildings, parking areas, access roads, trail facility, sewer/water utility improvements, and stormwater ponds, Demolition of existing farm buildings and structures will be required. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. Seven wetlands were delineated within the Project Area, primarily on the outer edges of the Project Area boundary. Impacts to wetland will be minimized to the extent possible. It is anticipated that the Project would primarily impact wetlands in the center portion of the Project Area. A DNR Public Water Watercourse extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Figure 1 shows water resources and wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Area. The surrounding land use includes agricultural use to the west and southwest; an industrial business park to the east; and residents that border the south, west, and north of the Project Area. NHIS Review Stantec used it’s Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) Limited License Agreement (LA-1005) in March 2022 to identify species and habitats within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. Based on a review on the MDNR NHIS, one state-listed species that is known to occur or potentially occur within the Project Area is the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator; state special concern species). The NHIS informs of habitats such as native plant communities, Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEAs), and biodiversity sites within the Project Area and within a one-mile buffer. April 29, 2022 NHIS Review Page 2 of 3 Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request • No native plant communities are found within the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. • No RSEAs were identified within the Project Area, but one RSEA with outstanding significance was identified 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Area. • No sites of biodiversity significance were identified within the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eggs. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers. Other threats include degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swam was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population. (DNR 2022)1. The Project Area consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitat for the trumpeter swan such as small ponds and lakes. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with an unnamed waterbody which is approximately 0.85 miles southeast of the Project Area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Project will have no impact on the trumpeter swam. Conclusion The Project Area does not contain potential suitable habitat for listed plants, animals, native plant communities, and other rare features. Therefore, it is not anticipated that significant impacts to state-listed species or habitat would result from the proposed industrial park. Per Stantec’s license agreement and the requirements of the state environmental review, Stantec is requesting the DNR’s concurrence with our review and assessment of the potential impacts from the Project on known species documented in the NHIS database. The specific NHIS data evaluated as part of this review will not be distributed, mapped, or used within the Scoping EAW document or publicly distributed. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763.252.6802 or Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com should you have any questions. Thank you for your time. 1 DNR 2022b. Rare Species Guide Trumpeter Swan. Available at: Cygnus buccinator: Trumpeter Swan | Rare Species Guide | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. April 29, 2022 NHIS Review Page 3 of 3 Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Erin Sejkora Project Manager, Senior Planner Phone: 763.252.6802 Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com Attachment: Project Location Figure Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_!(!($+50 $+116 $+10 75th Ave NCain RdOl d S e t t l ers R dTrail La 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Abilene L a Gleason RdWCorcoranTrE CorcoranTrMeister Rd Maple Hill RdHorseshoe TrKalk RdUnnamed(west portion) (27043902) Unnamed (27044000) Unnamed (27042500) Unnamed (27043700) Unnamed (27043100) Unnamed (27043800) Unnamed (27042400) Unnamed (27042600) Unnamed (27043000) Unnamed (27042900) Unnamed (27042800) Unnamed (27042700) Unnamed (27043200) Unnamed(east portion) (27043901)RushC reek,S o uth F ork (M-062-0 0 4-002)Unnamed Creek(M-062-004-002-004)UnnamedStream (M-06 2 -012)UnnamedCreek ( M -062-004-002-002)Rush Creek, South Fork 07010206-760 (FishesBio; InvertBio) County Ditch 16 07010206-761 (FishesBio) 15 1314 22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Maple Grove Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend 1 Mile Radius Project Area Field Delineated Wetland !( 2022 MPCA Impaired Streams (Draft) Minnesota Public Waters Delineations Public Water Watercourse Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Waters Basins NHD - Flowline NHD - Waterbody NWI Circular 39 Class 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat 2 - Wet Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog Riverine Systems Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Water Resources Map 1 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix G Traffic Impact Study File #227704868 April 28, 2022 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 CR 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Traffic Impact Study for Corcoran Farms Business Park in Corcoran, MN April 2022 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 6-1 7.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................. 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................. 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................. 4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-5 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-6 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________________ DATE: April 28, 2022 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 April 2022 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed business park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/CR 116 • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 • CR 116/Larkin Road • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse • Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse • Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse • Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse • Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse One access point will be provided on Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2027. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. • All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. • The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal control is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. April 2022 1-2 • Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road ▪ Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. ▪ Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access ▪ Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed business park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. The project location is shown in Figure 1. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/CR 116 • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 • CR 116/Larkin Road • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access Proposed Development Characteristics The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse • Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse • Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse • Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse • Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse One access point will be provided on Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2027. The proposed development plan is shown in Figure 2. April 2022 2-2 April 2022 2-3 April 2022 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by Larkin Road on the south, existing residential uses on the west and north, and existing commercial uses on the east. Near the site location, Larkin Road is a two lane rural section roadway. CSAH 10, CSAH 50, and CR 116 are two lane roadways with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Blue Bonnet Drive is a local two-lane roadway. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. CSAH 10/CR 116 This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. CSAH 10/CSAH 50 This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the eastbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and through movements. CR 116/Larkin Road This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn /through lane and one through/right turn bypass lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/through lane. The northbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and right turn movements. Traffic Volume Data Weekday traffic volume data was recorded at the existing intersections in March, 2022. Existing traffic volume data is presented later in this report. April 2022 3-2 April 2022 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. • 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. • 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. • 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. Trip Generation for Proposed Project The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Office 145,278 SF 194 27 221 35 174 209 1575 Warehouse 581,118 SF 76 23 99 29 76 105 497 Totals 270 50 320 64 250 314 2072 Note: SF=square feet Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population con centrations. April 2022 4-2 The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: • 30 percent to/from the east on CSAH 10 • 30 percent to/from the south on CR 116 • 20 percent to/from the north on CR 116 • 10 percent to/from the west on CSAH 10 • 10 percent to/from the west on Larkin Road Traffic Volumes Development trips from Table 4-1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were estab lished for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Figures 4 and 5. April 2022 4-3 April 2022 4-4 April 2022 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, b ut with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay r anges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffi c flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. April 2022 5-2 The LOS results are shown in Figures 6 and 7 and described below. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. 2022 Existing Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal B/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/D A/D Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. April 2022 5-3 2040 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop B/F C/F Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic Signal Warrants at CR 116/Larkin Road As shown above, the eastbound movements operate at LOS F during the 2040 Build scenarios at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on CR 116 is 50 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. April 2022 5-4 Intersection Operations at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/B B/B 2040 Build B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. Recommended Mitigation Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: • CSAH 10/CR 116 o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • CR 116/Larkin Road o Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. o Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access o Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 5-5 April 2022 5-6 April 2022 6-1 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. • All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. • The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control m ust be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. • Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road ▪ Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. ▪ Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access ▪ Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 7-1 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 16.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix H SHPO Response Letter MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER May 4, 2022 Kendra Lindahl City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 RE: Corcoran Farms Business Park T119 R23 S26, Corcoran, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2022-1337 Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above-referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in our Environmental Review Program at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 7e. City Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, AICP Topic: Final Plat for “Corcoran II Substation” (PID 25-119-23-23- 0001) (City File No. 22-041) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: September 19, 2022 1. Request The applicant, Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association (WHE), requests approval of a final plat to create one lot and one outlot. The applicant has acquired the land within the plat via eminent domain. 2.Background In 2021, the applicant requested approval for a new electric substation on the south side of 19835 Larkin Road adjacent to transmission lines. The application was withdrawn so the applicant could determine a more suitable location for the new substation. On April 28, 2022, Council approved a preliminary plat, site plan and administrative permit for Corcoran II Substation at the northeast corner of Larkin Road and County Road 116. 3.Context Zoning and Land Use The site is zoned Mixed Residential (RMF-2) district and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Mixed Residential. The site is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Southeast District. Surrounding Properties The surrounding properties are all located within the MUSA and Southeast District. The property to the north is zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) district and guided Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east are zoned RMF-2 district and guided Mixed Residential. Properties to the south are zoned Urban Reserve (UR) district and guided Figure 1: Zoning Map Page 2 of 4 Mixed Residential. Properties to the east are zoned Light Industrial (I-1) district and C-1 Community Commercial and are guided Light Industrial and Commercial respectively. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) map does not identify any wetlands or other natural resources within the plat area. The wetland delineation provided by the applicant identifies one wetland is identified within the project area being acquired by the applicant. 4. Analysis The final plat creates one lot and one outlot. Lot 1, Block 1 will be used by WHE for their electrical substation. Outlot A will be retained by the City as part of the new linear park. Landscaping and Screening The applicant is required to provide one tree per 50 feet of site perimeter and one shrub per 30 feet of site perimeter; this requires a total of 30 trees and 49 shrubs. The applicant has provided 112 trees and 62 shrubs well in excess of the minimum landscaping required. An encroachment and maintenance agreement shall be required for the landscaping and grading proposed within the City-owned outlot. The applicant has also provided a seven foot tall fence around the perimeter of the substation that includes privacy fence slats. Staff and the applicant separately consulted with landscape architects and both recommended brown or black slats to better blend the fence with the landscaping. The plans and rendering use brown slats. The combination of the landscaping, berm and privacy fence will provide year-round screening of the substation at a minimum opacity of 80% as required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. A rendering has been included in the packet to visualize the level of screening proposed (Figure 2). Figure 2: Rendering of landscape, berm and fence screening. Park Dedication Requirements Outlot A will be deeded to the City of Corcoran for a linear park as envisioned by the Southeast District plan. Ultimately, it will include an off-road trail with landscaping. The Page 3 of 4 width of Outlot A is 135 feet which matches the width of the linear park adjacent to the Saint Therese development. Under the current ordinance, park dedication of land is required at 28% of the net pre- development area for Mixed Residential land or equivalent market value in cash. The ordinance requires 1.33 net acres of park land for the 4.73 net-predevelopment acres being platted by the applicant. The applicant will dedicate 1.5 net acres of park land in Outlot A. The proposed park land area satisfies the required park dedication requirements for this development. Final Plat The final plat shows subdivision of the 5.3-acre site acquired by Wright-Hennepin into one lot and one outlot. The applicant will retain the 2.87-acre lot while the 1.5-acre outlot will be dedicated to the City for park land. The plat will also dedicate 0.65 acres for the Larkin Road right-of-way and 0.28 acres for the County Road 116 right-of-way. The final plat is not in complete conformance with the preliminary plat. The City Code requires all of the existing land to be included in the plat. This was correctly shown on the preliminary plat. At the request of the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust, the property not acquired by Wright-Hennepin (Outlot B on the preliminary plat) has been excluded from the WHE final plat. The Deziel Trust lot will be left unplatted with a metes and bounds description. This is not a typical procedure; however, the City Attorney has reviewed the situation and determined the revised plat is recordable with Hennepin County. The revised final plat will substantially conform to the approved preliminary plat. In 2020, the City and the previous owners of the subject property (the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust) agreed to a deferred assessment of the subject property in the base amount of $21,800, and subject to 2% annual interest, which is to be come due in full upon the platting of the subject property. Payment of this fee is a condition of final plat approval. Conclusion Staff has reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a final plat have been met. Figure 3: Area removed from plat. Page 4 of 4 5. Recommendation Move to adopt Resolution 2022-94 approving the final plat and development contract. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-94 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract 2. Development Contract 3. Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement 4. Site Location Map 5. City Engineer’s Memo dated July 27, 2022 6. Larkin Road Feasibility Study dated February 24, 2022 7. Final Plans dated June 29, 2022 8. Final Plat dated July 21, 2022 9. Landscape Rendering dated July 28, 2022 10. Request from Deziel Trust dated July 19, 2022 City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR “CORCORAN II SUBSTATION” (PID 25-119-23-23-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-041) WHEREAS, Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a final plat to create one lot and one outlot on the property legally described as: See Attachment A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plat is approved to create one lot and one outlot for “Corcoran II Substation” in accordance with the plans and application received on June 29, 2022, July 12, 2022 and July 21, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The development contract must be executed by the developer and the City and must be filed with the final plat. 3. Approval is subject to the preliminary approval conditions (Resolution 2022-24). 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo dated July 27, 2022. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Larkin Road Feasibility Study dated February 24, 2022. 6. Facilities and equipment shall be removed within six months of becoming unnecessary or obsolete. FURTHER, prior to release of the final plat for recording: 7. The applicant shall deed Outlot A to the City to satisfy the park dedication requirements of the plat. 8. The following documents must be approved by the City Attorney a. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement b. Development Contract c. Encroachment Agreement d. Warranty Deed for Outlot A. 9. The 2020 deferred assessment shall be due and the applicant will pay the deferred assessment. a. Upon determination of damages owed as a result of the applicant’s condemnation of the property subject to this application, either by court- City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94 Page 2 of 4 appointed commissioners or by direct negotiation, the applicant shall pay to the City the full amount of this assessment, inclusive of any interest accrued at that time, within 30 days of such determination. b. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to prevent the applicant from seeking a corresponding reduction in any damage payment made to the previous property owners (the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust). 10. Letter of credit must be in place and fees paid. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building permit: 11. The applicant must file the final plat at Hennepin County within 2 years of the date of approval or the approval shall expire. 12. The following documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and proof of recording provided to the City: a. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement b. Development Contract c. Encroachment Agreement d. Warranty Deed for Outlot A. 13. Wetland buffer monuments must be installed as required by Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. The wetland buffer plantings must be installed where required. 15. The developer shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining the wetland buffer on the property in compliance with Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 16. Lot and corner monuments shall be installed as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. A financial guarantee shall be required to ensure installations per City requirements. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to release of remaining escrow: 17. Any request for the City to inspect the required landscaping in order to reduce financial guarantees must be accompanied by recertification/verification of field inspection by the project Landscape Architect. A letter signed by the project Landscape Architect verifying plantings (including wetland and pond buffers) have been correctly installed in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94 Page 3 of 4 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 11th day of August 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran August 11, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A That part of the south 555.56 feet of the west 470.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Larkin Road. Except the west 40.00 feet thereof. (reserved for recording information) DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) CORCORAN II SUBSTATION This DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Contract”) dated ____________________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and WRIGHT HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, A MINNESOTA NONPROFIT CORPORATION (the “Developer”) and shall be effective upon full execution by the City and the Developer. The City and the Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Corcoran II Substation (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer shall enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat upon City approval with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Unless separate written approval has been given by the City, within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Administrative Services Director, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat, development contract and other associated documents have been recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office and proof of recording has been provided to the City, and 4) the City has authorized the Developer to proceed, in writing. However, the Developer may be allowed to begin grading the site when items 1, 2 and 4 of the previous sentence have been satisfied. 4. PHASED DEVELOPMENT. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has failed to fulfill all obligations in this Contract and the failure has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges - 2 – for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless the initial phase is final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 6. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved final plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, in the event that changes to federal or state law prohibit or limit the City’s authority to collect the costs of off-site improvements for this project as contemplated in Section 9 herein and the parties do not mutually agree to remain bound to the terms contemplated in said Section 9, the City shall have the right to substitute off-site improvement cost collection provisions which are: 1) in compliance with applicable law; and 2) which result in reasonably comparable cost contribution from the Developer. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms herein shall control. The plans are: Exhibit A – Legal Description Plan A – Final Plat, dated July 21, 2022 Plan B – Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, dated June 29, 2022 Plan C– Final Landscape Plan, dated June 29, 2022 Plan D– Revised Preliminary Plat, dated March 9, 2022 8. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for, without limitation, all of the following improvements: • Streets • Sanitary Sewer • Watermain • Surface Water Facilities (pipe, ponds, rain gardens, etc.) • Grading and Erosion Control • Sidewalks/Trails • Street Lighting • Underground Utilities • Street Signs and Traffic Control Signs • Landscaping • Tree Preservation • Wetland Mitigation and Buffers • Monuments Required by Minnesota Statutes - 3 – • Miscellaneous Facilities In addition to the above-listed improvements, Developer shall be responsible for all other costs necessary to construct the improvements pursuant to the City-approved plans. The Developer shall submit plans which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer may instruct its engineer to provide full-time field inspection personnel in order for the Developer's engineer to be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer, its contractors and subcontractors, shall follow all instructions received from the City's inspectors. The Developer and/or the Developer’s engineer shall provide for on-site project management. The Developer's engineer is responsible for design changes and contract administration between the Developer and the Developer's contractor. The Developer or his or her engineer shall schedule a pre- construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at City Hall with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. All labor and work shall be performed and completed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in strict conformance with the approved plans and City Engineering Design Standards. No deviations from the approved plans and Standards will be permitted unless authorized by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance of the work required by the contract. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and special conditions of this contract, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first approved in writing by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer shall be responsible for construction of all improvements in conformance with the approved plans, City Engineering Design Standards and Standard Details. 9. OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The City intends to make improvements to Larkin Road. Larkin Road is a 4-ton roadway and the City will improve Larkin Road between County Road 116 and the development access to a 10-ton standard. The public improvements are more fully detailed in the Feasibility Study dated February 24, 2022, prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. The developer agrees to fund off-site improvements as noted in this Contract. a. The following improvements are required with this plat. The City shall design, bid and manage the projects and the developer shall pay for the following improvement, which shall be paid at the time the final plat is released for recording: • The developer shall provide a financial guarantee to the City for the cost of the Larkin Road improvements, including County Road 116 intersection improvements and improvements at the Corcoran II Substation entrance (estimated at $90,000.00). The development contract will include $75,000.00 in the letter of credit and $15,000.00 cash escrow for design. When the City bids the project, the City will reduce the letter of credit by $75,000.00 and require the developer to provide cash escrow based on the final bid amount. If Hennepin County financially participates in the project, the financial guarantee from the developer would be offset by these other funds.. - 4 – b. The developer agrees to pay the City the cost of these improvements as outlined above. The City will notify the developer of required reimbursement under this paragraph for design and construction of such improvements. The costs to be reimbursed include the actual cost to the City for construction of the improvements plus the allocation of the engineering, legal, administrative and other similar costs of the project based on the relative construction costs of the improvements. The developer reserves the right to be refunded for any unused portion of the estimated cost versus the actual cost of each improvement. 10. CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS. City Council members, City employees, and City Planning Commission members, and corporations, partnerships, and other entities in which such individuals have greater than a 25% ownership interest or in which they are an officer or director may not act as contractors or subcontractors for the public improvements identified in Paragraph 8 above. 11. PERMITS. The Developer shall obtain or require its contractors and subcontractors to obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to: • Hennepin County for County Road Access and Work in County Rights-of-Way • NPDES Permits • City of Corcoran for Building Permits and Building Demolition • Watershed Permits 12. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required public improvements in this phase by October 31, 2023. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 13. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 14. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. Haul routes for vehicles used in transport of materials shall be designated by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has discretion to change the designated haul routes at any time in event of unforeseen circumstances. This Agreement may be terminated and all work on the Subject Property may be halted by the City for Developer’s failure to use the designated haul routes or for any other violation of this Agreement. 15. GRADING PLAN. The plat shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading drainage and erosion control plan, Plan "B". The plan shall conform to City of Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. 16. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements which the City determines would be beneficial. The City is an MS4 City and all erosion control shall comply with the Corcoran City Code and the Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. Further, the City shall have the authority to stop work on the Subject Property and/or withhold - 5 – additional building permits or certificates of occupancy in the event that the Developer fails to comply with the approved erosion control plan. 17. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets affected by the project are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on the same and to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to ensure that the streets are passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and without the subdivision swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the street from Developer’s operation. 18. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this Contract and acceptance of the work by the City, the public improvements lying within public easements or right-of-way shall become City property. This provision shall not apply to private improvements (e.g. private retaining walls) which encroach upon public easement or right-of-way, and such encroachments shall be subject to any applicable and separate encroachment agreement. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, the Developer must furnish the following affidavits: • Record Drawings • Certification from the Registered Land Surveyor that land corner monuments and wetland buffer signs have been installed according to the approved plans. • The warranty/performance financial guarantee 19. PARK DEDICATION. The Developer shall dedicate to the City the park as shown on the preliminary plat. Dedication of Outlot A (1.50 net acres) shall satisfy the required park dedication for this development. 20. WATERMAIN / STORAGE TRUNK LINE AREA CHARGE (TLAC). This plat is subject to a watermain/storage trunk line area charge (TLAC). The charge is calculated as follows: 5.3 net acres (based on pre-developable area) $8,508.16 per acre = $45,093.25. Future phases shall be cash with the final plat for each future phase subject to the then-current rates. 21. WATER CONNECTION CHARGE. No water connection is planned at this time. Should a future connection be needed, the fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. Future development shall be cash at the time of issuance of each building permit at the then-current rates. The developer will be responsible for payment of the then-current water connection charge set by the City of Maple Grove. 22. SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE AREA CHARGE (TLAC). This plat is subject to a sanitary sewer trunk line area charge (TLAC). The charge is calculated as follows: The charge is calculated as follows: 5.3 net acres (based on pre-developable area) x $9,092.17 per acre = $48,188.50. Future phases shall be cash with the final plat for each future phase subject to the then-current rates. The developer will also be responsible for payment of the then-current SAC fee set by the Metropolitan Council. - 6 – 23. SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE. No sewer connection is planned at this time. Should a future connection be needed, the fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. Future development shall be cash at the time of issuance of each building permit at the then-current rates. 24. BUILDING PERMITS/CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. A. The Developer shall comply with the City of Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, wetland buffer monuments shall be placed in accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance. Monument signs shall be purchased from the City. The land surveyor must certify that the wetland buffer signs have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. C. Failure to fulfill any of the terms of this Contract by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties, the halting of all work in the plat, and/or the denial of certificates of occupancy. D. If building permits are issued prior to the acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, their contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities are tested and approved by the City Engineer. 25. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to legal (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this Contract, review of construction plans and documents, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. The City may require Developer to post funds in an escrow account, at its discretion. In the event the cash escrow amount is insufficient, Developer shall post additional escrow funds as determined by the City Planner within ten (10) days of written demand. Failure to make payment of the additional escrow amount shall permit the City to supplement those amounts from any other sureties posted by Developer. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. D. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, all special assessments referred to in this contract. This is a personal obligation of the - 7 – Developer and shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. Further, the City shall have the right to access Developer’s posted security to obtain reimbursement for unpaid invoiced amounts. Should Developer’s security be insufficient to cover any amounts owed to the City and unpaid after invoicing, the City may assess such amounts against the Subject Property. Developer, on behalf of itself and it successors and assigns, hereby waives any assessment notice requirements and any right to appeal such assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. 26. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to plat development: A. Compliance with the conditions of the original preliminary plat approval (Resolution 2022-24) and Final Plat approval (Resolution 2022-94) is required. B. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall convey the Park to the City by warranty deed, free and clear of any and all encumbrances. Before the City signs the final plat, the developer shall convey the required trail easements to the City in a form satisfactory to the City. C. The Developer shall post a $200.00 security for the final placement of interior subdivision iron monuments at property corners. The security was calculated as follows: 2 lots at $100.00 per lot. The security will be held by the City until the Developer's land surveyor certifies that all irons have been set following site grading and utility and street construction. In addition, the certificate of survey must also include a certification that all irons for a specific lot have either been found or set prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. D. The Developer must obtain a sign permit from the City Building Official prior to installation of any subdivision identification signs. E. The Developer shall include the “City of Corcoran’s Standard Detail” (all applicable sections) in the contract documents of their improvement project. 27. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in conjunction with a sale of the entire land, the Developer may, without the consent of the City, assign this Contract to a limited liability company or other entity in which the Developer or an affiliate thereof has a controlling membership or other controlling ownership interest, provided that such assignee assumes in writing the obligations of Developer - 8 – under this Contract and all posted security correspondingly secures the performance of the assignee. B. Certain retaining walls will require a Building Permit. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the Building Official evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans or by special conditions referred to in this Contract shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. C. Appropriate legal documents including, but not limited to, those regarding Homeowner Association documents, conservation easements, covenants and restrictions, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final Plat. D. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. E. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. G. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has fee title to the property being final platted and/or has obtained consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for failure to fulfill any of the foregoing covenants. H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. I. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. - 9 – J. The Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original. K. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all issues relating to this Contract and any action brought to enforce rights or obligations herein shall be brought in Hennepin County, Minnesota. L. All exhibits, plan documents, City approval documents, and City planning or engineering memos referenced herein are hereby incorporated into and shall become a part of this Contract as if attached hereto. M. Upon completion of construction, the Developer shall provide the City with as-built records of all soil corrections and utility infrastructure installations made by the Developer on the Subject Property or within any affected public right-of-way. N. Upon completion of installation of the same (as applicable), any sanitary sewer installed on the Subject Property shall be televised at the Developer’s expense and the Developer shall submit a recording of the same to the City for the City’s records. 28. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the Subject Property. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part to the Subject Property and the Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal said assessment. 29. WARRANTY/PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit or performance bond for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to one (1) year from the date of final written acceptance, unless the wear course is placed during the same construction season as the bituminous base course. In those instances, the Developer shall guarantee all work, including street construction, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, material and equipment for a period of two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season following installation. Following construction, a certification signed by the design landscape architect shall be filed with the City evidencing that the sod, trees, and landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. - 10 – 30. SUMMARY OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the City, from a bank, cash escrow or a combination cash escrow and Letter of Credit ("security") for $438,806.10, which represents 100 percent of the estimated cost of the Improvements. The letter of credit shall include an automatic renewal clause. The letter of credit shall guarantee to the City the construction and satisfactory completion of all items to be completed by the developer; that the letter of credit shall be reduced from time to time as work is performed and accepted in a satisfactory manner; that the City Engineer may reduce the letter of credit to the amount reasonably estimated by the City Engineer to be necessary to cover the remaining construction obligations; however, the letter of credit shall not be reduced below the amount estimated by the City to cover all obligations of development including payment of costs and expenses incurred by the City for legal, engineering, planning and any other costs until a maintenance bond for period of one year, satisfactory to the City Attorney and the City Engineer has been provided by the Developer or its subcontractor. - 11 – The amount of the security was calculated as follows: ESTIMATED COSTS ITEM City Project (1) Developer Installed (2) Total Sanitary Sewer System Watermain System Stormwater System Street Construction $75,000.00 $ 136,245.00 $211,245.00 Street Lighting Grading/Erosion Control $ 196,972.50 $ 196,972.50 Landscaping/Tree Preservation $ 3,440.00 $ 3,440.00 Setting Iron Monuments $200.00 $200.00 Installing Wetland Buffer Monuments* SUB-TOTAL: $75,000.00 $336,857.50 $411,857.50 City Design, Inspection and Administration (8%) $26,948.60 $26,948.60 Total: $75,000.00 $363,806.10 $438,806.10 Total Project Cost $438,806.10 (1) Public Improvement/City Project. City to own and maintain after development complete. (2) Developer Installed Public Improvements. City to own and maintain after development complete. This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. If a letter of credit is used to post any portion of the security, the bank shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract or upon receipt of notice that the security will be cancelled or otherwise lapse prior to the end of the required term and no City- approved replacement security has been provided. If the required public improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City Engineer or designee that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City Engineer or designee approval the security may be reduced from time to time by 75% of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the public improvement and landscaping amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed; (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed; (3) all financial obligations to the City, both actual and anticipated, have been satisfied; (4) the required "record" plans have been received by the City; (5) a warranty security is provided; and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. 31. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until six months after the City’s acceptance of the public improvements: - 12 – A. Commercial general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, competed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Contractor’s Policy with limits against bodily injury, including death, and property damage (to include, but not be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of any of its subcontractors. B. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $750,000.00 for one person and $1,500,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $2,000,000.00 for each occurrence. C. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, if applicable. D. Developer shall file a Certificate of Insurance with the City Administrator prior to commencing site grading. The City and the City Engineer shall be named as Additional Insureds on a primary and non-contributory basis on the Certificate. The Certificate shall be modified to bear the following language: Should any of the above policies be canceled, materially changed, or not renewed before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall give thirty (30) days written notice of the same to the Certificate Holder. In the event of cancellation due to non-payment, ten (10) day’s written notice shall be given to the Certificate Holder. Developer shall be responsible for providing the above language to its insurer. The City does not warranty that these amounts will be sufficient to cover all Developer liability related to the work on the Subject Property and Developer shall be responsible for conducting its own analysis of the appropriate levels of coverage. 32. SUMMARY OF CASH REQUIREMENTS. The following is a summary of the cash requirements under this Contract which must be furnished to the City at the time of final plat approval: Water Supply Trunk line area charge (TLAC) $ 45,093.25 Sanitary Sewer Trunk line area charge (TLAC) 48,188.50 Engineering Design Escrow – Larkin Road 15,000.00 Engineering Escrow 7,500.00 TOTAL CASH REQUIREMENTS LEVIED: $ 115,781.75 33. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ - 13 – Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Corcoran City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340. The Developer shall notify the City within five (5) days of change of address. [Signatures on pages to follow] CITY OF CORCORAN: BY: ______________________________________ Tom McKee, Mayor (SEAL) AND _____________________________________ Jessica Beise, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ________________, 20____, by Tom McKee and by Jessica Beise, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DEVELOPER: By: ______________________________________ Its: ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ________________, 20____, by __________________________________ the ____________________________________ of ______________________________________ on its behalf. ______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 EXHIBIT A (the “Subject Property”) Lot 1, Block 1, Corcoran II Substation, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Outlot A, Corcoran II Substation, Hennepin County, Minnesota. FEE OWNER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________, fee owners of all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property owned by them. Fee Owners further consent to the recording of the Agreement against the Subject Property. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2____, by ______________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 MORTGAGEE CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________, which holds a mortgage on the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 2_____, by __________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________________, which/who has a contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, hereby affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property in which there is a contract purchaser's interest. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 2____, by ____________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 1 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ (Space Above for Recorder/Registrar Use) ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Corcoran II Substation This ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made this _______ day of _______________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") and WRIGHT HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation ("WHE"). The City and WHE are sometimes referred to collectively herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. BACKGROUND. WHE is the owner of and has platted certain land within the City of Corcoran, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, known as Corcoran II Substation, according to the recorded plat thereof, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A ("WHE’s Property”). The City owns Outlot A (“Linear Park”) as delineated on the plat of Corcoran II Substation. In connection with WHE’s development of Corcoran II Substation, the City and WHE entered into that certain Development Contract dated __________________________, 2022, pursuant to which the City conditionally approved WHE’s placement of certain grading and landscaping within the City’s Linear Park. WHE wishes to construct, with the City’s consent, a berm and install landscaping materials (“Substation Screening”) within the City owned Linear Park. 2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves and authorizes an encroachment for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Substation Screening and related improvements within that portion of the City’s Linear Park as described on Exhibit “B” and depicted on the attached Exhibit “C” (“Maintenance Areas”). Improvements authorized within the Maintenance Areas include trees, vegetation, landscaping materials and grading. 3. INTEREST IN THE LINEAR PARK. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City’s interest in the Linear Park. 2 4. COSTS, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR. In consideration of being allowed to encroach within the Linear Park, WHE, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for all costs relating to the following: 4.1. The initial construction of the Substation Screening and related improvements; and 4.2. The maintenance, repair, reconstruction, and removal of the completed Substation Screening and related improvements performed by WHE, its successors and assigns. In the event that the City requires access to any portion of the Linear Park, WHE, its successors and assigns, shall upon notice remove any Screening Landscaping to allow such access or the City may remove any Screening Landscaping to permit access. In either event, WHE, its successors and assigns, shall be solely responsible for the restoration of the Screening Landscaping upon completion of the City’s work within the applicable portion of the Linear Park. The City shall have no obligation to restore any improvements within the Linear Park which are disturbed due to the City’s access to or use of the Linear Park. Should WHE fail to maintain the Maintenance Areas, then the City of Corcoran may undertake said maintenance and assess or otherwise collect the costs of such maintenance to WHE, its successors and assigns, or the properties which comprise WHE. WHE, its successors and assigns, specifically grant access to the City at all reasonable times to perform such work and, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, acknowledges that the maintenance work performed by the City regarding the Maintenance Areas benefits WHE’s Property in an amount which exceeds the assessment and hereby waives any right to hearing or notice and the right to appeal the assessments otherwise provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and hereby waive any right to appeal any assessment to recover the costs of such maintenance. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. WHE, its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, liens and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, (collectively "Claims") arising from or related to the use or occupancy of, or failure to maintain the Maintenance Areas by WHE, its successors and assigns. This provision of indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 3 6. BINDING EFFECT; COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND. The terms of this Agreement and WHE’s maintenance, repair, indemnification, and other obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on WHE and its successors and assigns, and inure to the benefit of the City and its respective successors and assigns as controller of the Linear Park. 7. RECORDING. The parties agree that this Agreement may be recorded against the title to WHE’s Property. 8. TERMINATION. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving WHE, its successors and assigns, (30) days advance written notice, except that no notice period will be required in the case of an emergency condition as determined solely by the City and the Agreement may then be terminated immediately. Upon such termination WHE, its successors and assigns, will remove at its cost all the Screening Landscaping and related improvements completed by WHE, its successors and assigns, within the time frame specified in the notice. 9. COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT. WHE, its successors and assigns, shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Should WHE or its successors and assigns fail to timely reimburse the City for such costs upon invoicing, the parties agree that the City may assess WHE’s Property for such amounts and WHE, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal such assessment. 10. REPRESENTATION. The undersigned represent and covenant that they are the duly empowered representatives of their respective entities and maintained unqualified authority to bind their respective entities to the terms of this Agreement. 11. SURVIVAL. Should any portion of this Agreement be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or of no effect, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 12. VENUE. The terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of Minnesota and any action to enforce the provisions herein shall be brought in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4 [Signatures on pages to follow] 5 “CITY” CITY OF CORCORAN BY: _________________________________ , Mayor AND ________________________________ , City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________, 20__, by _________________ and ____________________, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC 6 “WHE” WRIGHT HENNEPIN COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION BY: ___________________________________ ITS: ___________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________, 20__, by ____________________, the _____________________ of Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation, on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC This document was prepared by: John J. Thames Carson Clelland & Schreder, PLLP 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55430 (763) 561-2800 7 EXHIBIT “A” TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF WHE’S PROPERTY Lot 1, Block 1, Corcoran II Substation, Hennepin County, Minnesota DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY’S PROPERTY (“LINEAR PARK”) Outlot A, Corcoran II Substation, Hennepin County, Minnesota EXHIBIT “B” TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF MAINTENANCE AREAS 1. Grading and Landscaping located within the City’s Linear Park (Outlot A), all in the Corcoran II Substation plat. EXHIBIT “C” TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT MAINTENANCE AREA DEPICTION Screening Landscaping in the Linear Park Hennepin County Property Map Date: 7/29/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 400 feet PARCEL ID: 2511923230001 OWNER NAME: George H Deziel Rev Trust PARCEL ADDRESS: 7400 Co Rd No 116, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 36.92 acres, 1,608,377 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $973,500 TAX TOTAL: $10,313.50 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,349,500 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Corcoran II Substation (Wright- Hennepin) Date: July 27, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Civil Plans for the Corcoran II Substation, Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Revision Dated 06-26-22. 2. Corcoran II Substation Stormwater Management Plan, Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Dated 06-28- 22 Comments: General: 1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in response to the following comments provided in this Memorandum in which the applicant provides a written response to each item. 2. Larkin Road is a 4-ton roadway. Developer shall establish an escrow for the city to improve portion of roadway up to development access to a 10 ton standard. Grading /Stormwater 1. The draintile outlet to the swale is shown at an elevation of 992. This is both below the normal water line of the pond and is shown at the 993 contours. The draintile and grading should be adjusted so that the tile drains properly into pond and is not submerged. End of Comments Feasibility Report Project: Wright Hennepin Electrical Cooperative Corcoran II Substation By: Steve Hegland, PE Kent Torve, City Engineer The Wright Hennepin Electric Co-op is proposing to add an electrical substation at the NE corner of Larkin Road and County Road 116. As part of the development application, the city performed a feasibility study to look at the ROW needs and any potential roadway upgrades associated with this substation. Right of Way Stantec looked at the existing intersection of Larkin Road and County Road 116 to identify the proposed layout of the intersection should it be upgraded in the future. This was done to and identify if the ROW being dedicated with the development is sufficient. The existing intersection has an offset eastern leg which is shifted north from the western leg and is skewed to the northeast. In the SE District Guidelines, Larkin Road is identified as a Connector Street and is realigned with the rest of Larkin Road, west of County Road 116. We assumed County Road 116 would be reconstructed to a 4 lane highway and Larkin Road was realigned to the Connector Street standards with turn lanes onto the County Road. Attached to this feasibility study is the proposed layout of this intersection. The proposed realignment results in the ROW being significantly shifted to the south which would require ROW dedication from future development but does not necessitate additional ROW from the Wright Hennepin proposed site at this time. Additionally, there is an existing natural gas easement that runs along the southern boundary of the Wright Hennepin site and overlaps the 10’ D&U easement. This easement would prohibit small utilities from being installed within the easement, however significant utility needs along this corridor are not anticipated until the area is redeveloped, and the ROW is expected to be realigned with that future development. Roadway Design Larkin Road from County Road 116 to County Road 10 is posted at a 4-ton limit on a year-round basis. After the initial construction of the site improvements, the site will be accessed only occasionally by vehicles and equipment to maintain the equipment on the site. During construction the applicant shall either obtain a permit from Hennepin County to access the property directly from the County Road or the applicant should be responsible for improving Larkin Road to their proposed access to accommodate construction vehicles. After construction is completed, the applicant shall either adhere to the posted 4-ton load limit of the roadway or shall be responsible for improving the condition of the roadway up to their access to allow for heavier vehicles to access Larkin Road to their main entrance. If the roadway is improved, vehicles can then access the site only from County Road 116 and would need to obtain a permit from public works for approval for driving past the posted weight limit signs. The level of improvement will be dependent on the needs of Wright Hennepin for vehicle access to the site. 19835 LARKIN RDCORCORAN, MN 553407400 CO RD NO 116CORCORAN, MN 5534019625 LARKIN RDCORCORAN, MN 55340LARKIN ROAD7241 CO RD NO 116WRIGHT-HENNEPINCOOPERATIVEELECTRICASSOCIATION19910 LARKIN RD19910 LARKIN RDCOUNTY ROAD 1160+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+00S89° 13' 02.33"E127.91'N72° 35 ' 35 .97 "E36.32 'L=285.718Δ=18.1894R=900.000L=434.715Δ=27.6748R=900.000R40'R40'CONNECTING TO EXISTING ROADGAP BETWEENPROPOSED ANDEXISTING ROWEXISTING ROWPROPOSED ROW12'12'12'12'12'12'12'80'LOT 1OUTLOT A BLOCK 1135.65'135.01'491.45'476.97 448.00'271.29'270.01'100'10'10'7'10'GAS PIPELINE EASEMENTDESCRIBED IN DOC. NO.9565121EASEMENT DESCRIBED INPARTIAL RELEASE RECORDEDAS DOC. 4795747EASEMENT DESCRIBED INPARTIAL RELEASE RECORDEDAS DOC. 4795747UTILITY EASEMENTGAS PIPELINE EASEMENT DESCRIBEDIN DOC. NO. 9530432APPARENT LOCATION OFEXISTING EASEMENT ASDESCRIBED IN DOC. 10874109(PART OF DOCUMENT IS ILLEGIBLE)UNITED POWER EASEMENTDESCRIBED IN PARTIALRELEASE RECORDED ASDOC. NO. 483920725'FIG-01LARKIN ROADINTERSECTIONLAYOUTDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.:DWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:227701081-145\\us0242-ppfss01\shared_projects\227701081\drafting\Task 145_Wright Hennepin Substation\5_DESIGN\1_CAD\2 EXHIBITS\Larkin Road Intersection Layout CRJ 1_2022_0203.dwg DESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:2/18/2022 3:00:47 PM CLIENT:CITY OFCORCORANLARKIN ROAD INTERSECTION LAYOUT CORCORAN, MN PROJECT TITLE:CRJCHK'D BY:NPWAPP'D BY:SKHCERTIFICATION:1800 PIONEER CREEK CENTERMAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359PHONE: 763-479-4200FAX: 763-479-4242WWW.STANTEC.COM2/1/202202/1/2022 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 0 2/2/2022 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 0 CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THECORCORAN II SUBSTATIONJUNE 2022VICINITY MAPCONTACTSINDEXNOTESPROJECT TITLEFeet020004000C01COVER SHEETLEGEND: X.X%COCODMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 2:15 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\00_COVER.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22).OWNER:Wright-Hennepin Cooperative ElectricAssociation6800 Electric DriveRockford, MN 55373Attn: Curtis CordtPh: 763.477.3000SURVEY:Meyer-Rohlin Land Services708 1st Avenue NE, #1Buffalo, MN 55313Attn: Abram Niemela, PLSPh: 763.682.1781CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL:Civil Methods, Inc.1551 Livingston Avenue, Ste. 104West St. Paul, MN 55118Attn: Dave Poggi, PEPh: 763.210.5713CITY / LGU:City of Corcoran8200 County Rd 116Corcoran, MN 55340Attn:Ph: 763.420.2288WATERSHED DISTRICT:Elm Creek Watershed ManagementCommission (ECWMC)3235 Fernbrook LanePlymouth, MN 55447Attn:Ph: 763.553.1144 “” C10SITE LAYOUTDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 2:16 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\01_Layout.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22).Feet05010028'24'10' X.X%C20GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 2:51 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\02_Grading.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22).Feet03060 C30EROSION CONTROL PLANDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 2:50 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\03_Erosion.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22).Feet03060 C31SWPPPDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 1:55 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\04_SWPPP.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22).GENERAL PERMITAUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNDER THENPDES/SDS PROGRAM (MNR100001):LEGENDHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE AHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE BHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE CHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE DLEGENDHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE AHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE BHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE CHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE DHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE BHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE CHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE A/DHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE B/DHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE C/DFeet020004000 C40DETAILSDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 2:50 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\05_Details.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22). C41DETAILSDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 1:56 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\05_Details.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22). C42DETAILSDMPDESIGNED:LIC. NO.:DATE:DAVID M. POGGIDRAWN:CHECKED:DMPKEB44573I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.01-18-2022CIVIL METHODS, INC.P.O. Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comDATE / REVISION:SHEET NO:6/29/2022 1:56 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0727_Corcoran Substation 2021\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\05_Details.dwg CORCORAN II SUBSTATIONWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIONCORCORAN, MN01-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION01-28-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION03-14-2022 Revised per City review.04-08-2022 Increased west side berm back to original size.05-06-2022 Revised ESC Plan.06-02-2022 Revised per City Comments (5-25-22) and subsequent discussion.06-29-2022 Revised per ECWMC Comments (06-28-22). River BirchBetula nigra 'Heritage'Burr OakQuercus macrocarpaBlack Hills White SprucePicea glauca 'Densata'Lawn Seed Mix (See Landscape Set, L-2)NOTE:1. See LANDSCAPE set for additional notes, plant list, andwetland buffer maintenance plan.2. See CIVIL set for stormwater area seed mix3. See CIVIL set for erosion control4. All plant material shall be guaranteed for one yearfollowing the date of building occupancyCALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL BEFORE YOU DIGLegend + NotesEastern Red CedarJuniperus virginianaSkyline HoneylocustGleditsia tricanthos var. inermis 'Skycole'Tompa Norway SprucePicea abies 'Tompa'Lanham's Beehive SprucePicea abies 'Lanham's Beehive'Stormwater Seed Mix (See Civil Set)Swamp White OakQuercus bicolorAL-01BL-01Norway SprucePicea abiesWetland Buffer + Monuments (See Civil Set)Fragrant SumacRhus aromaticaBud's Yellow DogwoodCornus alba 'Bud's Yellow'Isanti DogwoodCornus sericea 'Isanti'Medora JuniperJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'copyright © 2022 studio gro, pllcLANDSCAPE PLANL-01Corcoran // SƵbstation CORCORAN, MNPrinted at 22 x 34scale 1" = 40'0' 40' 80'Owner:Wright-Hennepin ElectricRockford, MNDrawn by: sksChecked by: sksDate | Draft:1-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Set3-14-2022 Revised Per City Review4-12-2022 Revised Per City Review5-16-2022 Revised Per City Review BACKFILLHARDWOOD MULCHTOP OF ROOT BALL3; DIAMETEROF ROOT BALLSHRUB PLANTING - SECTION (TYP.)Not to ScaleBSTAKE (ONLY IF REQUIRED)PRIMARY ROOTROOT BALL3; DIAMETEROF ROOT BALLNot to ScaleATREE PLANTING - SECTION (TYP.)SLIGHTLY LESS THANDEPTH OF ROOT BALLBACKFILLCOMPOSTHARDWOOD MULCHGENERAL NOTES1. See CIVIL set for all project general notes2. See CIVIL set for erosion control3. See CIVIL for stormwater area seed mixTREE AND SHRUB PLANTING1. Tree and shrub stock shall conform to all state requirements for nursery stock.2. If the tree or shrub is container grown, score or prune the outside of the root ball to redirect circling fibrous roots.Carefully remove soil from the top of the root ball until the primary root is located.3. If the tree or shrub is balled and burlapped, carefully remove soil from the top of the root ball until the primary root islocated. Prune or remove any winding or girdling roots.4. Cut any wires, wire baskets, and/or containers and carefully remove from the tree root ball before placing in theplanting hole. Dispose of properly.5. Carefully remove all twine, cords, and/or wraps and remove from the root ball before placing in the hole. Dispose ofproperly.6. Scarify the sides and bottom of the planting hole.7. Make certain the planting depth is correct by locating the primary root. This is the top of the root ball. The top of theroot ball shall be elevated above the finished grade at the time of planting. The elevated distance shall be equivalentto the caliper size. For example, the top of a tree root ball for a 2" caliper tree shall be 2" above the finished grade.8. Carefully place the tree in the hole.9. Loosen backfill before filling planting hole. Fill planting hole half way with excavated planting soil. Water to eliminateair pockets. Do not tamp.10. Finish filling planting hole, tamp soil gently, and water immediately. Do not place backfill on top of the root ball, asdetermined by the primary root.11. Apply a 2" layer of double shredded, non-dyed, hardwood mulch above the compost. Maintain a 4" distance from thetrunk flare.12. Do not fertilize.13. Stake trees, only if necessary, to stay in plumb position.14. Prune tree to remove structural defects or to improve tree structure at the time of planting.COMPOSTPlanting DetailsPlanting NotesPlant Requirements and Plant ScheduleYEAR 1Establishment SPRING SEEDING:·Site Preparation: Late April - May.·Seed Installation: May 1 - June 1.Maintenance (same growing season):·Weed Control: Mow to a height of 6-8 inches once per month until September 30.·Weed Control: Spot spray invasive species while on-site for mowing maintenance.Establishment FALL SEEDING:·Site Preparation: Late August through early September.·Seed Installation: Late September to freeze-up.Maintenance (following growing season-spring following dormant fall seeding):·Weed Control: Mow to a height of 6-8 inches once per month until September 30.·Weed Control: Spot spray invasive species while on-site for mowing maintenance.YEAR 2Maintenance:·Weed Control: Mow to a height of 6-8 inches one time between June 1 and August 15 -before weeds set seed.·Weed Control: Spot spray invasive species while on-site for mowing maintenance.YEAR 3Maintenance:·Weed Control: Mow as necessary to a height of 6-8 inches to control persistent annual andperennial invasive species.·Weed Control: Spot spray invasive species while on-site for mowing maintenance.LONG TERMMaintenance:·Weed Control Options:··Spot Spray: Spot spray invasive species as needed.··Burn: Burn in a 3-5 year rotation, alternate spring and fall, if possible.··Hay: Hay in a 3-5 year rotation, late summer or early fall. Alternate with burning, ifpossible. Haying can be used as a substitute for burning.··Consecutive Burn: Burn consecutively for two years to clean up rough-looking sites.NOTEHerbicide spray must be approved for use in/adjacent to water/wetland.Wetland Buffer Maintenance PlanDrawn by: sksChecked by: sksDate | Draft:1-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Setcopyright © 2022 studio gro, pllcLANDSCAPE PLANL-02Corcoran // SƵbstation CORCORAN, MN Owner:Wright-Hennepin ElectricRockford, MN3-14-2022 Revised Per City Review4-12-2022 Revised Per City Review5-16-2022 Revised Per City Review CORCORAN II SUBSTATION Meyer-Rohlin Meyer-Rohlin DRAFT COPY FOR CITY SUBMITTAL - REVISED 07/20/2022 View from CR 116: Slatted Fence + Double, Staggered Rows of VegetationDrawn by: sksChecked by: sksDate | Draft:1-18-2022 Preliminary Plat Review Setcopyright © 2022 studio gro, pllcLANDSCAPE PLAN-RENDERED SECTIONSSLATTED FENCE + STAGGEREDVEGETATIONCorcoran II SƵbstation CORCORAN, MN Owner:Wright-Hennepin ElectricRockford, MNL-103-14-2022 Revised Per City Review3-14-2022 Renderings4-12-2022 Revised Per City Review 1 Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:FW: Wright-Hennepin v. Deziel Trust - Plat From: John Thames [mailto:john.thames@carsoncs.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:40 AM To: 'Natalie Davis' <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: 'Jessica Beise' <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: FW: Wright‐Hennepin v. Deziel Trust ‐ Plat Natalie, See the note below from the Deziel’s attorney. They are requesting that their lot be left unplatted and not be included in the Wright‐Hennepin Substation plat. I spoke with WHE’s attorney and they agreed to re‐draw the previously submitted final plat to exclude Outlot B (the Deziel parcel) and keep everything else the same. They will submit that revised plat this afternoon. As we discussed, the updated plat will substantially conform to the approved preliminary plat with the only revision to be the removal of the Deziel property to accommodate their request that it be left as a metes and bounds description. Please reach out with any questions. Thanks, John From: David Sienko [mailto:dsienko@levander.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:15 PM To: John Thames <john.thames@carsoncs.net> Cc: Becky J. Strop <Bstrop@levander.com> Subject: Wright‐Hennepin v. Deziel Trust ‐ Plat John, Our client, Susan Sween, as Trustee of the George H. Deziel Revocable Trust Dated February 6, 2001 (the “Deziel Trust”) does not want to be included in Wright‐Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association’s Corcoran II Substation plat. The Deziel Trust respectfully requests that any plat involving Wright‐Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association exclude the Deziel Trust property. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thank you. DAVID L. SIENKO ATTORNEY 1305 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Eagan, MN 55121 MAIN: 651‐451‐1831 WWW.LE VANDER.COM 2 We MOVED! Please update your records with our new address. Our phone numbers, fax number, and email addresses remain the same. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, and you are requested to please notify us immediately by either e-mail or telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address. Disclaimer Regarding Uniform Electronic Transmissions Act (UETA) and Federal E-Sign (E-SIGN) Law: This communication is for discussion purposes only, and it does not create a contract or legally binding agreement. The UETA and E-SIGN do not apply to this communication. We and our clients only contract with manually affixed original signatures on the original paper contracts. NOT FOR PENALTY PROTECTION: Unless expressly stated otherwise above: (1) nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (2) any written statement contained in this message relating to any Federal tax transaction or matter may not be used by any person to support the promotion or marketing of, or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message. Please be eco‐friendly. Please don't print this e‐mail unless truly necessary. Memo To: City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Nick Wyers, PE File: 227701855 Date: July 28, 2022 Subject: CSAH 101 & 105th Turn Lane Improvements - Pay Request #2 & Final Council Action Requested We recommend approval of Pay Request #2 and Final to Park Construction Company in the amount of $3,311.19 on the CSAH 101 & 105th Avenue Turn Lane Improvements Project. Pay Application Summary •Contract Amount - $337,059.76 •Change Orders to Date - $0 •Total Complete to Date – $331,118.65 •Less Retainage - $0.00 •Total This Pay Application - $3,311.19 Project Update The CSAH 101 and 105th Ave Turn Lane Improvement Project was substantially complete in November 2021 with final vegetation establishment verified this spring. Park Construction company has completed all punch list work on the project, provided the necessary project closeout document ation and no work is remaining on the project. The contract does include a two-year warranty which will carry forward until November 15, 2023. The total constructed project cost came in under the contract amount related to reductions due to the existing subgrade being in better condition than anticipated. This resulted in less material excavated and hauled offsite. Financing The total project cost is $331,118.65 as compared to the contract amount of the project of $337,059.76. Currently the City has withheld 1% retainage for final closeout of the project. Now that all closeout work has been completed, we are recommending making the second and final payment in the amount of $3,311.19. Attached to this memo is the final pay application, as well as the IC-134’s (lien releases) from the subcontractors on the project which certify they were paid for their work. As noted previously, this project was financed entirely by the developer with the City utilizing the funds placed in an escrow account. Attachments Pay Request #2 & Final IC-134 Documents Agenda Item: 7i. NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE BASE BID SCHEDULE QTY PRICE QTY PRICE QTY PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 33,400.00$ 33,400.00$ 1 33,400.00$ 1 33,400.00$ 0 -$ 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 3,030.00$ 3,030.00$ 1 3,030.00$ 1 3,030.00$ 0 -$ 3 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 0.01$ 0.01$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 4 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT 1930 1.90$ 3,667.00$ 1930 3,667.00$ 1930 3,667.00$ 0 -$ 5 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 675 5.45$ 3,678.75$ 915 4,986.75$ 915 4,986.75$ 0 -$ 6 REMOVE SIGN & POST EACH 1 101.00$ 101.00$ 1 101.00$ 1 101.00$ 0 -$ 7 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN & POST EACH 1 354.00$ 354.00$ 1 354.00$ 1 354.00$ 0 -$ 8 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LUMP SUM 1 3,840.00$ 3,840.00$ 1 3,840.00$ 1 3,840.00$ 0 -$ 9 SALVAGE & RESPREAD EXISTING TOPSOIL LUMP SUM 1 9,610.00$ 9,610.00$ 1 9,610.00$ 1 9,610.00$ 0 -$ 10 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (EV) (P)CU YD 1050 12.00$ 12,600.00$ 1480 17,760.00$ 1480 17,760.00$ 0 -$ 11 COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (LV)CU YD 650 19.00$ 12,350.00$ 254 4,826.00$ 254 4,826.00$ 0 -$ 12 COMMON BORROW (MOD) (LV)CU YD 100 19.40$ 1,940.00$ 1456 28,246.40$ 1456 28,246.40$ 0 -$ 13 SUBGRADE CORRECTION EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (LV)CU YD 100 19.00$ 1,900.00$ 26 494.00$ 26 494.00$ 0 -$ 14 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE V WOVEN SQ YD 3670 1.00$ 3,670.00$ 3670 3,670.00$ 3670 3,670.00$ 0 -$ 15 GRANULAR BORROW (MOD) (SUBGRADE CORRECTION OVER UTILITIES)TON 50 27.30$ 1,365.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 16 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED TON 2020 24.10$ 48,682.00$ 2043 49,236.30$ 2043 49,236.30$ 0 -$ 17 AGGREGATE SURFACING CLASS 2, 100 % CRUSHED LIMESTONE TON 190 35.10$ 6,669.00$ 47 1,649.70$ 47 1,649.70$ 0 -$ 18 STABILIZING AGGREGATE, 3" MINUS TON 200 35.10$ 7,020.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 19 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 190 10.00$ 1,900.00$ 675 6,750.00$ 675 6,750.00$ 0 -$ 20 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 910 73.80$ 67,158.00$ 1084 79,999.20$ 1084 79,999.20$ 0 -$ 21 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 910 75.30$ 68,523.00$ 598 45,029.40$ 598 45,029.40$ 0 -$ 22 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 15 60.60$ 909.00$ 15 909.00$ 15 909.00$ 0 -$ 23 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST EACH 2 303.00$ 606.00$ 2 606.00$ 2 606.00$ 0 -$ 24 HYDROSEED - SEED MIXTURE 22-111 SQ YD 3365 0.35$ 1,177.75$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 25 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 SQ YD 3365 0.25$ 841.25$ 4400 1,100.00$ 4400 1,100.00$ 0 -$ 26 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS - MAINTAINED LIN FT 1760 2.55$ 4,488.00$ 686 1,749.30$ 686 1,749.30$ 0 -$ 27 BALE BARRIERS - MAINTAINED LIN FT 520 8.10$ 4,212.00$ 515 4,171.50$ 515 4,171.50$ 0 -$ 28 CULVERT PROTECTION - MAINTAINED EACH 1 152.00$ 152.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 29 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR 30 152.00$ 4,560.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 30 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MGAL 50 28.00$ 1,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 31 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 3N STRAW 2S SQ YD 3365 1.20$ 4,038.00$ 4400 5,280.00$ 4400 5,280.00$ 0 -$ 32 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) THERMOPLASTIC (GROUND-IN)EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 2 1,000.00$ 2 1,000.00$ 0 -$ 33 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) THERMOPLASTIC (GROUND-IN)EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 2 1,000.00$ 2 1,000.00$ 0 -$ 34 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 3300 3.05$ 10,065.00$ 3300 10,065.00$ 3300 10,065.00$ 0 -$ 35 6" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 1750 2.00$ 3,500.00$ 1749 3,498.00$ 1749 3,498.00$ 0 -$ 36 4" DOTTED LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 560 1.50$ 840.00$ 148 222.00$ 148 222.00$ 0 -$ 37 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 500 1.50$ 750.00$ 510 765.00$ 510 765.00$ 0 -$ 38 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 430 14.10$ 6,063.00$ 291 4,103.10$ 291 4,103.10$ 0 -$ Subtotal: $ 331,118.65 Subtotal: $ 331,118.65 Subtotal: $ - 0% Retainage: $ - 1% Retainage: $ 3,311.19 0% Retainage: $ - Total: $ 331,118.65 Total: $ 327,807.46 Total: $ 3,311.19 AUGUST 2022 CURRENT PAY REQUEST #2 & FINAL -$ 1481 81st Avenue NE Minneapolis, MN 55432 COMPLETED TO DATE LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS PAYMENT REQUEST 2 & FINAL -$ GENERAL CONTRACTOR COMPLETED TO DATE LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS Park Construction Companies TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT 337,059.76$ 331,118.65$ 331,118.65$ TOTAL BASE BID 337,059.76$ 331,118.65$ 331,118.65$ 7/12/22, 9:02 AM https://www.mndor.state.mn.us/tp/eservices/_/Retrieve/0/Dc/aMC7HuKzwwjZNZDFeYpkOg__?FILE__=Print2&PARAMS__=9206… https://www.mndor.state.mn.us/tp/eservices/_/Retrieve/0/Dc/aMC7HuKzwwjZNZDFeYpkOg__?FILE__=Print2&PARAMS__=9206739359898737796 1/1 Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number:1-700-345-248 Submitted Date and Time:12-Jul-2022 9:02:14 AM Legal Name:VIKING RESTORATION LLC Federal Employer ID:84-2225349 User Who Submitted:stcpayroll Type of Request Submitted:Contractor Affidavit Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number:2028048384 Minnesota ID:6836508 Project Owner:CITY OF CORCORAN Project Number:227701855 Project Begin Date:15-Sep-2021 Project End Date:15-Jun-2022 Project Location:COROCORAN CSAH 101 & 105TH PLACE Project Amount:$13,527.00 Subcontractors:No Subcontractors Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (email) withholding.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser. Memo To: City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Nick Wyers, PE File: 227704115 Date: August 3, 2022 Subject: County Road 10 and Walnut Lane Turn Lane Improvements - Pay Request #2 Council Action Requested We recommend approval of Pay Request #2 to Omann Contracting Companies, Inc. in the amount of $278,675.44 on the County Road 10 and Walnut Lane Turn Lane Improvements Project. Pay Application Summary •Contract Amount - $454,188.25 •Change Orders to Date - $0 •Total Complete to Date – $356,273.66 •Less Retainage - $17,813.68 •Less Previous Payment - $59,784.54 •Total This Pay Application - $278,675.44 Background The Rush Creek Reserve development has constructed Walnut Lane triggering a need for improvements on County Road 10. Improvements to County Road 10 consist of the construction of westbound right turn and eastbound left turn lanes into the development’s main entrance. Three Rivers Park District requires a raised concrete median to provide for a safer pedestrian crossing o f County Road 10 for the future trail users. Project Update The amount brings the total approved to date to 78% of the total project value before withholding the 5% retainage amount of $17,813.68. The requested amount is related to concrete curb and gutter, concrete median, bituminous paving and site grading. Financing This project would be funded through a developer escrow. Next Steps Omann Contracting Companies will continue to work on turn lane construction on the north side of County Road 10. Remaining work includes finish grading and establishment of site restoration. Attachments Pay Request #2 Agenda Item: 7j. 08/03/2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer File: 227704919 Date: August 5, 2022 Reference: Corcoran Well #1 – Pay Application #3 BACKGROUND E.H. Renner & Sons (Renner) was awarded the contract for construction of Well #1 in April 14th, 2021. Renner has submitted Pay Application #3 for the work completed to date in the amount of $38,970.66. Attached is the payment request form. The amount less 5% retainage is due at this time. Renner has completed test pumping, monitoring, water quality sampling, well televising, and installation of well accessories. The O&M manual will be forthcoming with the final release of retainage in the coming weeks. BUDGET IMPACT The work completed below the previously approved budget for the project. RECOMMENDATION We recommend payment for the work completed to date, less retainage in the amount of $38,970.66. ATTACHMENTS Payment Application #3 Agenda Item: 7h. Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. City Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Frontages and Fences Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-033) Action Required: Discussion and Direction 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1. Request: The Council directed staff to revise the Zoning Ordinance to accomplish the following: a. All property owners have one front yard even if they have multiple lot lines along street frontages. b. Provide more flexibility in the front yard and along street frontages for fences exceeding 4’ in height and 50% opacity. 2. Background: In January, the City Council discussed a Zoning Ordinance Amendment request by Larry Aller to allow a 7’ tall fence with nearly 100% opacity to remain at the front property line where a 50’ front yard setback is required for such a fence. The direction at the end of this meeting was for staff to look at amending the definition of “front yard” for corner lots. On June 9th, the City Council discussed options brought forward by staff and provided further direction to redefine front lot line and front yard so that property owners with multiple frontages only have one front yard. The consensus was to base the front lot line for lots with multiple frontages on the front lot line with the shortest width, property address, and primary driveway access. Additionally, staff was directed to amend the code so that fences over 4’ tall and 50% opacity are allowed at a 25’ setback along frontages with additional flexibility for fences that run perpendicular along an interior lot line up to a secondary frontage. There was also discussion about preserving a 30’ traffic visibility triangle (aka clear-view triangle) from intersections and driveways. 3. Analysis: I. Proposed Changes to Definitions As the Zoning Ordinance is written today, any lot line that abuts a street right-of-way or private drive/street easement is considered a front lot line and is one of the defining boundaries of a front yard. Structures and privacy fences cannot be placed within the required front yard setback. Lots with multiple frontages (e.g., corner lots or through lots) have more than one front yard to account for when considering the placement of fences and structures. The exact verbiage of the “front lot line” definition in Section 1020 reads as follows: Page 2 of 12 That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street or private drive easement, and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street or private drive easement. If the dimensions on a corner lot are reasonably equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the City. However, all front lot lines shall be subject to the front setback requirements. It is the last sentence of this definition that clarifies properties with multiple frontages are subject to the front setback from any lot line that abuts a street (or private drive). This has proven unpopular, particularly in our Rural Residential (RR) and Urban Reserve (UR) districts where the front setback is 50’ on most roads and 100’ on county roads. While staff would prefer if we could accomplish this task just by deleting the last sentence of the above definition, changes to code are rarely so easy. There was a great deal of discussion about what additional flexibility should be given to a frontage that is no longer considered the front while still wanting some limitations for the purposes of safety and neighborhood aesthetics and views. Therefore, staff believes several clarifications and modifications to our lot and yard definitions are needed to accomplish Council’s direction from the June 9th work session. Staff proposes the following changes: a. Add “Lot Frontage” as a term. We use the term frontage throughout the code already, and we will rely on it more so with the proposed changes. However, we do not define frontage. While we can default to the dictionary’s definition, it is a best practice to clearly define how we use the term if we heavily rely on it in our Code. LOT FRONTAGE: A lot line abutting the right-of-way of a public street or property/easement line of a private street or private drive. b. Change definition of “Front Lot Line” to “Primary Front Lot Line” with additional modifications. The proposed definition removes the requirement that all frontages are subject to front setbacks. The definition clarifies three characteristics used to determine the front lot line and front yard, particularly for lot lines with multiple frontages. The primary front lot line for existing lots will ultimately be determined based on the property address and primary driveway access for the property. When reviewing newly created lots, the front lot line will be determined to be the frontage with the shortest dimension while still meeting the minimum lot width requirements. LOT LINE, PRIMARY FRONT: That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated street right-of-way or street easement, including private streets and privates drives. It is the lot boundary on which the property is addressed and the primary driveway is accessed. In the case of a lot with multiple frontages, it shall be the shortest dimension on a street or easement that meets the required minimum lot width. If the dimensions of the frontages are reasonably equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the City. Once the property address and primary driveway access are established, the primary front lot line shall not be changed. c. Add “Secondary Front Lot Line” as a term. The City of Rogers uses the term “secondary front lot line”, and staff believes the addition of this term will be useful to allow for some flexibilities and some limitations along this class of frontage. The Page 3 of 12 definition clarifies that secondary front lot lines will be subject to the same structure setbacks as a side lot line. LOT LINE, SECONDARY FRONT: A boundary of a lot with frontage but is not considered a primary front lot line. For the purposes of structure setbacks, the secondary front lot line shall be treated as a side lot line. d. Modify the “Rear Lot Line” definition. The proposed changes in this definition clarify that the rear lot line will be opposite the primary front lot line and how a rear lot line will be treated if it is also a frontage (i.e. through lots). LOT LINE, REAR: That boundary of a lot which is opposite the primary front lot line. If the rear line is less than 10 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. If the rear lot line is a frontage, the lot line will be treated as a secondary front lot line. e. Add “Interior Lot Line” as a term. The proposed updates to the fence standards will rely on this term when discussing side and rear lot lines that do not abut a street. The addition of this term simplifies the language in the code update. LOT LINE, INTERIOR: A lot line without frontage. f. Modify the “Through Lot” Definition. Previously, the definition of through lot explained that both frontages were considered front lot lines. While there are bound to be exceptions, through lots are different than corner lots in that they are primarily found along high-volume streets (e.g., county roads). The proposed changes clarify that the primary front lot line on a newly established through lot must be along the street frontage with the least amount of traffic volume (even if the dimensions are relatively equal) as this will reduce direct driveway access on higher volume roadways which is a best practice for traffic management. This requirement is consistent with Section 945.020, Subd. 12 of the Subdivision Ordinance which contemplates assigning lot access within new subdivisions. Additionally, the proposed changes clarify that the rear lot line of a through lot will be treated as a secondary front lot line. To keep treatment of secondary frontages consistent, the rear property line will be subject to the structure setbacks for side property lines. LOT, THROUGH: A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot, the primary front lot line will be established based on the frontage with less traffic volume. Once the property address and primary driveway access are established, the primary front lot line cannot be changed. The rear lot line will be treated as a secondary front lot line. g. Modify the “Lot Width” definition. To be honest, the proposed changes to “lot width” has little to do with Council’s direction on fences and frontages. However, staff’s list of code updates includes modifying the definition of lot width to account for challenges in applying this standard along cul-de-sacs. Since we are already updating the rest of the lot-related definitions, this seems like an opportune time to accomplish this task. Page 4 of 12 Currently, the definition means the minimum lot width is measured at the front property line. This makes things difficult for lots on a cul-de-sac, so we often see variances or requests for flexibility within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to have the lot width measured at the front setback. It is a best practice to re-evaluate the Zoning Ordinance when the City finds it is often granting flexibility from a specific standard. Staff believes the following definition will reduce the need for variances and PUD flexibility from this standard: LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the primary front lot line or ordinary high-water level of the shoreline. For lots on a cul-de-sac, the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback. h. Modify the “Front Yard” definition. These changes clarify that lots with multiple frontages will only have one front yard. YARD, FRONT: An area extending the full width of a lot between the primary front lot line and the nearest principal structure. A lot with multiple frontages shall have one front yard and it shall be the area extending the full width of a lot between the principal structure and the primary front lot line with driveway access to the principal structure. i. Modify the “Rear Yard” definition. These changes will clarify that every property has a rear yard, including through lots. YARD, REAR: An area extending the full width of a lot between the rear lot line (including a rear lot line that meets the definition of a secondary front lot lines) and the nearest principal structure. j. “Modify the “Side Yard” definition. The proposed changes clarify that the area between a secondary front lot line and the principal structure is considered the side yard unless the secondary front lot line doubles as a rear lot line. YARD, SIDE: An area extending the depth of a lot front the front yard to the rear yard between the side lot line (or a secondary front lot line that cannot meet the definition of a rear lot line) and the nearest principal structure. II. Proposed Changes to Fence Performance Standards in Section 1060.080 The existing performance standards in the “Fences and Walls” section require fences that exceed 4’ in height and 50% opacity to be placed no closer than the minimum required front setback. Privacy fences must meet the front setback on all lots regardless of how many frontages are present. This may be less than ideal for lots subject to a large front setback. Additionally, lots with multiple frontages cannot place privacy fences along a frontage that they consider their side and/or rear yard unless it meets the front setback. Council direction at the last meeting was to change the setback for this type of fence to 25’ or the front setback of the zoning district, whichever is less. There was also debate about how fences parallel to a secondary frontage should be handled in an interest to protect neighborhood aesthetic and views along streets. The compromise was to allow a taller, opaquer fence to run perpendicular Page 5 of 12 to a secondary frontage, but limit the height and opacity of fences parallel to and within 25’ of the secondary front lot line. Staff proposes the following changes to accomplish the direction provided by City Council: a. Change the threshold for a zoning permit review in Subd. 1(E). Right now, the Ordinance requires a zoning permit for all fences placed within 6’ of a property line. This allows for review by Planning, Public Works, and Engineering and require changes to the fence plan when there are concerns (e.g., impacts of upcoming roadway improvement projects, utility installations, crucial drainage and utility (D&U) easements, and protection of drainage patterns and wetlands). However, staff believes the 6’ threshold was already arbitrary since it does not account for our standard D&U easement width of 10’ or the unstandardized location of wetlands in general. Since we are about to allow additional flexibility for privacy fences along frontages that were previously protected by a significant setback, staff believes it is crucial to increase the threshold for review. Although changes to the fence type or placement can be required or recommended through the zoning permit process, the goal is not to deny fences but to avoid the future removal of a fence at the property owner’s expense when an entity needs to access an easement or drainage patterns are disrupted. This is largely avoided by denying a permit for a fence that is proposed to block a crucial drainage corridor and/or access to an area that staff is certain we will need to access in the foreseeable future. We work with property owners to make adjustments to eventually approve their fence plan. This process is also a chance to make sure property owners are aware that even if a fence is allowed within an easement now, there will always be a chance the fence will need to be taken down for access at a future date. They sign off on the permit that provides this disclosure which basically acts as a type of encroachment agreement that the City can keep on file as documentation if there is ever a misunderstanding in the future. Staff proposes the following threshold: A zoning permit is required for all fences (except hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within a drainage and utility or ponding easement, 25-feet from lot frontages, and 10 feet from interior lot lines, A certificate of survey may be required, unless corner stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed with the City. Additionally, retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement unless also reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. b. Modify the Specific Fence Standards in Subd. 1(G). The proposed changes below accomplish the 25’ setback from frontages for privacy fences, removes clauses that now appear redundant, clarifies and protects traffic visibility triangles from intersections and driveways, and provides additional flexibility for fences that run perpendicular to a secondary front lot line. 1. Fences constructed of materials with opacity of up to 100% and not exceeding 7 feet in height may be located no closer than 25 feet to the primary front lot line or the principal structure setback of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. Page 6 of 12 2. Fences with opacity of less than 50% (e.g., wrought iron, chain link, split rail) and not exceeding 4 feet in heigh may be located up to all lot lines. 3. On lots with multiple frontages, a fence not exceeding 7 feet in height can run perpendicular along an interior lot line up to a secondary front lot line. However, the fence cannot exceed 4 feet in height or 50% opacity for the portion of the fence that is within 25 feet (or the minimum required front setback for the underlying zoning district, whichever is less) of the secondary front lot line and runs parallel to the secondary frontage as depicted in the image below. 4. Fences over 7 feet in height shall meet all building setback requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. 5. Fences not exceeding 7 feet in height, for uses other than one and two family dwellings, may be permitted in front of the front building line as established by the primary structure on the lot, when required for screening of adjacent property. In such cases, the required front setback for the fence shall be the same as for the use that it is intended to buffer. exceeding 4 feet in height and 50% opacity cannot interfere with a 30-foot sight visibility triangle, as defined by Section 1060.090, Subd. 2, from intersections and driveways on the property and adjacent properties. III. Implications Throughout The Zoning Ordinance In the June Work Session packet, staff noted that the implications of the desired changes needed to be further analyzed. Staff reviewed the portions of the Code that will be affected by changes to the definition and understanding of front lot lines and front yards; several consequences were identified that the Council may want to consider before moving forward. The Council will need to decide if any unintended consequences discussed below are desirable or need to be addressed. Page 7 of 12 a. Architectural Standards. A specific question brought up at the June work session was how the architectural standards established in some urban districts would be applied to a secondary building frontage. It was stated that a higher architectural standard is still desired along street frontages. Staff reviewed the design requirements for urban residential districts provided in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, and determined no changes are needed to ensure continued application of the existing architectural standards. The verbiage in the design requirements for urban residential districts includes the following definition of “Front Elevation”: For the purpose of this Section, front elevation shall be the elevation facing the front lot line on the street of the mailing address for the property when the property has more than one front lot line. In other words, a building elevation along a street frontage that does not match the street of the property’s address is grouped with “other elevations.” Other elevations that face a street or public park are subject to the following standard: Equal architectural treatment on all sides of the building (materials, articulation, etc.) shall be used for all new residential construction when located on or visible from a street or public park. Each elevation facing a street or public park shall use a minimum of 2 different materials and/or styles compatible with the front elevation as described in this Section. All other elevations shall make a good faith effort to demonstrate that elements of the front elevations have been considered for incorporation on these elevations. Architectural standards within the General Mixed-Use District (GMU) also already identify a different set of standards for three types of facades (i.e., primary front facades, other facades visible from streets and parks, and interior facades). The Southeast (SE) District Plan provides design standards for architecture within the Downtown Mixed-Use District (DMU), and it already clarifies which standards apply to all facades, primary facades, and other facades that face a street. Staff does not believe any further clarification is warranted. b. Setbacks The proposed definition of secondary front lot line allows this type of frontage to be treated as a side property line. This seems fair on the surface, but when evaluating how this would be applied throughout the City, staff is concerned that we may want to re-evaluate setbacks across all zoning districts. For reference, tables are attached to this report which compare the structure setbacks for all zoning districts excluding PUDs (although we should keep in mind the changes to definitions and fence standards would apply to PUD districts as well). Below are a few of the concerns brought up in staff discussion: 1. County Road Setbacks With the exception of the DMU district, all of Corcoran’s Zoning Districts require a 100’ setback from county roads for accessory and principal structures (granted urban residential districts do not allow accessory structures within front yards). However, there is a great deal of variety in the side setbacks throughout zoning districts and PUDs. In previous discussions, the larger front setbacks from county roads were Page 8 of 12 desirable as a way to preserve rural character and large greenways while also planning for leeway should these roadways be expanded in the future. Keep in mind, the County likes to limit direct driveway access on to county roads whenever possible. This means it will be more likely for a county road frontage to be deemed a secondary front lot line than a primary front lot line. Council should consider if the following consequences are desired: i. Privacy fences of up to 7’ tall will now be allowed along all primary and secondary front lot lines along county roads. Property owners often use privacy fences as a way to buffer their property from busy streets, so there is a potential that this allowance could mean fencing off large portions of the county roads within Corcoran. ii. Properties with a secondary frontage along a county road will be subject to a side setback (which can be much lower than the front setback) for principal and accessory structures. This may seem particularly unfair to an adjacent property owner whose primary frontage is a county road, so they are still subject to a 100’ setback without installing additional landscaping. iii. Increased landscaping in exchange for a reduced parking and structure setback would no longer be required when the secondary front lot line is along a county road. This will be discussed further below in the discussion of landscaping implications. 2. Inconsistency Between Fence and Structure Setbacks Fences more than 4’ tall and 50% opacity and run parallel to a secondary front lot line must meet a 25’ setback (or the front setback of the district, whichever is less). However, urban residential districts have a side setback of 10’ for accessory structures and a 5’ side setback for attached garages (and some urban zoning districts do not even have a side setback). Does it make sense that a property owner’s attached garage can be as close as 5’ to the secondary front lot line while their 7’ privacy fence running parallel to that same frontage must meet the district front setback of 20’? 3. Inconsistency With Side and Rear Setbacks for Through Lots The proposed verbiage treats secondary front lot lines as side lot lines for the purposes of structure setbacks. This seems to make sense when working with corner lots as the secondary front lot line is often a side of the property. Unfortunately, through lots make things a bit more complicated. Under the proposed definitions, a through lot’s rear lot line is considered a secondary front lot line. Again, this makes sense because we want some additional fence regulations along frontages. However, applying a side setback to the secondary front lot line of a through lot leads to some inconsistencies since rear setbacks change from district to district. Sometimes the rear setback in a district is stricter than the side setback, and other times it more lenient than the side setback. For example, a shed in the rear yard of a Page 9 of 12 through lot within the UR would need to meet the 20’ side setback but 15’ is required from rear property lines that are not a frontage. At the same time, the principal structure can be as close as 25’ to the side property line but must be 30’ from the rear property line within the same district. Is it desirable for the secondary front lot line of a through lot to have a higher or lower setback for structures? Does it matter that the stricter setback between the rear and side lot line varies from district to district? 4. Parking Setbacks Section 1060.060, Subd. 4(A) provides the following parking area standards: Setbacks. 1. Minimum Parking and Drive Aisle Setbacks shall be as follows: a. Front – Same as the minimum front setback for principal structures in the zoning district. b. Side and Rear – 10 feet. Previously parking lots and drive aisles along any street frontage were subject to the front setback, and now they could be located as close as 10’ to the secondary front lot line. Is this desirable? If City Council agrees that setbacks need to be evaluated, one option to consider is adding a separate standard for secondary front lot lines. If this is desired, how does the Council want this to differ from the existing setbacks for front, side, and rear lot lines? Do we want a separate setback for secondary front lot lines along County Roads? c. Drive-Throughs The standards for drive-through lanes in general are established in Subd. 12 of Section 1060.060. Paragraph B provides the following standard: Drive-Through Lanes: Drive-through or drive-in lanes are not allowed between the building and a lot line that faces a public street. This does not pertain to driveways. No changes are needed to ensure this higher standard is applied to drive-through businesses in general. However, the verbiage in the conditional use permit (CUP) standards for drive-throughs in the DMU is now confusing and inconsistent. Section 1040.130, Subd. 5(B)(1) states the following: Drive-Through Lanes: Drive-through or drive-in lanes are not allowed within the build-to line or in front of any building; they must be located to the side or rear of a building. This does not pertain to driveways. While the SE District Plan clarifies that the first 50’ of a secondary lot frontage is subject to a build-to line, confusion may arise with the use of “side or rear” as the proposed changes would associate these terms with a secondary front lot line. It may make sense to further clarify that drive-throughs should not be located along a frontage. d. Landscaping Page 10 of 12 The only concern staff noted regarding landscaping standards was previously mentioned above in the discussion of county road setbacks. Our landscaping standards provide two clauses that allow properties to reduce the required 100’ setback along county roads if they provide additional landscaping. Building setbacks are reduced to 60’, and the parking setback is reduced to the front setback applied to other streets in the property’s zoning district. These clauses will still be useful for properties that have a primary front lot line along a County Road. However, properties that have a secondary front lot line along a County Road would no longer need to provide additional landscaping. Such properties will be able to locate parking, drive aisles, and structures based on the allowed side setback for the district. The side setback will be much less stringent than what will be allowed via additional landscaping to properties with primary frontage along a county road. Additionally, fences will be allowed within 20’-25’ of all county roads (depending on the front setback of the district) without any landscaping needed under the proposed language. Does this align with the goals of the City Council? e. Screening and Loading Requirements Within The SE District Plan Two of the “Screening and Loading” requirements in the SE District Plan may now be confusing and/or undesirable under the proposed definitions that now treat a secondary frontage as a side or rear yard. The current verbiage reads as follows: Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment shall be fully screened and property maintained with material similar to or compatible with material used on the main structure. Screened mechanical equipment shall not be located in the front side yard but may be located at the side or rear yard. Trash and Recycling Storage areas shall be designed internal to the principal building and shall not be allowed in an external fenced structure. Trash and recycling storage area doors shall not be located on the primary front elevation of the building but may be located in the side or rear yard. Should these standards be clarified as a part of this amendment? f. Accessory Structure Sidewall Height Limitations The sidewall height of accessory structures is limited to 10’ when such structures are placed within the front and side yards without a CUP. Since the secondary front lot line of a through lot will be used to determine the rear yard, an accessory structure’s sidewall height near the secondary frontage can be 13’6” without a CUP. Additionally, an accessory structure on a corner lot with 13’6” sidewalls will be allowable by right along the secondary front lot line as long as it meets the side setback and is located within the defined rear yard. Is the City Council okay with allowing a taller building by right in these instances? g. Beehives This concern is outside of the Zoning Ordinance, but it is related to corner lots. In Chapter 81.12, Subd. 1, (b), the Code states the following: No apiary shall occupy a front yard. For the purposes of this section, a corner lot is considered to have two front yards. Page 11 of 12 Do we want to continue applying the rule that corner lots have two front yards in regulating the locations of hives when we are attempting to remove this limitation elsewhere throughout the Code? Does this rule make sense if it doesn’t apply to other lots with multiple frontages (i.e., through lots)? h. The Proposed Perpendicular Fence Flexibility Clause The feedback from Council at the June work session landed on allowing fences along an interior lot line to go up to a secondary front lot line perpendicularly. In an effort to protect the front yard view of the surrounding properties, fences would still be subject to a 4’ height limit and 50% opacity maximum within the 25’ setback for the portion of the fence that runs parallel to the secondary frontage. Unfortunately, the wording to accomplish this goal is convoluted and may be difficult to understand. Furthermore, staff is concerned that the additional flexibility causes on inconsistency that could seem arbitrary to property owners when their primary front lot line is someone else’s secondary front lot line. Consider the following diagram: Under the proposed amendment, Lot A would be able to run a 7-foot-tall fence of 100% opacity along the shared interior lot line up to their secondary front lot line. While the view for properties across the street is preserved, this allowance would wall off Lot B’s front yard view. Furthermore, the same fence that is permitted for Lot A to construct along the shared interior lot line would not be permitted to be put up by Lot B within the 25’ setback from the primary front lot line. Does this accomplish the goals of City Council? Or should adjustments be made? 4. Summary for Discussion Page 12 of 12 Staff asks for the City Council to provide feedback on the proposed changes in how the City handles frontages and fences. Are there further changes the Council would like to see in the proposed amendments? Additionally, there are several implications to consider in applying other portions of the Zoning Ordinance and City Code. Further changes may not be necessary if the implications discussed in this report are not of concern to the Council. It will be helpful for the Council to provide feedback on whether more staff time should be put towards evaluating and/or modifying the following: a. Setbacks - County road setbacks - Side and rear structure setbacks - Parking and drive-aisle setbacks b. The DMU’s drive-through CUP standard c. Landscaping flexibility clauses to reduce county road setbacks d. SE District screening and loading requirements e. Accessory structure sidewall height limits within side and rear yards f. Beehives on lots with multiple frontages g. The proposed perpendicular fence flexibility clause If further evaluation and changes are desired, the Council should provide direction as to whether some or all of the newly desired changes are to be included as a part of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or if some should be handled as a separate amendment at a later date. Please note, extensive changes (such as evaluating setbacks throughout all districts) may delay the projected September public hearing date for this amendment, especially if review of a second draft is preferred before things move forward to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Setback Comparison Tables Residential District Principal Structure SetbacksResidential DistrictUR RR RSF‐1RSF‐2 & RSF‐3: Single‐FamilyRSF‐3: Two‐FamilyRMF‐1 & RMF‐2: Single‐FamilyTwo‐FamilyTownhomesRMF‐1 & RMF‐2: ApartmentsRMF‐3MPFront ‐ County Road100 100 100 100 100 100100 100 N/AFront ‐ other roads50 50 40 20 252525 50 25Front Porch40 40 30 15 N/A N/AN/A N/A N/ASide25 2510 living5 garage10 living5 garage10 living5 garage1030 25 10Rear30 25 30 30 252525 25 1025' park perimeter setbackMixed/Commercial/Non‐Residential Principal Structure SetbacksDistrictCRTCRC‐1 & C‐2BP & I‐1DMUGMUPIFront ‐ County Road100100100100100 maximum100100Front ‐ other roads5050255015 maximum2550Side20252020nonenone50Rear20252020nonenone50Adjacent to residential50N/A505010 minimum35N/AAccessory Structure SetbacksZoning DistrictRR & URUrban Residential DistrictsNon‐Residential DistrictsFront ‐ County Road100Not allowedNot allowedFront ‐ other roads50Not allowedNot allowedSide201010Rear151010Adjacent to residential ‐ minimum setback requirements for principal structures in the district. To: Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer File: 227704426 Date: August 11, 2022 Reference: Corcoran Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Project – WTP Architectural Decisions STATUS UPDATE Since the Council Work Session update on July 14th that provided three architectural options for consideration, the following progress has been made: •Based on the discussion and feedback provided, a dditional iterations of Option 3 have been generated to incorporate vertical board-and-batten siding. These are included as Attachments for the Council’s consideration. •We have submitted documents to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the September 1st meeting. No comments have been received as of August 3rd. PROJECT LOOKAHEAD & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DECISIONS Stantec is anticipating that final design of the WTP will be complete mid-September and coincide with the Council meeting on September 22nd. At that time, documents will be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for review and approval prior to bidding. The main point of City input that is required for final design are decisions regarding the general building color scheme (light vs. dark), building materials (stone, brick, siding), and any other architectural features. As discussed throughout design and reflected in deliverables to date, we have incorporated the Council’s feedback to include durable, long-lasting materials that require marginal maintenance. During discussions on July 14th, Option 3 was seen as the most favorable to consider because it incorporated fiber cement board siding that could be repainted in the future to better accommodate and tie together with a building expansion. Further iterations of Option 3 have been generated to incorporate vertical board-and- batten siding options based on feedback. Architectural features such as cupolas were seen as less favorable because they presented a potential maintenance item without providing functionality to the building and have not been incorporated into the latest renderings. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council provide input and direction based on the architectural renderings provided in order to inform the final design. Color schemes, building materials, and accents decisions are required to maintain the overall project schedule and goals. PROJECT SCHEDULE Public Works 90% Review – August 23rd Planning Commission Review – September 1st City Council Review – September 22nd Agenda Item: 9a. MDH Submittal – September 23rd Bidding – October-November 2022 Project Award – December 2022 Construction – January 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – WTP Architectural Renderings Memo To: Kevin Mattson, PE, PW Director From: Steve Hegland, PE Project/File: 227704747 Date: August 5, 2022 Subject: Bid Results – Mass Grading and Stormwater Pond for City Center Drive and 79th Place Council Action Requested Staff is recommending Council authorize a Notice of Award for the construction of the Mass Grading and Stormwater Pond for City Center Drive and 79th Place contingent on receipt of the final Army Corps of Engineers Permit and Costs Share Agreement Approval with the St. Therese Development. Bid Results The City has been proceeding with the shared grading and stormwater improvement project in the first phase of the downtown improvements adjacent to City Hall. This project includes the mass grading of the St. Therese Site and City Center and 79th Roadways as well as the construction of the subregional pond which will provide stormwater treatment for both of these areas. Seven bids were received on Thursday, June 30th for the Mass Grading and Stormwater Pond for City Center Drive and 79th Place. Bid results are summarized below and details are in the attached table. Contractor Bid Amount ·Park Construction Company.$ 1,344,086.40 ·Meyer Contracting, Inc.$ 1,453,305.17 ·Frattalone Companies $ 1,463,217.55 ·S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.$ 1,515,580.00 ·US SiteWork $ 1,586,492.40 ·New Look Contracting, Inc.$ 1,948,646.00 ·Veit & Company, Inc.$ 3,011,351.60 The low bidder was Park Construction Company with a bid of $ 1,344,086.40. Permitting/Cost Share Agreement During the bidding stage of this project, the Army Corps of Engineers required a permit for the wetland impacts that were required of this project. Staff worked diligently to respond to requests for additional information, publicly noticed this permit, received MPCA approval for the associated impacts, and are waiting on the final issuance of the permit. We are anticipating this permit to be issued shortly but would recommend the approval be contingent on the permit being issued. Agenda Item: 9b. August 5, 2022 Kevin Mattson, PE, PW Director Page 2 of 2 Reference: Mass Grading and Stormwater Pond for City Center Drive and 79th Place Additionally, staff have been working with the St. Therese team to finalize the costs share agreement for the construction costs associated with the project. Staff is anticipating bringing to the City Council at the August 25th Meeting the cost share agreement for their approval. Funding Funding of this project will be done through a cost share agreement. Cost allocations and the Cost Share Agreement will be presented at the August 25th Meeting We are requesting awarding this project conditionally as it will allow us to begin coordinating contracts, bonding and schedule with the Park Construction to ensure the grading project can be completed as timely as possible. Engineer’s Recommendation The bids were competitive, therefore, Stantec recommends that the project be awarded to Park Construction Company for $1,344,086.40 Project Name:City Project No.:Stantec Project No.:Bid Opening:Owner:Steven Hegland, P.E.License No. BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty Unit Price TotalUnit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBASEBID1 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $59,000.00 $59,000.00 $85,660.00 $85,660.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.002 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $3,540.00 $3,540.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,880.00 $3,880.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.003 CLEARING ACRE 4.3 $2,380.00 $10,234.00 $2,500.00 $10,750.00 $5,540.00 $23,822.00 $2,400.00 $10,320.004 GRUBBING ACRE 4.3 $2,380.00 $10,234.00 $2,500.00 $10,750.00 $5,540.00 $23,822.00 $2,400.00 $10,320.005 CLEAR TREE TREE 5 $144.00 $720.00 $175.00 $875.00 $886.00 $4,430.00 $210.00 $1,050.006 GRUB TREE TREE 5 $61.80 $309.00 $175.00 $875.00 $332.00 $1,660.00 $210.00 $1,050.007 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (NON-STRUCTRUAL) (EV) (P)CU YD 41300 $7.00 $289,100.00 $4.55 $187,915.00 $3.95 $163,135.00 $3.50 $144,550.008 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (STRUCTURAL) (EV) (P)CU YD 46524 $3.95 $183,769.80 $4.78 $222,384.72 $4.15 $193,074.60 $3.90 $181,443.609 COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) CU YD 25774 $11.50 $296,401.00 $14.08 $362,897.92 $10.80 $278,359.20 $16.50 $425,271.0010 COMMON BORROW - ONSITE (EV) (P) CU YD 48518 $3.35 $162,535.30 $3.69 $179,031.42 $4.15 $201,349.70 $3.90 $189,220.2011 STOCKPILE COMMON (CV) CU YD 4000 $3.15 $12,600.00 $2.80 $11,200.00 $2.90 $11,600.00 $3.50 $14,000.0012 STOCKPILE TOPSOIL (CV) CU YD 3100 $3.15 $9,765.00 $2.80 $8,680.00 $2.90 $8,990.00 $3.00 $9,300.0013 BOULDER RETAINING WALL LIN FT 170 $160.00 $27,200.00 $229.56 $39,025.20 $170.50 $28,985.00 $286.00 $48,620.0014 WETLAND BUFFER POSTS AND MONUMENTS EACH 26 $227.00 $5,902.00 $214.06 $5,565.56 $271.50 $7,059.00 $200.00 $5,200.0015 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE CU YD 80 $66.30 $5,304.00 $115.52 $9,241.60 $81.75 $6,540.00 $82.00 $6,560.0016 MEDIUM FILTER AGGREGATE CU YD 80 $66.30 $5,304.00 $115.52 $9,241.60 $81.75 $6,540.00 $73.00 $5,840.0017 PREMIXED IRON/FINE FILTER AGGREGATE (MOD) CU YD 440.00 $211.00 $92,840.00 $322.14 $141,741.60 $246.50 $108,460.00 $300.00 $132,000.0018 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE IV (NON-WOVEN) SQ YD 696 $3.35 $2,331.60 $3.78 $2,630.88 $3.20 $2,227.20 $3.40 $2,366.4019 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CU YD 30 $124.00 $3,720.00 $134.84 $4,045.20 $139.50 $4,185.00 $185.00 $5,550.0020 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CATEGORY 76 SQ YD 100 $21.60 $2,160.00 $87.29 $8,729.00 $61.50 $6,150.00 $15.00 $1,500.0021 36" RCP CLASS V STORM SEWER LIN FT 88 $289.00 $25,432.00 $339.10 $29,840.80 $332.50 $29,260.00 $284.00 $24,992.0022 8" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LIN FT 64 $45.80 $2,931.20 $67.22 $4,302.08 $99.50 $6,368.00 $52.00 $3,328.0023 6" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LIN FT 5 $45.60 $228.00 $94.02 $470.10 $186.00 $930.00 $48.00 $240.0024 6" PERFORATED PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LIN FT 367 $35.00 $12,845.00 $31.05 $11,395.35 $36.75 $13,487.25 $26.00 $9,542.0025 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 6 $686.00 $4,116.00 $577.86 $3,467.16 $645.00 $3,870.00 $625.00 $3,750.0026 36" RCP FLARED END AND TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $6,850.00 $6,850.00 $8,088.48 $8,088.48 $7,780.00 $7,780.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.0027 5' DIA OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE EACH 1 $19,200.00 $19,200.00 $31,683.89 $31,683.89 $23,900.00 $23,900.00 $14,300.00 $14,300.0028 24" HDPE STORM SEWER PIPE LIN FT 266 $67.60 $17,981.60 $89.10 $23,700.60 $83.25 $22,144.50 $76.00 $20,216.0029 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - MAINTAINEDLUMP SUM 1 $2,710.00 $2,710.00 $4,544.92 $4,544.92 $5,380.00 $5,380.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.0030 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - MAINTAINED LIN FT 1760 $3.00 $5,280.00 $2.45 $4,312.00 $3.30 $5,808.00 $2.50 $4,400.0031 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS - MAINTAINED LIN FT 5276 $2.35 $12,398.60 $1.84 $9,707.84 $2.05 $10,815.80 $1.80 $9,496.8032 MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112 AND STRAW MULCH ACRE 23.4 $618.00 $14,461.20 $612.24 $14,326.42 $3,690.00 $86,346.00 $1,000.00 $23,400.0033 MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131 POUND 1746 $7.00 $12,222.00 $6.94 $12,117.24 $13.30 $23,221.80 $5.00 $8,730.00I hereby certify that this is an exactreproduction of bids received.Mass Grading and Stormwater Pond for City Center Dr. and 79th PlaceCorcoran, MNThursday, June 30, 2022 at 10:00 AM227704747Bidder No. 1Park Construction Company Meyer Contracting Inc.Bidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4Frattalone Companies S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.Bidder No. 3227704747-Bid Tab.xlsmBT-1 BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty Unit Price TotalUnit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBidder No. 1Park Construction Company Meyer Contracting Inc.Bidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4Frattalone Companies S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.Bidder No. 334 MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 POUND 103 $22.70 $2,338.10 $22.45 $2,312.35 $184.00 $18,952.00 $170.00 $17,510.0035 MNDOT SEED MIX 34-171 POUND 3 $92.80 $278.40 $91.84 $275.52 $1,330.00 $3,990.00 $1,250.00 $3,750.0036 MNDOT SEED MIX 35-241 POUND 36 $18.60 $669.60 $18.37 $661.32 $194.00 $6,984.00 $179.00 $6,444.0037 SEEDING AND STRAW MULCH ACRE 23 $495.00 $11,385.00 $489.80 $11,265.40 $830.50 $19,101.50 $1,940.00 $44,620.0038 SEED AND CAT 25 BLANKET SQ YD 1800 $1.55 $2,790.00 $1.53 $2,754.00 $2.75 $4,950.00 $2.50 $4,500.00TOTAL BASE BID$1,344,086.40 $1,453,305.17 $1,463,217.55 $1,515,580.00Phone:Email:estimating@parkconstructionco.comestimating@meyerci.comcoryv@frattaloneco.comestimating@smhentges.comSigned By: Michael ChristiansonNick Frattalone Nate HentgesTitle: Vice PresidentPresident/CEO CEO Business DirectorBid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond1, 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3Bid Security:Addenda Acknowledged:(763) 786-9800 (65) 148-4048 (952) 492-5700(763) 391-5959Verlyn Schoep3205 Spruce StreetSM Hentges & Sons, Inc.650 Quaker AvenueJordan, MN 55352St. Paul, MN 551171481 81st Ave. NEMinneapolis, MN 55432Meyer Contracting, Inc.11000 93rd Avenue NorthMaple Grove, MN 55369Contractor Name and Address:Park Construction Company Frattalone Companies227704747-Bid Tab.xlsmBT-2 BID TABULATIONItem NumItemUnits QtyBASEBID1 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM 12 TRAFFIC CONTROLLUMP SUM 13CLEARINGACRE 4.34 GRUBBINGACRE 4.35 CLEAR TREETREE 56 GRUB TREETREE 57 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (NON-STRUCTRUAL) (EV) (P)CU YD 413008 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (STRUCTURAL) (EV) (P)CU YD 465249 COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P)CU YD 2577410 COMMON BORROW - ONSITE (EV) (P)CU YD 4851811 STOCKPILE COMMON (CV)CU YD 400012 STOCKPILE TOPSOIL (CV)CU YD 310013 BOULDER RETAINING WALLLIN FT 17014 WETLAND BUFFER POSTS AND MONUMENTSEACH 2615 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATECU YD 8016 MEDIUM FILTER AGGREGATECU YD 8017 PREMIXED IRON/FINE FILTER AGGREGATE (MOD) CU YD 440.0018 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE IV (NON-WOVEN)SQ YD 69619 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS IIICU YD 3020 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CATEGORY 76 SQ YD 10021 36" RCP CLASS V STORM SEWERLIN FT 8822 8" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPELIN FT 6423 6" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPELIN FT 524 6" PERFORATED PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPELIN FT 36725 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUTEACH 626 36" RCP FLARED END AND TRASH GUARDEACH 127 5' DIA OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTUREEACH 128 24" HDPE STORM SEWER PIPELIN FT 26629 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - MAINTAINEDLUMP SUM 130 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - MAINTAINEDLIN FT 176031 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS - MAINTAINEDLIN FT 527632 MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112 AND STRAW MULCHACRE 23.433 MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131POUND 1746Unit PriceTotalUnit PriceTotalUnit PriceTotal$145,000.00 $145,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $145,000.00 $145,000.00$3,325.00$3,325.00 $1,700.00$1,700.00 $3,880.00$3,880.00$2,560.00$11,008.00 $4,425.00$19,027.50 $3,880.00$16,684.00$2,560.00$11,008.00 $825.00$3,547.50 $3,050.00$13,115.00$111.00$555.00 $170.00$850.00 $194.00$970.00$111.00$555.00 $200.00$1,000.00 $139.00$695.00$5.00 $206,500.00$5.00 $206,500.00 $27.70 $1,144,010.00$4.70 $218,662.80$5.25 $244,251.00 $14.10 $655,988.40$18.00 $463,932.00 $17.00 $438,158.00 $18.10 $466,509.40$3.60 $174,664.80 $10.00 $485,180.00$4.00 $194,072.00$3.60$14,400.00$8.75$35,000.00$2.90$11,600.00$2.50$7,750.00$8.75$27,125.00$2.90$8,990.00$197.00$33,490.00 $185.00$31,450.00 $221.00$37,570.00$157.00$4,082.00 $200.00$5,200.00 $271.00$7,046.00$64.50$5,160.00 $75.00$6,000.00 $59.00$4,720.00$64.50$5,160.00 $75.00$6,000.00 $59.00$4,720.00$238.00 $104,720.00 $335.00 $147,400.00 $245.00 $107,800.00$3.00$2,088.00$3.50$2,436.00$3.30$2,296.80$92.00$2,760.00 $125.00$3,750.00 $123.00$3,690.00$33.00$3,300.00 $24.00$2,400.00 $118.00$11,800.00$295.00$25,960.00 $300.00$26,400.00 $321.00$28,248.00$55.50$3,552.00 $85.00$5,440.00 $64.50$4,128.00$115.00$575.00 $125.00$625.00 $52.50$262.50$32.00$11,744.00 $30.00$11,010.00 $33.50$12,294.50$788.00$4,728.00 $650.00$3,900.00 $718.00$4,308.00$6,800.00$6,800.00 $7,250.00$7,250.00 $18,110.00$18,110.00$22,220.00$22,220.00 $19,000.00$19,000.00 $17,110.00$17,110.00$81.00$21,546.00 $85.00$22,610.00 $71.00$18,886.00$4,420.00$4,420.00 $3,500.00$3,500.00 $4,050.00$4,050.00$3.10$5,456.00$3.75$6,600.00$2.70$4,752.00$2.80$14,772.80$3.25$17,147.00$2.00$10,552.00$709.00$16,590.60 $725.00$16,965.00 $665.00$15,561.00$4.90$8,555.40$5.00$8,730.00$7.50$13,095.00Bidder No. 5US SiteWorkBidder No. 7Veit & Company, Inc.Bidder No. 6New Look Contracting, Inc.227704747-Bid Tab.xlsmBT-3 BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty34 MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 POUND 10335 MNDOT SEED MIX 34-171 POUND 336 MNDOT SEED MIX 35-241 POUND 3637 SEEDING AND STRAW MULCH ACRE 2338 SEED AND CAT 25 BLANKET SQ YD 1800TOTAL BASE BIDPhone:Email:Signed By:Title:Bid Security:Addenda Acknowledged:Contractor Name and Address:Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBidder No. 5US SiteWorkBidder No. 7Veit & Company, Inc.Bidder No. 6New Look Contracting, Inc.$23.50 $2,420.50 $24.00 $2,472.00 $24.50 $2,523.50$93.50 $280.50 $95.00 $285.00 $99.50 $298.50$16.00 $576.00 $17.00 $612.00 $20.00 $720.00$665.00 $15,295.00 $675.00 $15,525.00 $532.00 $12,236.00$1.60 $2,880.00 $2.00 $3,600.00 $1.70 $3,060.00$1,586,492.40 $1,948,646.00 $3,011,351.60estimating@ussitework.comestimating@newlookcontractingestimating@veitusa.comBart Anderson Jarrod Sargent Steve HedtkeCEO Chief Estimator Chief Financial OfficerBid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond1, 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3(763) 241-1596(763) 280-8508 (763) 428-2242Veit & Company, Inc.14000 Veit PlaceRogers, MN 55374US SiteWork, Inc.11040 183rd Circle NW, Ste BElk River, MN 55330New Look Contracting, Inc.14045 Northdale Blvd.Rogers, MN 55374227704747-Bid Tab.xlsmBT-4 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Schedule Work Sessions Action Required: Schedule Work Sessions Summary : The City Council has directed staff to resulted in scheduling work session meetings as follows: August 25, 2022 at 5:30 pm: 2023 Draft Budget Review September 22, 2022 at 5:30 pm: Financial Management Plan October 13, 2022 at 5:30pm: Rental Ordinance The meetings are open to the public. Once scheduled, staff will draft agendas to include topic items of discussion including the 2023 Budget, Financial Management Plan and Rental Ordinance. Financial/Budget: N/A Council Action: Schedule Work Sessions on August 25, September 22, and October 13 at 5:30pm. Attachm ents: None STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: August 11, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: THC Regulation Discussion Action Required: Direction Summary: In the most recent legislative session, a bill legalized certain amounts of THC for consumption. Staff and our legal counsel believe that the legislation does not provide reasonable regulatory oversight. Communities throughout the state are discussing options for regulating consumption of these products. Several communities have implemented a moratorium on the sale of THC products. Other cities are implementing regulations related to this or outright prohibiting the sale of THC products. Staff would like direction on how to proceed. Financial/Budget: Depending on the regulations established, there may be budget implications. Options: 1. Direct staff on how to proceed. Recommendation: Staff believes at a minimum we should consider a one-year moratorium on the sale of products containing THC until appropriate regulation can be created. Council Action: Direct staff on how to proceed. Attachments: None City of Corcoran 2022 City Council Schedule Agenda Item: 12. August 25, 2022 Work Session (Tentative) • Draft 2023 Budget Work Session August 25, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Walcott Glen Final Plat and PUD • 2021 Audit Presentation • O’Brien Concept Plan (Tentative) • Phase 2b of the Administration Department • Schedule Work Session – Financial Management Plan and Rental Ordinance September 8, 2022 • 2023 Preliminary Levy • Levy Insert Document • Financial Management Plan Fire • Service Work Plan Update September 22, 2022 Work Session (Tentative) • Financial Management Plan September 22, 2022 • 2023 Preliminary Levy (if Not Adopted on 9/8) • Levy Insert Document (if Not Adopted on 9/8) • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Schedule Work Session – Stormwater Area Charge • Volrath CUP October 13, 2022 Work Session (Tentative) • Rental Ordinance Discussion October 13, 2022 • MS4 Ordinance Amendment • Fee Schedule Amendment Discussion • Gateway Sign Discussion October 27, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Financial Performance Report Page 2 of 2 • Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Preliminary Plat (Tentative) • Corcoran Farms Industrial Park Preliminary Plat (Tentative) November 10, 2022 • Construction Hours Review – Annual After Change in 2021 • Park Signs Plan November 24, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications December 8, 2022 • Public Hearing – 2023 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy • 2023 Full-time, Part-time, and Seasonal Wage Schedule • 2023 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy • 2023 Fee Schedule • 2023 Water and Sanitary Sewer Budget • 2023 Goal Setting Date December 22, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications