HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.b. Request by Lennar Corporation for the Approval of the Meadow Ridge Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning, and a Lot Split.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: March 20, 2018
AGENDA ITEM: Request by Lennar Corporation for the
Approval of the Meadow Ridge
Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit
Development Master Development Plan
with Rezoning, and a Lot Split.
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 9.b.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance; Resolutions; Planned Unit
Development Agreement; Excerpt from
January 23, 2018 Planning Commission
Meeting; Site Location Map; Existing
Conditions Preliminary Plat; Preliminary
Utility Plan; Preliminary Grading Plan;
Detail Sheet; Preliminary Street Profiles;
Preliminary Phasing Plan; Landscape
Plan; Tree Preservation Plan; Lift Station
Agreement; Park and Recreation
Director’s Memorandum dated February
13, 2018; City Engineer’s Memorandum
dated March 16, 2018; WCA Pre-
application Memorandum dated January
11, 2018; WCA Application; Lot Split
Exhibit
APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance for Meadow Ridge from Agriculture to R1 PUD-Low Density Residential Planned
Unit Development.
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Meadow Ridge with
conditions.
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master
Development Plan with Rezoning for Meadow Ridge.
Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan Agreement for
Meadow Ridge and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement.
Motion to approve the agreement defining the responsibilities of the City and Developer
regarding the installation, maintenance, and removal of the temporary lift station.
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving a lot split for the property at 12523 Akron Avenue.
2
ISSUE
Lennar Corporation has requested a preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD) master development
plan and rezoning to R-1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Development Plan named Meadow Ridge
to develop 153 single family homes on 79.5 acres. The applicant will apply later for final plat approval to
allow development of the first phase of the subdivision project. To facilitate the sale of the phased project,
the applicant is also requesting approval of a lot split.
JANUARY 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item at its January 23, 2018 meeting. The
Commission asked how the location of the trail along Street A fit with the rest of the planned trail system.
Staff clarified that the sidewalk with be located on the north side of the road so that it provides a
continuous path for walkers within the neighborhood. Another concern brought up by the Commission
was use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as a zoning tool to permit modifications to the
traditional R-1 standards. It was suggested that the City should investigate adding another zoning category
that reflects the desired small lot single family zoning consistent with recent neighborhood developments.
The Commission received comments from the owners of properties in the vicinity of the site. Residents
who spoke asked about improvements to Akron Avenue, paying of assessments and the provision of
telecommunication utilities to the rural residential development immediately north of the site. The
Commission also received comments relating to storm water management and impacts to surrounding
properties. City Engineer Erickson indicated that the addition of storm water utilities within the proposed
development should alleviate runoff from the site onto neighboring properties. Michael Clements, a
Commissioner speaking as a resident, asked that the utilities provided to the three existing residential
properties located near the northeast corner of the site be sized to accommodate future subdivision of
those properties.
The Planning Commission unanimously moved to recommend approval of the agenda items as well as the
lot split with Commissioner Clements abstaining due to a financial conflict of interest.
SUMMARY
Lennar Corporation has requested a preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD) master
development plan with rezoning to R-1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, for a
residential development containing 153 lots on approximately 80 acres. The applicant is also requesting a
lot split to facilitate purchase of property consistent with proposed phasing. The preliminary plat provides
legal entitlement to a certain number of lots, but actual developable lots would not be created until a final
plat is approved. Lennar plans to develop the first phase of 65 lots in the southern and eastern portions of
the site that are able to be served by gravity sewer. The applicant is requesting the lot split to allow them
to purchase the first phase property, allowing the remainder of the property to be held by the Cliffs. Final
platting of the first phase will occur later this spring.
Owners: Richard and Dixie Cliff
Residential Developers: Lennar Corporation
Total Gross Acreage: 79.5249
Met Council Net Acres: 41.2666
Residential Lots Created: 153 plus one existing home site.
Gross Density: 2.2108 Units/Acre
Net Density: 2.8216 Units/Acre
Comprehensive Plan Guiding: R1-Low Density Residential
Current Zoning: AG-Agriculture
3
Requested Zoning: R-1 PUD
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Rural Residential
East: Agriculture (Owned and maintained as a buffer by Flint Hills Resources)
South: Agriculture
West: Agriculture
Land to the west and south of the site is guided for Low Density Residential and is located within the
MUSA.
BACKGROUND
Legal Authority
Preliminary plats and lot split requests are quasi-judicial decisions meaning that the City Council is acting
as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Subdivision ordinance are being followed. The Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan is a
rezoning activity and therefore is a legislative decision. Legislative decisions give the Council more
latitude, but consideration should be given to the ordinance criteria for granting of PUDs and the PUD
standards of other developments that have been approved in the vicinity. The recommended standards
are similar to the Prestwick Place PUD standards and, to a lesser extent, the Greystone PUD standards.
Alternative Urban Area -wide Review
The subject property falls within the CSAH 42/Akron AUAR that was adopted in 2007, updated in 2012,
and is currently being updated for renewal. An AUAR is an environmental review document that
anticipates development over a larger area. The benefit is that an environmental review is not required for
each development within the AUAR boundaries. The proposed development is located in an area
anticipated to develop as low density residential at a density of two to four units per acre. Property owners
within the AUAR boundaries must reimburse the City for the AUAR either at the time the AUAR is
adopted or when the property is developed. The current owners of the property had opted to defer
payment for the AUAR until development. The amount due is $5,043 ($67 per acre x 75.27 acres). This
acreage does not include rights of way along Akron Avenue as well as the portion of the preliminary plat
located in the northeast corner of the site that falls outside the AUAR.
General Subdivision Design
The area to be developed is approximately 75 acres and is located along the western side of Akron
Avenue, one half mile north of Bonaire Path. Access to the development is provided by a minor collector
that runs from Akron to a stub on the western border of the site. A second stub is created along the
southern border of the site to provide access to future development to the south. The street system
contains four cul-de-sacs. Use of cul-de-sacs versus connector streets is necessitated by the location of
onsite wetlands, required stormwater ponding and steep slopes. Right-of-way for the minor collector
should be 80’ with the interior roads 60’. Seventy-five feet of additional right of way is required for Akron
Avenue. Although Akron Avenue alignment is proposed to be modified in the future, the location of the
access point for the minor collector has been found acceptable to the County.
There are approximately 4.5 acres designated as outlots to contain wetlands and a future lift station.
Initially the preliminary plat placed stormwater ponds and steep slopes within outlots to be deeded to the
City. The City does not typically take stormwater ponds that are in-place for only localized project
drainage, which is the case in this project. While the City maintains the functionality of stormwater ponds,
the City does not want to take on additional maintenance responsibilities for upkeep of the site. This
policy results in a plat which has elongated lots to encompass ponding areas, although these lands are
restricted. Often the ponding areas can be put into an outlot that is owned by the HOA. Unfortunately,
the developer is not planning on a HOA. The property contains three pipeline easements. One 50ft.
4
easement runs along Akron Avenue on the eastern border of the site. Another 50ft. easement diagonally
crosses the southeast corner of the site. The third easement is 66ft. wide and diagonally crosses the
northwest corner of the site. The presence and locations of the pipelines restrict the flexibility of
subdivision design.
Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning
The subject property is currently zoned AG-Agriculture. The subdivision proposal is generally consistent
with recent small lot single family neighborhoods in the Akron Avenue area, which is inconsistent with the
standard R-1 zoning district standards. To facilitate the project, Lennar is requesting rezoning to R1 PUD-
Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The deviations from the R1 standards requested by
Lennar include a reduction in the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,800 square feet, reduction
in the minimum lot width from 80 feet to 65 feet, reduction in the front yard setback from 30 feet to 25
feet, reduction in the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. Additionally, the applicant had requested
that the maximum lot coverage be considered for entire site as a whole given that the development as
proposed falls below 30%. This calculation would be difficult to administer as the project will be
constructed over many years and after completion, residents add hard surface at their individual lots.
Rather, staff is proposing that the lot coverage maximum be based on lot size similar to the standards in
other PUDs as follows: the maximum lot coverage of forty-five percent (45%) for the three lots that are
less than 8,250 square feet in size, forty percent (40%) for the twenty-nine lots that are between 8,250
square feet and 9,750 square feet, and thirty-five percent (35%) for the thirty-three lots that are between
9,750 square feet and 11,250 square feet. The remaining eighty-eight lots larger than 11,250 square feet
must adhere to the standard thirty percent (30%) maximum lot coverage. The standards proposed by the
applicant accommodate the proposed preliminary plat and are acceptable to staff.
Comparison of Lot Requirements and Standards
Category Standard R-1 Zoning Cliff Property Greystone Falmoor Glen
Min. Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 7,800 sq. ft. 8,600 sq. ft. 8,970 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width 80 ft. 65 ft. 60 ft. 65 ft.
Min. Front Yard Setback 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Min. Side Yard Setback 10 ft. 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft.
Min. Rear Yard Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Max. Lot Coverage 30% 30% to 45%a 35% to 40% 35% to 43%
a. A maximum lot coverage of forty-five percent (45%) for lots less than 8,250 square feet in size, forty percent (40%) for lots
between 8,250 square feet and 9,750 square feet, thirty-five percent (35%) for lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250 square feet.
Phasing and Lot Split
Development on the site will take place in at least three phases. The first two phases will accommodate 65
lots in the portion of the development that can be served by gravity sewer. This is located south of Street
A and east of Street E. Subsequent phases will proceed as the market will bear. The applicant has
provided plans for a temporary lift station located in the Street A right of way at the western boundary of
the site. This temporary lift station will serve the areas within the development that cannot be served by
gravity sewer until a permanent lift station is installed west of the site as indicated in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Included with this proposal is an application for a lot split. The applicant would like the opportunity to
purchase the property as development occurs, but is not ready to apply for a final plat of the first phase at
this time. Approving the lot split will allow the applicant to purchase the first phase, leaving the remainder
owned by the Cliffs. This differs from the method used in other developments of creating separate outlots
for each phase. Staff is supportive of the split, which creates two lots that conform to the current and
future zoning. Consistent with other lot division actions, staff is recommending dedication of perimeter
standard drainage and utility easements over both lots and dedication of Akron Avenue right of way.
These easements shall be recorded with the lot split. It is unlikely that other developments will outpace
build-out of this project but the City should obtain necessary right-of-way and utility access so delays
5
would not be realized. Therefore, the lot split is drawn in a way that allows the land needed for Street A to
be dedicated to the City with the first phase of development.
Street and Sidewalk System
The applicant indicates the site will be served by seven streets including five cul-de-sacs. Staff had
requested the applicant make an effort to reduce the number of cul-de-sacs included in the street system.
Two cul-de-sacs were replaced with a single through street, Street E. Steep slopes and wetlands make
connectivity more difficult. At the onset of development the site will be accessed from Akron Avenue via
Street A, a minor collector running east-west midway through the site. A stub on the western terminus of
that street as well as a stub at the southern terminus of Street G will accommodate access to the site from
future development. Because Street G will be a through street, staff is recommending the access to Lot
196 in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Street E and Street G be shifted from Street G to
Street E as a condition of approval.
In addition to the internal street system, the development will be accessed via Akron Avenue, which is
scheduled for improvement in 2020. Part of the cost of the improvement to Akron will be borne by the
developer at a cost of $110/front-foot. The final design for the improvement of Akron Avenue has not
been finalized, but grading and utility work near Akron Avenue will need further coordination with the
County as both projects move forward.
The Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed the proposed development as it relates to the City’s
Trail and Sidewalk Plan. Parks and Recreation staff believes the development meets the City’s goal of
having connected neighborhoods. The plans submitted by the applicant indicate a trail along the southern
side of Street A that would connect to a future trail along Akron Avenue. Staff is recommending that a
sidewalk be added on the east side of Street E along lots numbered 195-198 as depicted in the plans
provided by the applicant. This would add continuity with the sidewalk along Street E located to the east.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended a sidewalk be added to the south and west side of
Street E between lots 204 – 211 to avoid a single homeowner having to maintain such a long stretch of
sidewalk along the frontage of lot 195. While staff understands the concern, shifting the sidewalk to the
other side of the cul-de-sac means that the sidewalk is discontinuous for walkers and the recommendation
is not supported. The resolution reflects the sidewalk location on the east side of Street E, not supporting
the Parks Commission recommendation. The council should modify the resolution adding this condition if
they would like to relocate the proposed sidewalk:
Relocation of the sidewalk within the cul-de-sac of Street E from the frontage along lots 195-198
to the frontage along lots 204-211
Wetlands
Three wetlands have been identified on site. The largest wetland, located along the northern boundary of
the site, is a classified as both a shallow marsh and open water. It is 2.43 acres in size. The second largest
wetland is classified as open water, and it is located on the western boundary of the site. It is one-half acre
in size. Both of these wetlands are classified as Manage 1 in the Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland
Management Plan. This is the second highest classification, and it is based on the functional value of the
wetlands with regard to floral diversity, water quality protection, fish and wildlife habitat, and other
categories. A 50’ buffer zone must be maintained around Manage I wetlands. In addition, a 30’ structural
setback applies to properties adjacent to a wetland. A conservation easement shall be placed over all
wetlands and wetland buffers. A condition stating that markers indicating the wetland buffer must be
installed on all affected properties is included in the recommendation.
The third wetland, a seasonally flooded basin, will be impacted by the development. This wetland,
identified as Wetland D on plans provided by the applicant, has been part of agricultural production in the
past and is currently surrounded by agricultural fields. Wetland D, classified as a Management II wetland,
is of lower quality than the two other wetlands on site. Due to the elimination of the wetland, the City’s
6
comprehensive wetland management plan requires replacement to take place, preferably on site. If on site
mitigation is not feasible, siting within the same subwatershed area or replacement within the city are both
preferred. Typically, the least preferred method of replacement is through the purchase of credits from a
wetland bank, ideally within the same major watershed. The applicant had provided plans to mitigate the
impacted Wetland D on site, but this mitigation would be detrimental to the existing wetlands and
surrounding upland buffer, causing more grading and tree removal. Staff recommended that the applicant
pursue off-site mitigation for the replacement of Wetland D to preserve additional trees on the site as well
as limit impacts to the other existing wetlands. In the past, staff has supported trying to create a wetland
within the community. That process has not been overly successful and the developer doesn’t have access
to a lot of other land options in the community and therefore staff supports purchase of wetland credits.
Following conversations between staff and the applicant, a wetland permit application was submitted that
described the proposed offsite mitigation. Wetland D is 9,721 square feet in area. The City’s wetland
management plan requires replacement at a 2:1 ratio. This means the applicant must purchase credits
totaling 19,442 square feet. The available wetland banks are located in Freeborn County. Although staff
would prefer seeing the credits purchased in a wetland bank closer to Rosemount, all available banks
nearby are dedicated to other developments.
Tree Preservation
The applicant has provided a tree preservation plan indicating how many trees are to be removed for site
development as well as which trees will remain. The applicant has indicated that trees on steep slopes and
surrounding the wetlands on the site will remain. Additionally, there is a line of trees along the western
border of the property, the majority of which will be saved. A total of 15,515 caliper inches of trees are
located on the site. The applicant is permitted to remove 25%, or 3,878 caliper inches without
replacement. A total of 9,322 caliper inches are proposed to be removed or 5,444” more than permitted
without replacement. This includes 107 caliper inches of heritage trees, which must be replaced at a 1:1
ratio. The rest of the caliper inches over the threshold must be replaced at a 1:2 ratio. The total number
of inches to be mitigated is 2,722. There appear to be areas where additional trees can be saved. Staff is
recommending walking the site with the applicant to ensure that the location of fencing delineating trees to
be saved is adequate to prevent damage to the root structures when the site is graded for development.
The applicant has provided a landscaping plan that meets the requirements of the City Code for one tree
on every interior lot and two trees on every corner lot. Additional trees are indicated on the collector
Street A as well as around the storm water retention ponds and the pipeline easements. Two hundred and
fifty-three trees (759 caliper inches) are required in addition to 2,722” of replacement trees as mitigation.
The landscaping plan provided by the applicant indicates a shortage of 941 caliper inches. If full
replacement cannot be conducted on site, the ordinance permits payment in lieu of replacement so that
tress can be planted in public spaces. The payment would be $94,100.
Total Inches On Site 15,515”
Inches Removed 9,322” (107” Heritage)
Removal Allowance 3,878”
Replacement Required 5,444” (including 107” Heritage)
Replacement Ratio 0.5/1.0
Inches of Replacement Required 2,829”
Total Inches Proposed 1,888” (short 941”)
Stormwater Management
Stormwater will be managed on site with three stormwater ponds. The area containing the ponds is
incorporated into the plat, similar to what has been done in other recent developments. The City’s project
engineer has reviewed the Stormwater Management Plan provided by the developer. Conditions included
7
in the Engineer’s Report for the Planning Commission have been addressed by information the applicant
provided following the Planning Commission’s review of this item. Particularly, the applicant was able to
provide documentation that discharge volumes to Wetland B and E will not increase as a result of the
development. An engineer’s memo dated February 20, 2018 is included in the attachments.
Utilities
The City’s utility plan indicates a lift station on the adjacent property to the west. Because development of
the Cliff property is occurring out of sequence, and only a portion of the site is able to be served by gravity
sewer, the developer is suggesting a temporary lift station to be located at the western terminus of Street A.
The temporary lift station will permit full development of the site. When development to the west occurs,
and the planned, permanent lift station is installed, the temporary lift station will be removed. Because the
temporary lift station is located in right of way that is necessary for access to adjacent parcels, and because
its use would be obsolete, the costs of the installation and removal of the lift station are the responsibility
of the developer. This solution is a modification from what was initially proposed. Initially the developer
would have paid the differential for installation of the regional lift station on the Cliff property versus the
western property. The current solution represents a cost saving to the developer from that initial plan.
The City will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the temporary lift station to ensure its
functionality. As part of the requested approvals, staff is requesting approval of an agreement that
commits the developer to pay for the lift station removal and restoration of the site.
Water will also be brought up to the site along Akron Avenue and serve the development via a 12” water
main located within Street A. The developer will be responsible for the equivalent cost of an 8-inch DIP
watermain. The construction cost for over-sizing and extra depth will be a City trunk fund expenditure
and serves the area beyond the current project.
Finally, staff is recommending that the developer extend service of both sanitary sewer and water to the
existing properties at 12523, 12605, and 12637 Akron Avenue. Each parcel should be served
independently as there is no surety that the parcels will be jointly redeveloped in the future. Additional
conditions are detailed in the Engineer’s Memo dated February 20, 2018.
CONCLUSION
Many of the issues associated with the plat primarily relating to provision of utilities, site grading, and tree
removal have been addressed by the developer without significantly impacting the preliminary plat as
recommended for approval by the planning commission. Staff understands the Council’s desire to facilitate
development and wants to be flexible with utility provision, so long as the City costs are not greater than
that initially intended by the adopted system plans. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Plan with Rezoning and the Lot Split for
Meadow Ridge.
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Meadow Ridge
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance,” is hereby amended to rezone property from AG – Agricultural to R-1 PUD – Low
Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located west of Akron Avenue and one half
mile north of Bonaire Path within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows:
The South 240.00 feet of the East 480.00 feet of the East Half of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
And
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota. Except the following:
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 290.4 feet of the East
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
And
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 363 feet of the East
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 155, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,” shall not be
republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file in the Clerk’s office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 20th day of March, 2018.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-254
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Meadow Ridge
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989,
entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,” is
hereby amended to rezone property from AG –
Agricultural to R -1 PUD – Low Density Residential
Planned Unit Development that is located west of Akron
Avenue and one half mile north of Bonaire Path within
the City of Rosemount legally described as follows:
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15,
Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Except the following:
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the
East 290.4 feet of the East Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
And
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the
East 363 feet of the East Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 15, Township 155, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,
referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as
that certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of
Rosemount,” shall not be republished to show the
aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately
mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk’s office for
the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove
provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation
references and other information shown thereon are
hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this
20th day of March, 2018.
/s/William H. Droste, Mayor
Attested: Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
03/20/2018
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR MEADOW RIDGE
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request for a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning from Lennar
Corporation concerning property legally described as:
The South 240.00 feet of the East 480.00 feet of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15,
Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
And
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota. Except the following:
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 290.4 feet of the East Half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
And
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 363 feet of the East Half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 155, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning for Meadow Ridge; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Master Development Plan with Rezoning for Meadow Ridge, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Meadow Ridge and
the Rezoning from AG – Agricultural to R1 PUD – Low Density Residential Planned Unit
Development, subject to:
a. Conservation easements shall be recorded over all wooded areas, wetlands, and
wetland buffers. Markers indicating the location of conservation easements and
wetland buffers must be installed on all affected properties. Fences are not
permitted within conservation easements.
b. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all stormwater ponds,
buffers and outlets.
c. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be
seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix.
d. Payment of $5,043 for AUAR study.
e. Approval of a WCA application with off-site mitigation occurring via the
purchase of credits from a wetland bank.
RESOLUTION 2018-
2
f. Payment of $94,100 in-lieu of tree replacement.
g. The front building elevation design shall include one of the following elements:
i. Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors,
windows or the wall behind the front porch;
ii. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the
front elevation, including the garage;
iii. A side entry garage;
iv. Or, no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
h. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot
minimum area of 10,000 to 7,800 square feet and corner lot minimum area from
12, 000 to 10,500 square feet.
i. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width
from eighty (80) feet to sixty-five (65) feet for interior lots and from ninety (90)
feet to seventy-five (75) feet for corner lots.
j. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.4. to reduce the front yard setback
from thirty (30) feet to twenty-five (25) feet.
k. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.5. to reduce the side yard setback
from ten (10) feet to seven and one half (7.5) feet except in areas where existence
of larger drainage and utility easements require additional setbacks.
l. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to increase the maximum lot
coverage from thirty percent (30%) to forty-five percent (45%) for the three lots
less than 8,250 square feet in area, forty percent (40%) for twenty-nine lots
between 8,250 square feet and 9,750 square feet in area, and thirty-five percent
(35%) for the thirty-three lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250 square feet
in area.
m. Create and record a restrictive covenant on the retaining walls located on private
property that ensures that it is the homeowners cost and responsibility to
maintain the retaining walls.
n. Development beyond the first phase cannot take place until the temporary lift
station located in the Street A right of way is built and sanitary sewer is available
to future phases.
o. Extension of sanitary sewer and watermain that is able to individually serve the
existing properties at 12523, 12605, 12637 Akron Avenue.
p. Payment of $110/frontage foot for upgrades to Akron Avenue.
q. Execution of an agreement defining the City’s and developer’s responsibilities
with regards to the temporary lift station.
r. Drainage and utility easements with storm sewer infrastructure may contain
fences but shall be required to include gates to provide truck access; shall
prohibit sheds or other accessory structures; and shall prohibit landscaping that
would impede drainage.
s. Each corner lot will have two overstory trees, one fronting on each road and all
interior lots will have one boulevard planting.
t. Road rights-of-way will be 80’ for Street A, 60’ for all other internal roadways
and an additional 75’ of right-of-way dedicated for Akron Avenue.
u. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the
attached memorandum dated March 16, 2018.
RESOLUTION 2018-
3
v. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as
detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 13, 2018.
w. The applicant meets with staff on the site to assess areas for further tree
preservation prior to issuance of a site grading permit.
x. Relocation of the driveway on lot 195 from Street G to Street E.
ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR MEADOW RIDGE
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from Lennar
Corporation concerning property legally described as:
The South 240.00 feet of the East 480.00 feet of the East Half of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
And
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19,
Dakota County, Minnesota. Except the following:
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 290.4 feet of the East
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
And
The North 300 feet of the South 2059.3 feet of the East 363 feet of the East
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 155, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a
public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Meadow Ridge; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Meadow Ridge, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat for Greystone III, subject to the following conditions:
a. Approval of a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for the subject
property and designating minimum lot requirements and setbacks.
b. Payment of $110/frontage foot for upgrades to Akron Avenue.
c. Execution of an agreement defining the City’s and developer’s responsibilities with regards
to the temporary lift station located in the right of way of Street A.
d. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached
memorandum dated March 16, 2018.
e. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the
attached memorandum dated February 13, 2018
f. Outlots A, B shall be dedicated to the City.
RESOLUTION 2018-
2
g. Drainage and utility easements should be dedicated over all ponding and wetland areas with
a conservation easement provided over the designated wetlands.
ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
1
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
MEADOW RIDGE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DECLARATION made this ______ day of _________________, 2018, by U.S.
Home Corporation, aka Lennar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential
development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
2
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit
development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a. City Resolution No. 2018-XX, Attachment Two
b. Development Plan/Overall Preliminary Plat (Revised 02/21/2018),
Attachment Three
d. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets 5 through 8 of 38; Revised 02/21/2018),
Attachments Four through Seven
e. Preliminary Grading Plans, (Sheets 9 through 11 of 38; Revised
02/21/2018), Attachments Eight through Ten
f. Preliminary Storm Sewer Plan (Sheets 21 through 23 of 38; Revised
02/21/2018) Attachments Eleven through Thirteen
g. Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet L1 of 1; Revised 02/21/2018),
Attachment Fourteen.
h. Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet T1 of 1; Revised 02/21/2018), Attachment
Fifteen.
3
All of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
a. Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated
stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be
performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage
collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the of the
private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater basin and infiltration basin
shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established.
b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that
associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall
be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners’ association.
c. The home design front elevation shall include a minimum of three and a
half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind
the front porch; a front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the
front elevation, including the garage; a side entry garage; or no more than 70% lap siding,
excluding doors and windows.
e. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers.
f. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation
shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix.
4
3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council
of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that
permits such other development and use.
4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the
following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
a. Section 11-4-5 F. 1. R-1 Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area of
interior lots shall be 7,800 square feet. The minimum lot area of corner lots shall be 10,500
square feet.
b. Section 11-4-5 F. 2 . R-1 Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width of
interior lots shall be 65 feet. The minimum lot width of corner lots shall be 75 feet.
c. Section 11-4-5 F. 4. R-1 Minimum Front Yard Setback: The minimum
front yard setback shall be 25 feet.
d. Section 11-4-5 F. 5. R-1 Minimum Side Yard Setback: The minimum side
yard setback shall be 7.5 feet except in areas where existence of larger drainage and utility
easements require additional setbacks.
a. e. Section 11-4-5 F.5. R-1 Minimum Lot Coverage: The maximum lot
coverage shall be forty-five percent (45%) for lots less than 8,250 square feet in area,
forty percent (40%) for lots between 8,250 square feet and 9,750 square feet in area,
and thirty-five percent (35%) for lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250 square
feet in area.
5
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances.
5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property
only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or
development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned
unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is
required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions.
6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected
by said amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of
Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
DECLARANT
LENNAR CORPORATION
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
6
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________,
2013, by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
2875 145TH STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
6.b. Request by Lennar Corporation for the Approval of the Cliff Property Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit
Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning and a Lot Split. (18-03-PP, 18-04-PUD, & 18-08-LS)
Commissioner Clements recuses himself from this item because he is the realtor for the Cliff family.
Planner Nemcek gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Mele stated that the trees are going to be preserved during grading. Nemcek stated that they would like to
maintain as many trees as possible. Mele inquired as to why they are required to have sidewalks on both sides of a
specific street. Nemcek stated that the specific cul-de-sac actually doesn’t have another sidewalk. It’s just located on one
side. Mele inquired why they are required to have a trail on a collector street instead of having off closer to the wetland.
Nemcek stated that the trail will eventually tie onto the trail of Akron and connecting onto a future developments trail.
Having the trail go towards a wetland would place another layer of impact onto the wetland.
Commissioner Kenninger stated that with the applicant short on trees would the applicant be willing to add trees along
Akron Ave.
Commissioner VanderWiel questioned if the variance is the reason as to why the applicant is applying for a PUD in the
R1. Nemcek confirmed that is correct. VanderWiel stated that the variance has been granted on two other occasions. In
the future would it make sense to establish another residential classification. Community Development Director
Lindquist stated that conversation has been had internally and that this topic may be brought to the Commission in the
future.
The public hearing opened at 8:37 pm.
Public Comments:
Kyle Wood, 1050 124th Court West, inquired with adding about 50 houses to this area is there any plans to pave Akron
Ave. Public Works Director Erickson stated that Akron Ave is a Dakota County road and that the County is in the
process of selecting a designer for the road and they plan in 2020 to pave the road from Bonaire to the Rosemount city
limits. Mr. Wood questioned if telecommunication utilities will improve with the development getting added. Lindquist
stated that the private companies may determine that it would be profitable for them to add their service in that area.
Mr. Wood questioned if there is a park planned for the future. Nemcek stated that there is a park planned just west of
the development.
John Remkus, 13040 Akron Ave, stated that during rain storms water will pool in the McMenomy property and that
needs to be remembered when designing the storm water and hard surfaces. Mr. Remkus questioned if there is a water
main currently in place. Nemcek stated that there is not one but that there will be one added. Mr. Remkus inquired as to
the cost of sewer and water to service the development.
Tim McDonnell, 1150 124th Court West, inquired for the city to add something in addition to R1 zoning instead of
continuing to make exceptions.
Michael Clements, 15747 Cicerone Path, questioned if the property where the storm water ponds are located on the east
side of the development will be owned by the property owner instead of the City of Rosemount, will there be a
conservation easement to protect the trees. Mr. Nemcek confirmed. Mr. Clements questioned who will pay for the water
main to be added to the three properties along the side of the development. Lindquist stated that it will be the cost of
the developer. Mr. Clements questioned if the water main will be through their backyards or coming up Akron Ave.
Lindquist stated that is dependent on the engineer. Mr. Clements stated that he would like to make sure that those three
properties are supplied with a large enough supply line for possible future development.
MOTION by Mele to close the public hearing.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Abstention: Clements. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 8:51 pm.
Additional Comments: None.
Planner Nemcek added condition v. to the motion to have the applicant be responsible for $110 per linear foot for the
upgrades to Akron Ave.
MOTION by Mele to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Cliff Property and the
Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the Property from AG –
Agriculture to R1 PUD – Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions:
a. Conservation easements shall be recorded over all wooded areas, wetlands, and wetland buffers.
Markers indication the location of conservation easements and wetland buffers must be installed
on all affected properties. Fences are not permitted within conservation easements.
b. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all stormwater ponds, buffers and outlets.
c. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and
established with a wetland buffer seed mix.
d. Payment of $5, 043 for AUAR study.
e. Approval of a WCA application and replacement plan.
f. Payment of $105,500 in-lieu of tree replacement.
g. The front building elevation design shall include one of the following elements:
i. Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or
the wall behind the front porch;
ii. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation,
including the garage;
iii. A side entry garage;
iv. Or, no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows.
h. A deviation for City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot minimum area of 10,000
to 7,800 square feet and corner lot minimum area from 12,000 to 10,500 square feet.
i. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width from eighty
(80) feet to seventy-five (75) feet for corner lots.
j. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.4. to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30)
feet to twenty-five (25) feet.
k. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.5. to reduce the side yard setback from ten (10) feet
to seven and one half (7.5) feet except in areas where existence of larger drainage and utility
easements require additional setbacks.
l. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to increase the maximum lot coverage from
thirty percent (30%) to forty-five percent (45%) for the three lots less than 8,250 square feet in
area, forty percent (40%) for twenty-nine lots between 8,250 square feet and 9,750 square feet in
area, and thirty-five percent (35%) for the thirty-three lots between 9,750 square feet and 11,250
square feet in area.
m. Create and record a restrictive covenant on the retaining walls located on private property that
ensures that it is the homeowners cost and responsibility to maintain the retaining walls.
n. Development beyond the first phase cannot take place until the lift station located on Outlot C is
built and sanitary sewer is available to future phases.
o. Extension of sanitary sewer and water main to service the existing properties at 12523, 12605,
12637 Akron Avenue.
p. Drainage and utility easements with storm sewer infrastructure may contain fences but shall be
required to include gates to provide truck access; shall prohibit sheds or other accessory
structures; and shall prohibit landscaping that would impede drainage.
q. Each corner lot will have two overstory trees, one fronting on each road and all interior lots will
have one boulevard planting.
r. Road rights-of-way will be 80’ for Street A, 60’ for all other internal roadways and an additional
75’ of right-of-way dedicated for Akron Avenue.
s. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum
dated January 23, 2018.
t. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the
attached memorandum dated January 16, 2018.
u. The applicant meets with staff on the site to assess areas for further tree preservation prior to
issuance of a site grading permit.
v. Applicant is responsible to $110 per foot for the upgrades on Akron Ave.
Second by VanderWiel.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Abstention: Clements. Motion Passes.
MOTION by VanderWiel to recommend the City Council approve the lot split of the Cliff Property, subject
to conditions:
a. Dedication of perimeter standard drainage and utility easements over both properties.
b. Dedication of seventy-five (75) feet of half right-of-way along Akron Avenue south of Street A
and fifty (50) feet of half right-of-way north of Street A.
Second by Mele.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Abstention: Clements. Motion Passes.
Meeting resumed at 9:01 pm.
WETLAND E
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
LOCATION MAP
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-COVR
1
PRELIMINARY SITE, SANITARY SEWERPRELIMINARY PLATEXISTING CONDITIONSLEGEND SHEETCOVER SHEETSHEET INDEX1.2.3.4.5-8.
MEADOW RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
COVER SHEET
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
& WATERMAIN PLANPRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN9-11.PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN12-13.GRADING/EROSION CONTROL DETAILS14-15.
STREET PROFILES17-20.
PHASING PLANP1.LANDSCAPE PLANL1.
SEEDING PLAN16.
TREE PRESERVATION PLANT1.
PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN21-23.
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-LEGEND
2LEGEND
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-EXIS
3EXISTING CONDITIONS
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
12-19-2017 PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299
Peter J. Hawkinson 2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-PLAT
4PRELIMINARY PLAT
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
12-19-2017 PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299
Peter J. Hawkinson 2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-SSWR
5PRELIMINARY SITE, SANITARY SEWER
& WATERMAIN PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND B
OUTLOT B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-SSWR
6PRELIMINARY SITE, SANITARY SEWER
& WATERMAIN PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-SSWR
7PRELIMINARY SITE, SANITARY SEWER
& WATERMAIN PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 200
OUTLOT A
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-SSWR
8PRELIMINARY SITE, SANITARY SEWER
& WATERMAIN PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 200
OUTLOT A
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-GRAD
9PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT C
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-GRAD
10PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND B
OUTLOT B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-GRAD
11PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
LEGEND
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-EROS
12PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT B
LEGEND
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-EROS
13PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
·
·
·
·
·
·
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-DTLS
14DETAILS
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
LEGEND
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-DTLS
15DETAILS
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
POND 200
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
·
·
NATIVE DRY PRAIRIE SOUTHEAST
(STATE SEED MIX 35-621 FORMERLY U6)
DRY SWALE/POND
(STATE SEED MIX 33-262 FORMERLY W4)
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-SEED
16PRELIMINARY SEEDING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
Street A
Street B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-ROAD-PROF
17STREET PROFILES
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
Street C
Street D Street F
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-ROAD-PROF
18STREET PROFILES
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
Street E
Street E
Street E
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-ROAD-PROF
19STREET PROFILES
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
Street G
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-ROAD-PROF
20STREET PROFILES
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND B
OUTLOT B
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-STRM
21PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-STRM
22PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
WETLAND E
POND 200
OUTLOT A
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-STRM
23PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
23OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments
1ST ADDITION
WETLAND E
POND 200
POND 100
WETLAND B
POND 300
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
2ND ADDITION
00-ENG-117254-SHEET-PHASE
P1PHASE PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan 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
c
OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017
BNM/PJC
BNM/MSN
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
19860 12-19-2017
Paul J. Cherne
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments 1
00-PLAN-117254-SHEET-LAND
L1LANDSCAPE PLAN
c
OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments 1
TML
TML
00-PLAN-117254-SHEET-TREE
T1TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
c
OFMEADOW RIDGE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH
12-19-2017Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 01-19-18 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 2. 02-09-18 City Comments3. 02-21-18 City Comments 1
TML
TML
1
AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL
OF A TEMPORARY LIFT STATION
This Agreement is entered into as of __________________, 2018, by and between the City
of Rosemount, Minnesota (“City”), and U.S. Home Corporation, a/k/a Lennar Corporation,
(“Developer”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Developer is the fee owner of real property legally described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, on _______, 2018, the Rosemount City Council approved Developer’s request
for Preliminary Plat approval for the Property for a residential development, Meadow Ridge (Plat
attached as Exhibit B);
WHEREAS, Developer plans to develop the Property in phases, with the first and second
phases of the development to be served by gravity sewer;
WHEREAS, a condition of the preliminary plat approval is that beyond the second phase,
development cannot take place until a lift station is built that will accommodate and serve future
phases;
WHEREAS, Developer has requested that it be permitted to install a temporary lift station,
in the location identified in the attached Exhibit C, in order to comply with this condition;
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to permitting Developer to install a temporary lift station
so long as Developer agrees to pay for all costs of installing and removing the temporary lift station
at such time as the City decides that a permanent lift station must be built;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into this Agreement to establish the terms for the
payment of costs and other obligations relating to the temporary lift station.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants of the parties set forth herein
and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Term. This Agreement will remain in effect until Developer has either deposited the
financial security with the City or removed the temporary lift station, as described in
paragraph 4, or until the City gives notice to Developer that the Agreement is terminated,
whichever occurs first.
2. Installation of Temporary Lift Station. Developer agrees to install the temporary lift station
and pay for all costs related to its installation and obtain all necessary governmental
2
approvals for such installation. Developer agrees to observe all applicable laws with respect
to the installation of the lift station.
3. Maintenance of Temporary Lift Station. City will be responsible for the operation,
maintenance, and repairs for the temporary lift station.
4. Deposit of Security with City/Removal of Temporary Lift Station. Upon Developer’s final
buildout of the Meadow Ridge Development and only if the permanent regional lift station
has not yet been installed, Developer shall deposit with the City financial security, in an
amount to be determined solely by City, for the purpose of covering the costs related to the
City’s future removal of the temporary lift station and restoration of the area. The City will
notify Developer of the amount of the financial security to be deposited within thirty (30)
days after receiving Developer’s notice of the final buildout of the subdivision.
If prior to full build out of Meadow Ridge the permanent regional lift station has been
installed, the City will give Developer 30 days’ notice of the requirement to remove the
temporary lift station. Developer must remove the lift station no later than the expiration of
the notice period and pay for all costs associated with the removal of the temporary lift
station, including but not limited to, costs to restore the area to the pre-installation condition.
If Developer fails to meet its obligation to remove the temporary lift station, the City may
perform the work and invoice the Developer for the City’s costs. Developer must reimburse
the City for the costs within 10 days of the date of the invoice.
5. Hold Harmless. The Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, and expenses
(including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer’s, or the
Developer’s agents’ or employees’ negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any
safety law, regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without regard to any
inspection or review made or not made by the City, its agents or employees or failure by the
City, its agents or employees to take any other prudent precautions, except to the extent of
intentional or grossly negligent acts of the City, its employees, agents and representatives.
In the event the City, upon the failure of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this
Agreement, performs said conditions pursuant to its authority in this Agreement, the
Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents and
representatives for its own negligent acts in the performance of the Developer’s required
work under this Agreement, but this indemnification shall not extend to intentional or
grossly negligent acts of the City, its employees, agents and representatives.
6. Costs of Enforcement. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all reasonable costs
incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including
court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees after providing written notice to Developer and a
reasonable opportunity to cure.
7. Notice. All notices required under this Agreement must be either personally delivered or
sent by U.S. certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
3
a. As to Developer:
b. As to City: City of Rosemount
2875 – 145th Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
ATTN: ____________
With a copy to: Kennedy & Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
ATTN: Mary Tietjen, Rosemount City Attorney
8. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of Minnesota.
9. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall bind future owners of the Property and the heirs,
successors, and assigns of Developer.
10. Remedies. The City may use any available legal remedy available to it for purposes of
enforcing this Agreement.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement of the parties with respect to this
subject matter.
12. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended without the express written consent of
both parties.
13. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective upon execution by both parties and
approval of the Rosemount City Council.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Dated: _________________ By: __________________________________
Its Mayor
Dated: _________________ By: __________________________________
Its City Clerk
4
U.S. HOME CORPORATION
Dated: _________________ _____________________________________
By:
_____________________________________
Its:
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
Brian Erickson, City Engineer/PW Director
Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: February 13, 2018
Subject: Cliff Property Preliminary Plat
The Parks and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the development plans for the Cliff
Property Preliminary Plat and had the following recommendations:
PARKS DEDICATION
Because the City’s Parks Master Plan does not identify having a public park on this property, the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the City collect cash dedication in-lieu of land to
meet the parks dedication requirement for this development. The plan identifies 153 new units. The
parks dedication for 153 units is $520,200 ($3,400 per unit x 153 units = $520,200). The parks
dedication fees for each unit will be paid once a lot has gone through the final plat process.
SIDEWALKS and TRAILS
The Parks and Recreation Commission felt the proposed trails and sidewalks would meet the City’s
goal of having connected neighborhoods if the sidewalk walk on street E was located on the west
side of the street between lots 204 – 211.
Staff is recommending that the sidewalk on street E be added to the east side of the street along lots
195-198.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo.
MEMORANDUM
D ATE: March 16, 2018
TO: Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
FROM: Mitch Hatcher, Project Engineer
RE: Meadow Ridge - Preliminary Plat Review
SUBMITTAL:
Prepared by Pioneer Engineering, the Cliff Property Preliminary Plat, dated December 19, 2018,
with revisions February 21, 2018. The following review comments were generated from the
following documents included in the submittal:
Preliminary Plan comprised of the following:
▫Existing Conditions
▫Preliminary Plat
▫Utility Plan
▫Grading Plan
▫Erosion Control
▫Details
▫Street Profiles
▫Phasing Plan
▫Landscape and Seeding Plan
Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1.The development fees below are estimated based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees.
These fees are due with the final plat and subdivision agreement.
Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $1075/acre
Watermain Trunk Charge: $6500/acre
Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $6865/acre
2.Prior to submittal of the final plat, the developer should notify the city if they would like to
privately install the infrastructure or if a public process is desired. Preparation of the
subdivision agreement cannot begin until a public or private process is selected.
3.The developer shall be responsible for a pro-rated share of the future cost associated with
the improvement of Akron Avenue. The front-foot rate is $110/FF. This is an equivalent
front-foot rate for one-half the cost of a 36-foot wide urban section road. Based on a
calculated front-footage of 2,301 feet, the cash payment to be collected at the time of final
plat(s) $253,110.
4. Dakota County is currently working on the design for the improvements of Akron Avenue
adjacent to the property. Grading and utility work near Akron Avenue will need further
coordination with the county as both project move forward in design and construction.
5. Conservation easements are required over all wetlands and buffers. Signage for conservation
easements shall be provided by the developer and an extended 5-year maintenance warranty
shall be required to ensure establishment of the naturally vegetated areas. Costs associated
with the establishment of the naturally vegetated areas and the 5-year maintenance period
shall be a cost of the development.
6. Retaining walls are shown on Lots 102-104, 205-208, and 228-231. Retaining walls are
required to be installed by the developer with the mass grading of the site and owned and
maintained by the developer or individual property owner. Retaining walls exceeding 4-foot
in height require a plan prepared and certified by a licensed engineer.
7. The developer is required to coordinate with the gas pipeline owners to obtain all permits
and agreements for grading and utility work within the pipeline easement areas. Copies of all
agreements shall be submitted to the City prior to construction.
8. More information regarding the gas pipelines and easements are required on the plan.
Contact information, pipeline sizes and material, and warnings should be shown. The
developer is required to meet the plan requirements of the gas pipeline owners.
9. Pothole elevations shall be provided during final design at each gas pipeline crossing location
to verify the improvements can be constructed as proposed.
STORMWATER COMMENTS:
10. Storm sewer pipe design has been received and appears to meet the city standards and
Engineering Guidelines.
11. Stormwater water quality appears to be consistent with requirements in the Engineering
Guidelines and the Stormwater Management Plan.
12. Update the narrative to match the HydroCAD model in in the basin summary table for the
100-yr and 10-day ac*ft storage.
13. Ponds 100, 200, and 300 all retain the 100-yr storm volume. Verify the drainage areas match
what is shown in the HydroCAD model.
14. Update the narrative to document the reasoning for the infiltration rates used for each of the
basins.
15. The City is looking for a site summary of onsite drainage retained, on site drainage that
drains off site, and offsite drainage that is retained in the site. The table given in the narrative
will not suffice as not all drainage areas are included.
16. The comparison of pre and post development runoff volume to Wetland B and E in the
narrative does not match the HydroCAD model.
17. Lining of NURP ponding areas is not required by the City; however, the developer may want
to consider this as ponding areas will likely not maintain vegetation below the NWL.
18. Storm sewer is proposed along the side and back lot lines of many properties to convey rear
yard drainage. Drainage and utility easements along these lines shall prohibit the installation
of sheds to ensure that access can be provided for storm sewer maintenance. Fences are
allowed but shall not restrict drainage and are required to include gates for truck access over
the drainage and utility easement. Also, landscaping that will block access should be
prohibited. These restrictions should be added as a restriction on the property deed.
19. The developer is required to obtain a NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and provide
a copy of the approved SWPPP to the City prior to the start of any construction activity.
STREET & UTILITY COMMENTS:
20. The City and Developer will share costs associated with the extension of trunk watermain
from the existing location within Akron Avenue through the Meadow Ridge property. The
developer will be responsible for the equivalent cost of lateral 8-inch DIP watermain. The
construction cost for over-sizing will be a city trunk fund expenditure. The final costs and
funding for these improvements will be detailed in the subdivision agreements at the time of
final plat.
21. The developer will be responsible for the installation and removal of the proposed local
temporary lift station. The city will be responsible for operation and maintenance. An
agreement will need to be executed detailing these responsibilities.
22. Sanitary sewer and watermain extensions are required to be extended to serve the existing
properties at 12523, 12605, 12637 Akron Avenue. Service should be installed such that all
properties could potentially connect or develop independently. Updated plans will need to
be submitted for review.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact
me at 651-322-2015.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
\\gvfiles01\projects\02235-340\Admin\Docs\Cliff Property - Lennar\2235-340 - MEMO - Lennar Cliff Property Pre-application Summary - DRAFT.docx
Memorandum
To: Anthony Nemcek, City of Rosemount
Cc: Mitch Hatcher, City of Rosemount
From: Roxy Franta, WSB
Andi Moffatt, WSB
Date: January 11, 2017
Re: Lennar Cliff Property – WCA Pre-application Siting Review Summary
WSB Project No. 02235-340
As the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Local Government Unit (LGU) for the City of Rosemount, WSB
has provided guidance on WCA and the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
(CWMP) to the Lennar Corporation as they plan a residential development within the City. The following
is a summary of the communications between WSB, Lennar, and the City that are associated with the
proposed development prior to the submission of a completed WCA application and replacement plan.
Wetland delineation and MnRAM assessments for wetlands within the site were reviewed and approved
by the LGU on November 29, 2017. Three wetlands were identified onsite:
Wetland B (0.50 acre within review area) – Type 5 Open Water (PABH); Manage 1
Wetland D (0.22 acre within review area) – Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin (PEMA); Manage 2
Wetland E (2.43 acres within review area) – Type 3/5 Shallow Marsh/Open Water (PEMC/PUBH);
Manage 1
Lennar developed preliminary plans and the proposed development of the parcel would likely eliminate
hydrology to Wetland D due to topography and site elevations even if the wetland were physically
avoided. Prior to applying to WCA, Lennar asked WSB for guidance on wetland replacement siting
requirements within the City. WSB fist suggested that Lennar investigate whether or not Wetland D was a
WCA-regulated wetland by performing a historic aerial review as far back as possible to evaluate whether
the wetland was incidentally created in upland. Per WCA, an incidental wetland would not be regulated
and no replacement would be necessary. After further investigation, the Wetland D was present in a
historic aerial photograph from 1937 which indicated that the wetland is likely regulated and incidental
status would not be an option (Photo 1).
January 11, 2018
Page 2
\\gvfiles01\projects\02235-340\Admin\Docs\Cliff Property - Lennar\2235-340 - MEMO - Lennar Cliff Property Pre-application Summary - DRAFT.docx
Photo 1. Aerial photograph of the Cliff Property from 1937showing Wetland D.
With Wetland D being regulated by WCA, the replacement of any impacts to Wetland D would need to be
replaced following the siting criteria outlined in the Rosemount CWMP which has specific wetland
replacement siting criteria that override those in WCA. The siting criteria in the CWMP includes:
1. Wetland replacement within the project site;
2. Wetland replacement within the same City subwatershed drainage area as the impacted wetland;
3. Wetland replacement within the City;
4. Wetland replacement through a BWSR approved wetland bank within the major watershed. The use of
wetland banking must be approved by the City Council and will only be considered if Items 1-3 are
deemed unfeasible.
Wetland D is currently a temporary flooded basin that has been included in agricultural production in the
past and is currently surrounded by agricultural fields. Wetland D is a lower quality wetland that Wetlands
B and E. Lennar developed a preliminary wetland replacement plan that would replace for Wetland D
within the project site, following siting criteria 1. The mitigation would be provided as an expansion of
Wetland B located in the southwest corner of the project site, and as two expansions of Wetland E
located at the north side of the project site. The Wetland B mitigation area would be 6,276 square feet
and would require the removal of a small wooded buffer around the wetland (Photo 2). The tree survey
indicated that the trees to be removed are native, higher value species such as: black willow, bur oak,
hackberry, American elm, black cherry, and pin oak (Photo 3). Only a few of the trees surveyed were
lower quality box elder. Wetland B was classified as a Manage 1 wetland which generally provides high
functions and values.
January 11, 2018
Page 3
\\gvfiles01\projects\02235-340\Admin\Docs\Cliff Property - Lennar\2235-340 - MEMO - Lennar Cliff Property Pre-application Summary - DRAFT.docx
Photo 2. Preliminary on-site mitigation area at Wetland B.
Photo 3. Wooded areas surrounding Wetland B.
The Wetland E mitigation areas would be 7,506 square feet expanded to the northwest and 5,355 square
feet expanded to the southeast. The construction of the northwest mitigation area would not require much
tree removal while the mitigation area to the southeast would require the removal of a small tree buffer
along a slope adjacent to Wetland E. The tree survey indicated that the trees to be removed include
mostly black cherry and some box elder. Wetland E is also classified as a Manage 1 wetland.
January 11, 2018
Page 4
\\gvfiles01\projects\02235-340\Admin\Docs\Cliff Property - Lennar\2235-340 - MEMO - Lennar Cliff Property Pre-application Summary - DRAFT.docx
Photo 4. Preliminary wetland mitigation areas at Wetland E.
Photo 5. Wooded areas surrounding Wetland E.
Space for the mitigation is available on-site but will result in removing vegetated tree buffers around high
quality wetlands to replace for the lower quality, Manage 2 Wetland D. Some of the tree removals will also
occur on slopes. The proposed onsite mitigation plan seems to be the only feasible option to account for
the square footage needed to replace for Wetland D. The benefit of the on-site mitigation is that the
functions and values that would be lost from the impacts to Wetland D would be retained onsite within the
January 11, 2018
Page 5
\\gvfiles01\projects\02235-340\Admin\Docs\Cliff Property - Lennar\2235-340 - MEMO - Lennar Cliff Property Pre-application Summary - DRAFT.docx
new mitigation areas. The implications of this plan are that the developer would need to remove higher
quality native trees that currently protect the perimeter of high quality wetlands as well as stabilize the
slopes at Wetland E. These removals would require that the developer replace for these trees on site.
The developer would also need to replace an upland buffer adjacent to the mitigation areas to provide the
same protections that the existing mature tree buffers provide. The onsite mitigation would require a five-
year monitoring plan to establish and maintain the planted native vegetation and will be subject to
meeting vegetation establishment performance standards.
Moving forward, Lennar will need to submit a complete replacement plan application which includes
alternative options for avoiding impacts to Wetland D, methods of minimization to reduce impacts to
Wetland D, and if impacts are proposed to Wetland D, a discussion about why each of the CWMP siting
criteria are feasible or not for this project. Considerations should weigh the implications and benefits of
on-site replacement vs. other siting options. Given that the on-site mitigation option will require
disturbance to native tree stands and high quality wetlands, WSB suggested that Lennar consider other
siting options as well, but that the City Council would have the decision making authority on replacement.
Lennar should briefly investigate any options for mitigation within the same sub-watershed or within the
city if Lennar owns additional property elsewhere. Based on past WCA project reviews, most of the city is
not suitable for wetland mitigation due to a lack of hydric soil and lack of appropriate site conditions to
maintain wetland hydrology long-term. If CWMP siting criteria 1-3 are deemed unfeasible, Lennar should
consider wetland replacement through the purchase of wetland banking credits which is the suggested
method of replacement by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Ultimately, once the complete
application is submitted, it will be reviewed by the LGU and a decision regarding the replacement plan will
be determined by the City Council.
Prepared by:
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
1032 West 7th Street, Suite 150
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
CLIFF PROPERTY
12523 AKRON AVE.
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
Prepared for:
Lennar
16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600
Plymouth, Minnesota 55446
FEBRUARY 8, 2018
WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 1
Project Name and/or Number: Cliff Property, Rosemount, MN
PART ONE: Applicant Information
If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the
applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s
contact information must also be provided.
Applicant/Landowner Name: Lennar, Contact: Jon Aune
Mailing Address: 16305 36
th Ave. N., Plymouth, MN
Phone: 952‐249‐3011
E‐mail Address: jon.aune@lennar.com
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above):
Mailing Address:
Phone:
E‐mail Address:
Agent/s Name:Ken Arndt, Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1032 W. 7
th St. Suite 150, St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: 651‐788‐0641
E‐mail Addresses ken.arndt@mnrinc.us
PART TWO: Site Location Information
County: Dakota City/Township:Rosemount
Parcel ID and/or Address: 12523 Akron Ave.
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): SW1/4 of Section 15, T115N, R19W
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):77 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.
This application is being submitted for review and approval of wetland impacts involved with a proposed single‐family
development. See Attachment C for project description, purpose and need.
Project Name and/or Number: Cliff Property, Rosemount, MN
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map,
aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts.
Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.
Aquatic Resource
ID (as noted on
overhead view)
Aquatic
Resource Type
(wetland, lake,
tributary etc.)
Type of Impact
(fill, excavate,
drain, or
remove
vegetation)
Duration of
Impact
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)1
Size of Impact2
Overall Size of
Aquatic
Resource 3
Existing Plant
Community
Type(s) in
Impact Area4
County, Major
Watershed #,
and Bank
Service Area #
of Impact Area5
Wetland D wetland fill P 9,721
(0.22 ac.)
9,721
(0.22 ac.)
Seasonally
Flooded Basin
Dakota, 38, 8
1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that
would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”.
2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”.
4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated
with each:
1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Project Name and/or Number: Cliff Property, Rosemount, MN
Attachment C
Avoidance and Minimization
and Additional Information
Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a
description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management,
and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings,
roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management
plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary:
Lennar is proposing a new residential housing development in the City of Rosemount west of Akron Avenue in the
north‐central part of the City. This proposed development will have 153 single‐family homes. The property is guided
for Urban Residential Land Use in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently being used as agricultural land. Current
zoning for the property is AGP.
The proposed project will consist of the construction of a residential development. The project‘s construction will
consist of site grading for infrastructure including: roads, utilities and building pads. Construction is expected to
begin in the spring of 2018 following preliminary and final plat approval and will continue until fully built. A
preliminary plat for the site is included in Appendix A.
Access to the community is planned via a main access point from Akron Avenue, and a secondary access point is
planned from the south of the community. A central collector is planned running east‐west from Akron Avenue and
stubbing to the west. Internal circulation is fostered by a loop on the northern end of the community that ends in a
cul‐de‐sac and by several local roads in the southern portion of the community that provide curvilinear access and
mobility throughout the community. Typical right‐of‐way width is 60’ for local streets and 80’ for the collector.
Sidewalks are also proposed on one side of the internal streets that do not end in a cul‐de‐sac.
The need for this project is based on the expanding residential housing market in this part of Rosemount as well as
availability to public infrastructure. Expected housing market growth in this part of Rosemount will be met with new
residential development including the proposed residential development at the Cliff property. The City of
Rosemount is planning for expanded growth in this part of the City which is detailed in the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan (2009).
Existing Wetland Resources On‐Site
Wetlands within the property boundary were delineated and documented in a report submitted by Midwest Natural
Resources, Inc. on October 24th, 2017 (Appendix C). The site’s wetlands were reviewed by the LGU (City of
Rosemount and their consultant WSB & Associates, Inc.) and approved by the Technical Evaluation Panel in the
attached Notice of Decision dated November 29th, 2017 (Appendix D). Three wetlands were delineated on‐site and
are designated as Wetland B, Wetland D, and Wetland E (see Figure 5 of the wetland delineation report in Appendix
C). Based on the proposed site plan, the entire area of Wetland D (0.22 acres or 9,721 sq. ft.) will be impacted. A
brief description of Wetland D follows.
Wetland D
Wetland D (0.22 ac.) is located in the northwestern part of the property and is classified as a palustrine emergent
wetland with a temporarily flooded hydrologic regime (PEMA; Circular 39 Type 1; Seasonally Flooded Basin). The
wetland is surrounded by land in agricultural production and is an isolated basin with no natural outlet. Wetland D
is a farmed wetland that is tilled through from year to year and as a result was covered in 2017 with annual
hydrophytic vegetation that includes: common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus‐
galli). This type of annual vegetation is typical of farmed wetlands in this part of Dakota County that do not have
persistent, perennial vegetation established. From a site visit in late November, it was noted that this wetland was
tilled through once again with all annual vegetation being turned over.
Impacts to existing wetland resources
The entire area of Wetland D will be impacted due to the need to avoid impacts to Wetland E (higher quality wetland)
and for safety reasons involving the City of Rosemount’s ordinance on cul‐de‐sac length requirements.
Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist.
Clearly describe all on‐site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives
that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or
not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged
to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis:
No Action Alternative: The no action alternative would result in a failure to meet the purpose and need of the
proposed project. The applicant considers this alternative infeasible since the proposed land use in this part of
Rosemount is being planned for residential growth and would not be reasonable for the investment‐backed
expectations of the applicant or meeting the growing demand for single‐family residential housing in Rosemount.
Therefore, the no action alternative is not a viable consideration.
Total Wetland Avoidance Build Alternative #1: Due to the location of Wetland D within the Cliff property, site
topography, cul‐de‐sac length requirements, and the need to avoid any potential impacts to Wetland E for site
grading, a total wetland avoidance alternative was not possible. A total avoidance alternative would fail to meet the
demand for residential development in the City of Rosemount by reducing the number of potential buildable lots.
Pressure from the Metropolitan Council and the overall market call for smaller lots with a higher density. This is
primarily due to the cost of public improvements and land costs in the Twin Cities area.
To avoid impacts to Wetland D an alternative site design was considered that would shift the current street
alignment of Street B from its current location. In this alternative design, Street B would be shifted to the west which
would result in several lots and the northern cul‐de‐sac being located directly over an existing pipeline easement.
Currently the alignment of Street B is located within the site to avoid the high pressure gas transmission line that is
west of the street. The current location for Street B is necessary to provide a looped connection with Street C in
order for Street C to meet the City of Rosemount’s cul‐de‐sac length requirements. Based on the preliminary grading
plan, Street C is 1,100’ in length and cannot exceed 700’ in length without a looped connection from Street B. For
safety reasons the City of Rosemount limits cul‐de‐sac lengths to 700 linear feet or 15 homes.
Total Wetland Avoidance Build Alternative #2: A second total wetland avoidance alternative looked at shifting
Street C to the north within the development but due to potential impacts to Wetland E this total wetland avoidance
alternative was not reasonable.
By shifting Street C from its current location to the north, away from Wetland D, grading for the proposed lots north
of Street C would take place all the way down the slope to the southern edge of Wetland E. Impacts to the southern
edge of Wetland E would be the result of shifting the road to the north in order to avoid impacting Wetland D. Since
Wetland E is a higher quality wetland compared to Wetland D, shifting the road to the north to avoid impacts to
Wetland D is not reasonable.
Although direct avoidance to Wetland D could be achieved with either alternative site design, each alternative would
result in secondary impacts to Wetland D with a watershed reduction associated with the overall development of
the site, in particular the area immediately surrounding Wetland D. Stormwater runoff from the street and adjacent
lots next to Wetland D will be directed away from the area to a large storm water pond located within Outlot A. The
upland area that currently contributes runoff to the wetland will be developed for single family homes and
associated roadway runoff. The runoff will be collected and directed to the stormwater treatment pond in Outlot A,
which will result in a direct bypass of the hydrology source for Wetland D. Storm sewer is necessary to convey street
water from the northern portion of the site to the pond in Outlot A. Due to necessary site grades and the need for
pre‐treating storm water runoff prior to discharging into wetlands, the hydrology to Wetland D will drastically be
reduced to the point of not being able to maintain its current wetland hydrology.
Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water
resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4):
The Applicant has considered minimizing wetland impacts to the degree possible, given the constraints posed by the
cul‐de‐sac length requirements, existing pipeline easement locations, minimizing impacts to other wetlands on‐site,
and existing site conditions. Several project plans have been considered in an effort to minimize impacts to Wetland
D but all did not significantly reduce the secondary impacts to Wetland D because of the need to keep Streets B and
C in their current locations. Since Wetland D needs direct runoff to sustain its wetland hydrology, by keeping Streets
B and C in their current locations will result in the reduction of the watershed by redirecting runoff to on‐site storm
Off‐Site Alternatives. An off‐site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your
proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
you may be required to provide an off‐site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete
application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your
application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off‐site alternatives analysis is required
should contact their Corps Project Manager.
Not applicable until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers request for an approved jurisdictional determination has been
received and that Wetland D would be considered a jurisdictional waters of the United States. Wetland D is an
isolated wetland and will not likely be considered a waters of the US and therefor will not be regulated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Additional Information
BMP’s. Wetlands not being impacted on‐site will be protected by erosion control fence during the construction phase of the
development. All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched. Slopes over 3:1 will be seeded and blanketed.
Other Permits or Approvals Required: MPCA‐ General Stormwater Permit
City of Rosemount‐ Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
Dakota County Public Works‐ Entrance Permit
MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
MHD Watermain extension permit
City of Rosemount Grading Permit
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Currently, on the preliminary grading plan for the Cliff Property, wetland mitigation is being proposed as the creation
of three separate new wetland areas. One of the new wetland areas is adjacent to Wetland B and the other two new
wetland areas are adjacent to Wetland E. The location for each on‐site mitigation area was selected based on
positioning each new wetland area somewhere on‐site that would receive adequate wetland hydrology. By placing
each mitigation area at an elevation that is consistent with Wetland B (918’ elevation) and Wetland D (908’
elevation), wetland hydrology would be provided by water that is naturally directed to each existing wetland.
Options were considered for creating a single wetland mitigation area, but due to the well‐drained soils on‐site, it
was decided that it would be too difficult to maintain adequate hydrology for any new wetland area other than next
to an existing wetland.
In addition to the challenge of providing adequate wetland hydrology for the proposed mitigation areas, by placing
each new wetland area next to an existing wetland, there is a vegetative influence on the mitigation areas as well.
When mitigation areas are proposed to be constructed next to existing wetlands that have invasive, non‐native
plants already established, these invasive plants tend to migrate to any area of recent disturbance (new wetland
creation area). All three of the proposed mitigation areas are immediately adjacent to existing wetlands that are
dominated by invasive, non‐native plants and include: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), narrow‐leaf cattail
(Typha angustifolia), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). This can pose a significant challenge to the developer
to maintain less than 20% cover of invasive, non‐native plants by the end of the five years of monitoring. The
likelihood of having to manage these three mitigation areas for invasive species establishment is almost certain and
will involve the use of multiple applications of herbicides. Even then there is no guarantee that invasives will be
eliminated from the mitigation areas, especially when management will end after five years of monitoring and
invasive species will then be able to spread unchecked.
Because of the high likelihood that each new wetland mitigation area may become established with invasive plants,
Lennar is proposing an alternative mitigation option that would involve purchasing wetland banking credit from an
established wetland bank rather than on‐site wetland creation. By purchasing wetland banking credit, the challenges
of trying to successfully create new wetland areas on‐site can be avoided. If Lennar will have to create new wetland
for mitigation on‐site, there is a significant chance of failure in meeting the performance standard of having less than
20% cover of invasive plants following five years of monitoring. If on‐site mitigation fails after five years of
management, Lennar would then be faced with having to purchase banking credit in order to fulfill their wetland
mitigation obligation.
Another reason Lennar would like to mitigate the loss of Wetland D with the purchase of wetland banking credits
and not to have to create on‐site mitigation is to decrease the over‐all removal of significant trees on‐site. Based on
the preliminary grading plan, in order to create these three new wetland areas, significant tree removal will take
place for the grading of each mitigation area. By purchasing wetland banking credit, approximately 200” of significant
trees will be saved on‐site and will be left in place as natural buffer areas around Wetlands B and E. Significant tree
species that would be removed for the creation of on‐site mitigation include: bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa),
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), willow (Salix sp.)
and box elder (Acer negundo).
Project Name and/or Number: Cliff Property, Rosemount, MN
Attachment D
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation
Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road
wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements.
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an
existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your
replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements.
Wetland Bank
Account # County Major
Watershed #
Bank
Service
Area #
Credit Type
(if applicable) Number of Credits
1541 Freeborn 48‐Cedar 8 SWC 19,442 sq. ft.
Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least
a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement,
signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the
bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is
approved by the Corps and LGU.
Currently no credits are available within the same minor watershed as the Cliff property. Just one bank is located in
the same major watershed as the Cliff Property and this bank (#1153) is holding onto their credits for their own
County projects. Banks from Bank Service Area (BSA) 8 were contacted to satisfy the mitigation requirements for the
proposed impacts to Wetland D.
Initial contact has been made with the wetland bank manager (Eric Trelstad, Wetland Credit Agency) of wetland
bank account #1541. Email correspondence with Wetland Credit Agency took place on February 13 th, 2018 to discuss
credit availability for the purchase of needed wetland banking credit for the proposed project. Several other wetland
banks were also contacted that are all located within BSA 8.
Based on the amount of wetland banking credit required for the mitigation associated with this project, wetland
bank #1541 will be able to provide the total amount of wetland banking credit needed. Since preliminary and final
plat approval for this development has not been approved by the City of Rosemount, a purchase agreement will be
drafted with a closing to take place following final plat approval. A submittal of preliminary and final plat approval
will be submitted to the City of Rosemount in 2018. Upon final plat approval by the City of Rosemount a purchase
agreement with the #1541 wetland bank manager will be executed in order to secure the needed wetland banking
credits for this project.
Applicant or Representative: Ken Arndt Title: Wetland Specialist
Signature: Date: 2‐15‐18
Appendix A
Preliminary Plat
and
Wetland Impact Exhibit
Appendix B
Wetland Impact Minimization/Avoidance Figure
Appendix C
Wetland Delineation Report (dated 10-24-17)
by
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
Lennar Cliff Property
12523 Akron Ave.
Rosemount, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
October 24, 2017
Local Government Unit: City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Client: Lennar
16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600
Plymouth, Minnesota 55446
Consultant: Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
1032 West Seventh St., Suite 150
St. Paul, Minnesota 550102
Table of Contents:
Introduction…….………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Objective...….….………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Methodology….....…..…………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Climate Data….......……………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Results…...…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Table 1. Wetland Classification, Type and Area...………………………………………….. 2
Table 2. Wetland B, Wetland Sample…………...………………………………………….. 3
Table 3. Wetland B, Upland Sample………….....………………………………………….. 3
Table 4. Wetland D, Wetland Sample…………...………………………………………….. 3
Table 5. Wetland D, Upland Sample………….....………………………………………….. 4
Table 6. Wetland E, Wetland Sample…………...………………………………………….. 4
Table 7. Wetland E, Upland Sample..…………...………………………………………….. 4
Table 8. Non-Wetland Area 1, Sample……….....………………………………………….. 5
Table 9. Non-Wetland Area 2, Sample……….....………………………………………….. 6
Table 10. Non-Wetland Area 3, Sample..…….....………………………………………….. 6
Table 11. Non-Wetland Area 4, Sample..…….....………………………………………….. 7
FSA Imagery Review……...…………………………………………………………………………. 7
Table 12. Summary of Climate Condition for Each Year of Available Imagery .…………. 8
Table 13. Summary of Wetland Hydrology Assessment Using Aerial Imagery ..……….… 10
Table 14. Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery ………………………...…………. 10
MnRAM…………….……...…………………………………………………………………………. 11
Summary…...………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Table 15. NWI and Current Wetland Classification and Typing………………...…………. 12
Appendices:
Appendix A. Supporting Site Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 3. Soil Survey
Figure 4. Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory
Figure 5. Delineated Wetland Boundaries
Appendix B. Representative Site Photographs
Appendix C. Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix D. Recent Climatic Conditions
Table 1. Recorded Precipitation Data (1998-2017)
Table 2. Monthly Average High Temperature
Appendix E. Historic Air Photo Figures
Appendix F. Precipitation Worksheets
Appendix G. Precipitation Graphs
Appendix H. FSA Hydrology Assessment Worksheets
Appendix I. MnRAM Management Classification & Site Response Reports
Introduction
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. (MNR) was contracted by Lennar to provide wetland delineation
services for a 77 acre property located at 12523 Akron Ave. in Rosemount, Dakota County,
Minnesota (Appendix A, Figure 1). On September 26th, 2017 MNR conducted a routine wetland
delineation within the 77 acre Cliff property to determine current wetland boundaries. In all, the
boundary of three wetlands were delineated within the property boundary. Four other areas were
reviewed for the presence of wetland but were determined not to be considered wetland.
Objective
To determine and delineate the current wetland boundaries located within the 77 acre Cliff
property. This information will be used for the planning of a residential housing development.
Methodology
Prior to conducting the fieldwork, existing data were reviewed. These data include the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and the MN DNR National Wetlands Inventory
Update June, 2013 (Appendix A, Figure 2), the U.S. Department of Agriculture digital Soil
Survey of Dakota County (Appendix A, Figure 3), and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Public Waters Inventory (PWI) (Appendix A, Figure 4). Long-term and recent climate
data (precipitation and temperature) were also obtained for the survey location.
Delineation efforts were based on the Routine “Onsite” Determination Method contained in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Supplement Version 2.0, Aug. 2010 to the 1987 Wetlands
Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87_1. According to this methodology, wetland
boundaries are determined based on the evaluation of the three parameters (hydric soil,
hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) required for an area to be defined as a wetland.
The wetland boundary for each wetland on-site was identified as the upper-most extent of each
area that met the criteria required to be defined as a wetland: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and wetland hydrology.
Wetlands B, D and E’s delineated boundary were marked with pink pin flags with representative
letters and numbers B1-B9, D1-D10 and E1-E22 (Appendix A, Figure 5). Spatial data was
collected in the field using Trimble GeoXT 6000 GPS units with ArcPad and Trimble Positions
ArcPad Extension protocol. Data was post processed in ArcMap using Trimble Positions Desktop
Add-in and the MNHW Hollywood base station, which is operated by the MN Department of
Transportation.
For the wetlands within the Cliff property, a sample transect was established where the
wetland/upland transition occurs. At each transect the vegetation, soils, and hydrology were
investigated at two positions in the landscape, one within the wetland and one within the upland.
Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were documented following the aforementioned delineation
protocols. Soils were characterized based on soil matrix/mottle colors and texture, as well as the
presence/absence of hydric soil indicators. The dominant vascular plant species were identified
and the cover was estimated visually. The indicator status of the dominant plant species was taken
from the State of Minnesota 2016 Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks Kirchner, and
N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List. 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30.
Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X). Hydrologic indicators (i.e. presence/absence of
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
2
inundated and/or saturated soils, drift lines, drainage patterns, water marks, etc.) were evaluated
to determine wetland hydrology. Finally, the wetlands were classified based on the Cowardin,
Circular 39 and Eggers & Reed wetland descriptions. All collected field data is summarized in the
Wetland Determination Data Forms (Midwest Region) included in this report (Appendix C).
Climate Data
To provide context for the wetland survey effort, recent climatic conditions were investigated for
the local area, including precipitation and temperature data and are included in Appendix D.
Results
The land located within the 77 acre Cliff property is comprised of deciduous oak-dominated
woodlands in the southwest part of the property, mixed planted conifer and deciduous woodland
in the northeast part of the property, agricultural fields in farmer’s market and hay production
throughout much of the property, a single family residence in the northeast corner of the property,
and three wetland areas. In total, MNR delineated and located the boundary of three wetlands
located either entirely or partially within the 77 acre property with Wetland B and E extending
beyond the property boundary.
The following is a table that summarizes the three delineated wetlands by Circular 39 type,
Cowardin classification, Eggers and Reed Plant Community and by size in acres.
Table 1. Wetland Classification, Type and Area
Wetland Circular 39
Type/s
Cowardian
Classification
Eggers and Reed Plant Community
Type
Size
(acres)
B 5 PABH Open Water 0.50 ac.
D 1 PEMA Temporarily Flooded Basin 0.22 ac.
E 3/5 PEMC/PUBH Shallow Marsh/Open Water 2.43 ac.
The three wetlands were delineated using methods and criteria that follow the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the COE
Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Version 2.0, Aug. 2010. The boundaries of Wetlands B, D
and E were flagged and located by MNR and also located by Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Wetland B
Wetland B is a Type 5 (PABH; Open Water) wetland located in the southwestern part of the
property and is 0.50 acre in size within the property boundary. This open water wetland extends
off-site to the west. At the time of the survey, duck weed (Lemna minor) covered nearly all of the
open water. Upland oak-dominated woodland borders much of this wetland with a small part
bordering upland grassland.
Plant species documented at the wetland sample point for Wetland B include: reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Plant species documented
at the upland sample point for Wetland B include: northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), bur
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
3
oak (Quercus macrocarpa), hackberry (Celtic occidentalis), common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica).
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Wetland B is described as Quam silt loam which is mapped as a hydric soil. The
soils investigated within the wetland soil sample met the Thick Dark Surface (A12) hydric soil
indicator.
The following are two tables with the wetland and upland soil profiles for Wetland B.
Table 2. Wetland B Wetland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-12 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
13-20 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M sandy loam
Table 3. Wetland B Upland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-14 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam
15-20 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Wetland B include two primary and two secondary
indicators: high water table (A2), saturation (A3), geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test
(D5). Both the water table and saturation were measured at the soil surface.
Wetland D
Wetland D is a Type 1 (PEMA; Temporarily Flooded Basin) wetland located in the northwestern
part of the property and is 0.22 acre in size. Agricultural fields in farmer’s market production are
situated around this wetland. The basin has a common spikerush growing throughout with the edge
of the wetland covered almost entirely in barnyard grass.
Plant species documented at the wetland sample point for Wetland D include: common spikerush
(Eleocharis palustris). Plant species documented at the upland sample point for Wetland D
include: barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli).
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Wetland D is described as Kingsley sandy loam which is mapped as a non-hydric
soil. The soils investigated within the wetland soil sample met the Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric
soil indicator.
The following are two tables with the wetland and upland soil profiles for Wetland D.
Table 4. Wetland D Wetland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-6 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M silty clay loam
7-12 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
13-20 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M clay loam
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
4
Table 5. Wetland D Upland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-6 10YR 3/4 100 silt loam
7-14 10YR 3/4 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M silt loam
15-20 10YR 4/4 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M silt loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Wetland D include two secondary indicators:
geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5).
Wetland E
Wetland E is a Type 3/5 (PEMC/PUBH; Shallow Marsh/Open Water) wetland located in the
northern part of the property and is 2.43 acres in size within the property boundary. This wetland
extends off-site to the north as a similar wetland type. Upland horse pasture areas and areas of
upland deciduous shrubland/woodland is located around the perimeter of this wetland. The general
topography surrounding Wetland E rises up in elevation from the wetland edge to where upland
grasses and shrubs become the dominant cover.
Plant species documented at the wetland sample point for Wetland E include: narrowleaf cattail
(Typha angustifolia), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and dotted smartweed (Persicaria
punctata). Plant species documented at the upland sample point for Wetland E include: bur oak
(Quercus macrocarpa), box elder (Acer negundo), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica),
smooth brome (Bromus inermis), common plantain (Plantago major) and common burdock
(Arctium minus).
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Wetland E is described as Quam silt loam which is mapped as a hydric soil. The
soils investigated within the wetland soil sample met the Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric soil
indicator.
The following are two tables with the wetland and upland soil profiles for Wetland E.
Table 6. Wetland E Wetland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-4 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
5-12 10YR 2/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M sandy loam
13-22 10YR 3/1 100 sand
Table 7. Wetland E Upland Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-15 10YR 2/2 100 sandy loam
16-20 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Wetland E include two primary and two secondary
indicators: high water table (A2), saturation (A3), geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test
(D5). Both the water table and saturation were measured at the soil surface.
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
5
Non-Wetland Area 1
Non-Wetland Area 1 is located in the very southeastern corner of the property where a low-lying
depressional area comes onto the subject property a few feet along an existing field road. Nearly
all of the depressional area is located off-site to the south. This area was reviewed for the presence
of wetland since it was a closed depressional area dominated almost entirely by barnyard grass.
Plant species documented at the sample point for Non-Wetland Area 1 include just barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crus-galli).
In 2016, this depressional area was reviewed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services and was
determined then to not being considered wetland. A recent review of this area was conducted in
October of this year by the Technical Evaluation Panel and staff from Westwood Professional
Services where it was again confirmed that this area was not considered wetland.
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Non-Wetland Area 1 is described as Kennebec silt loam which is mapped as a
non-hydric soil. The soils investigated within the soil sample did not meet any hydric soil
indicators.
The following is a table with the soil profile for Non-Wetland Area 1.
Table 8. Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-12 10YR 3/2 100 clay loam
13-17 10YR 3/2 98 7.5 YR 4/6 2 C M clay loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Non-Wetland Area 1 include two secondary indicators:
geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5). Soils were dry and not close to saturation to
the extent of the soil pit.
This area was determined not to be wetland based on a lack of hydric soil and FSA imagery review
indicating a wetland signature in only one of nine years with normal precipitation.
Non-Wetland Area 2
Non-Wetland Area 2 is located along the eastern property line within a depressional area next to
Akron Avenue. This area was reviewed for the presence of wetland since it was a closed
depressional area mapped within a hydric soil unit. A culvert is situated at the lowest elevation of
this depression and drains water from the surrounding fields to under Arkon Ave. into an
agricultural field on the eastern side of the road. Plant species documented at the sample point for
Non-Wetland Area 2 include: Timothy (Phleum pratense), smooth brome (Bromus inermis),
orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Non-Wetland Area 2 is described as Kennebec variant which is a mapped hydric
soil. The soils investigated within the soil sample did not meet any hydric soil indicators.
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
6
The following is a table with the soil profile for Non-Wetland Area 2.
Table 9. Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-15 10YR 3/2 100 clay loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Non-Wetland Area 2 include one secondary indicator:
geomorphic position (D2). Soils were dry and not close to saturation to the extent of the soil pit.
This area was determined not to be wetland based on a lack of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils
and adequate wetland hydrology.
Non-Wetland Area 3
Non-Wetland Area 3 is located within the south-central part of the property within a depressional
area in a recently plowed part of an agricultural field. This area was reviewed for the presence of
wetland since it was a closed depressional area. At the time of the field survey, the vegetation in
this area was plowed under with the exception of a few clumps of barnyard grass. Plant species
documented at the sample point for Non-Wetland Area 3 include just barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crus-galli) with over 95% being bare, recently tilled ground.
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Non-Wetland Area 3 is described as Spencer silt loam which is mapped as a
non-hydric soil. The soils investigated within the soil sample met the Depleted Matrix (F3) hydric
soil indicator.
The following is a table with the soil profile for Non-Wetland Area 3.
Table 10. Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-3 10YR 4/2 100 clay loam
4-18 10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Non-Wetland Area 3 include two secondary indicators:
geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5).
Even though this area met all three parameters of being wetland, this area was determined not to
be wetland based FSA imagery review indicating a wetland signature in only one of nine years
with normal precipitation.
Non-Wetland Area 4
Non-Wetland Area 4 is located within the west-central part of the property within a nearly level
area of a recently plowed part of an agricultural field. This area was reviewed for the presence of
wetland since it was a nearly level to slight depressional area with soft ground. At the time of the
field survey, the vegetation in this area was plowed under with the exception of a few clumps of
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
7
barnyard grass. Plant species documented at the sample point for Non-Wetland Area 4 include just
barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with over 95% being bare, recently tilled ground.
From the digital U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Dakota County, the soil mapped
within the area of Non-Wetland Area 4 is described as Spencer silt loam which is mapped as a
non-hydric soil. The soils investigated within the soil sample met the Redox Dark Surface (F6)
hydric soil indicator.
The following is a table with the soil profile for Non-Wetland Area 4.
Table 11. Sample Point
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc**
0-14 10YR 3/2 90 2.5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
Wetland hydrology indicators observed for Non-Wetland Area 4 include one secondary indicator:
FAC-neutral test (D5).
This area was determined not to be wetland based on a lack of adequate wetland hydrology and
FSA imagery review indicating a wetland signature in only one of nine years with normal
precipitation.
FSA Imagery Review
As part of the wetland delineation process, MNR reviewed additional information for determining
the extent of wetland hydrology for Wetland D and Non-Wetland Areas 1-4. Wetland D and Non-
Wetland Areas 1-4 were evaluated for wetland hydrology using aerial imagery in addition to
standard wetland delineation methods since the majority of the perimeter of each wetland and non-
wetland area is adjacent or within agricultural production areas.
Wetland hydrology was investigated utilizing the procedures outlined in the US Army Corps of
Engineers Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/Wetland Determinations (July 2016). This guidance
replaces all previous Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and St. Paul District
Corps of Engineers (District)-endorsed versions of guidance concerning wetland mapping
conventions for agricultural land including: Wetland Mapping Conventions for Cropland (BWSR,
USACE, NRCS, 1994); Atypical Procedure: Offsite Hydrology Determination by Using Rainfall
Data with Farm Services Agency Imagery (BWSR 2006); and Using Aerial Imagery to Assess
Wetland Hydrology (BWSR July 2010);
The purpose of using rainfall data in combination with historical imagery is to evaluate the aerial
imagery in the context of antecedent moisture conditions to determine if wetland hydrology is
observed. The guidance document referenced above recommend evaluating precipitation for three
months prior to the date when the imagery was obtained, for each year of historic imagery. Specific
months and dates were not available for some of the imagery (1984, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1991-
1999). However, it is assumed that these photos were typically taken in late June or early July and
it is therefore appropriate to evaluate precipitation for April, May, and June (BWSR 2006). Precise
dates are available for more recent imagery (2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008-2010, 2012, 2013, 2015
and 2016). For these years, precipitation was evaluated using the “Hybrid Method” which
combines the three-prior-month and 30-day rolling total methods (BWSR 2015).
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
8
Precipitation data for the survey site was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Office website
(http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp). Detailed precipitation data for
each year evaluated (corresponding to each year of available aerial photography) are included in
Appendices F and G, and summarized in Table 12 below. The target location used for obtaining
the nearest precipitation data for the site was based on the following:
County: Dakota Township Number: 119N
Township Name: Rosemount Range Number: 15W
Nearest Community: Rosemount Section Number: 15
Table 12. Summary of Climate Condition* for Each Year of Available Imagery
Year 1st Prior Month 2nd Prior Month 3rd Prior Month Overall Climate
Condition
1984 Normal Dry Wet Normal
1985 Dry Normal Normal Dry
1987 Dry Dry Dry Dry
1988 Dry Normal Dry Dry
1991 Dry Wet Wet Normal
1992 Wet Dry Normal Normal
1993 Wet Wet Normal Wet
1994 Normal Dry Wet Normal
1995 Normal Normal Normal Normal
1996 Normal Normal Dry Normal
1997 Normal Dry Dry Dry
1998 Wet Wet Normal Wet
1999 Normal Wet Wet Wet
2000 Dry Normal Normal Dry
2003 Dry Normal Wet Normal
2004 Wet Wet Dry Wet
2006 Dry Normal Wet Normal
2008 Normal Normal Wet Normal
2009 Dry Dry Dry Dry
2010 Wet Wet Wet Wet
2012 Wet Normal Normal Wet
2013 Wet Wet Wet Wet
2015 Normal Wet Wet Wet
2016 Wet Normal Normal Wet
Total Number of Dry Years: 6 (not to be reviewed)
Total Number of Normal Years: 9 (to be reviewed)
Total Number of Wet Years: 9 (not to be reviewed)
*For the years 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1991-1999 the 1st Prior, 2nd Prior, and 3rd Prior Months
refer to June, May, and April respectively, of each year. Climate assessments (wet, normal, or
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
9
dry) were derived from the MN Climatology Office gridded database. For the years 2000, 2003,
2004, 2006, 2008-2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016 the 1st Prior, 2nd Prior, and 3rd Prior
Months refer to the three 30-day periods prior to the imagery date (not calendar months).
Climate assessments were derived by comparing the 30-day rolling total to the monthly range of
normal precipitation. See also Appendices F and G.
Thirteen years of FSA imagery were available from the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District, covering the years of 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1991-1999. An additional
eleven years of recent aerial photography was obtained from the USDA NRCS Geospatial Data
Gateway (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/) including the years 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008-2010,
2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. Each year’s aerial photography was overlaid with the two wetland
areas reviewed for wetland hydrology to compare wetland signatures from previous years
(Appendix E: Figures 1-24).
FSA and NRCS imagery were reviewed for the presence of specific wetland features that were
noted with the following terminology in the Hydrology Assessment with Aerial Imagery –
Recording Forms.
Wet: Outline of the wetland in question can readily be seen and photographic signatures are caused
by wetness.
CS – crop stress: obvious difference in crop condition for crop at site due to wetness versus
crop in surrounding field(s); may include color (photo tone), size of crop, different planting
dates
DO – drowned out: site appears to have been tilled through and possibly planted; however,
pattern of crop appears as though all or part has been drowned out
NC – not cropped: site appears to have natural vegetative cover rather than annual crops;
no obvious tillage pattern lines through the site; adjacent cropped area squared-up or
otherwise planted to avoid the area
SW – standing water: surface water visible on image
AP – altered pattern: detectable differences in vegetation or cropping patterns resulting
from delayed planting dates or other alteration to standard farming practices as a result of
wetness
SS– soil wetness signature: images taken during the early portion of the growing season
may show dark photo tones in areas where the soils are saturated
Dry: Outline of wetland in question cannot readily be seen. Photographic signatures are not due
to wetness, and are due to soil or other factors.
NV – normal vegetation: the outline of the area in question cannot be readily distinguished
from the surrounding upland area or the signature on the image is not due to wetness
NSS – no soil wetness: use when the area is bare soil and not cropped
Appendix H provides the recording forms used to organize the information collected and
interpreted for the hydrology assessment for the one wetland and four non-wetland areas located
within the agricultural field on the Cliff property. These recording forms list for each year of
available aerial imagery: the image source, climate conditions (wet, dry, or normal), and the
interpretation of any visible wetland signatures.
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
10
For this type of wetland hydrology determination the procedure requires reviewing a minimum of
five years of photography which represent normal precipitation, or an equal number of wet and
dry years must be added to the analysis. An area is considered to have wetland hydrology if wet
signatures (as described above) are observed in the imagery from greater than 50% of normal
years. For this site nine years of normal precipitation for Wetland D and Non-Wetland Areas 1-4
were evaluated (Table 13).
Table 13. Summary of Wetland Hydrology Assessment Using Aerial Imagery
Wetland D NW
Area 1
NW
Area 2
NW
Area 3
NW
Area 4
Number of Normal Years 9 9 9 9 9
Number of Normal Years with Wet
Signature
8 1 0 1 1
Percent of Normal Years with Wet
Signature
89% 11% 0% 11% 11%
Imagery Indicates Wetland Hydrology
Present?
Yes No No No No
Table 14. Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery
Review
Area
Hydric Soils
Present
Identified on NWI or
other Wetland Map
Percent with
Wet Signatures
Other Hydrology
Indicators Present Wetland
Wetland D Y N 89% Geomorphic position
& FAC-Neutral test Y
NW Area 1 N N 11% Geomorphic position
& FAC-Neutral test N
NW Area 2 N N 0% Geomorphic position N
NW Area 3 Y N 11% Geomorphic position
& FAC-Neutral test N
NW Area 4 Y N 11% FAC-Neutral test N
FSA Review of Wetland D
The area at and immediately around the delineated boundary for Wetland D shows a wet signature
on historic imagery in eight of nine years with normal precipitation. In the years of 1999 a drowned
out wet signature was observed. In 2006 a wet signature of altered pattern was observed. In 1992,
1994, 1995, 1996, 2003, and 2008 a wetland signature can be observed within the boundary of the
delineated wetland from 2017.
Wetland D’s delineated wetland boundary is consistent with wet signatures observed in 89% (8 of
9 years) of the years of imagery with normal precipitation. From data collected in 2017, the area
of Wetland D had hydric soils, two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology (geomorphic
position and FAC-Neutral test) and hydrophytic vegetation present. Based on historic imagery
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
11
review we believe the wetland boundary delineated in 2017 is consistent with the boundaries of
the wetland signatures observed in years of normal precipitation.
FSA Review of Non-Wetland Area 1
Non-Wetland Area 1 shows a wet signature on historic imagery in one of nine years with normal
precipitation. The wet signature observed “soil wetness” was noted in 2003. No other years of
normal precipitation showed a wet signature.
FSA Review of Non-Wetland Area 2
Non-Wetland Area 2 does not show a wet signature on historic imagery in any of the nine years
with normal precipitation.
FSA Review of Non-Wetland Area 3
Non-Wetland Area 3 shows a wet signature on historic imagery in one of nine years with normal
precipitation. The wet signature observed “soil wetness” was noted in 2003. No other years of
normal precipitation showed a wet signature.
FSA Review of Non-Wetland Area 4
Non-Wetland Area 4 shows a wet signature on historic imagery in one of nine years with normal
precipitation. The wet signature observed “soil wetness” was noted in 2003. No other years of
normal precipitation showed a wet signature.
MnRAM
As part of the requirement for submitting a wetland delineation report to the City of Rosemount,
the MnRAM function and value assessment method was conducted on the three wetland areas that
were located within the property boundary. The assessment was conducted to determine the current
wetland classification for management and protection for these wetlands as well as for determining
building setback distances.
From the MnRAM assessment conducted, Wetlands B and E would both be classified as Manage
1 wetlands and Wetland D would be classified as a Manage 2 wetland. Supporting MnRAM
documents including the management classification and site response reports for each wetland is
located in Appendix I of this report.
Summary
On September 26th, 2017 MNR conducted a routine wetland delineation within the 77 acre Cliff
property located at 12523 Akron Ave. in Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. During the on-
site survey for wetlands, MNR delineated the boundaries of three wetlands (Wetland B, D and E).
Four other areas (Areas 1-4) were reviewed for the presence of wetland and all were determined
not to be wetland.
A historic imagery review was conducted in order to accurately determine wetland hydrology for
areas around the perimeter of Wetland D and for Non-Wetland Areas 1-4. These five areas have
all or part of their boundary extending into adjacent cultivated areas. From the historical imagery
review, it was determined that the delineated boundary for Wetland D seems consistent with
Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – Cliff Property, Rosemount, Minnesota
12
wetland signatures observed in the years with normal precipitation. The result of the FSA
evaluation determined that Wetland D’s current delineated boundaries are accurate and should not
be altered. Non-Wetland Areas 1, 3 and 4 had a wet signature in one of nine years with normal
precipitation and were determined to not being considered wetland. Non-Wetland Area 2 did not
meet any of the three wetland parameters and did not have any wetland signatures observed in the
years with normal precipitation.
The following table lists each wetland’s DNR updated National Wetlands Inventory (June, 2013)
type, along with each wetland’s current Circular 39 type, Cowardian classification, and Eggers
and Reed plant community type that was based on the field determination.
Table 15. NWI and Current Wetland Classification and Typing
Wetland DNR NWI Circular 39 Type/s Cowardian
Classification
Eggers and Reed Plant
Community Type
B PEM/AB 5 PABH Open Water
D None 1 PEMA Temporarily Flooded
Basin
E PEM/UB 3/5 PEMC/PUBH Shallow Marsh/Open
Water
The MnDNR PWI Map indicates no public waters located within the property boundary. The
nearest public waters are located to the west of the property approximately ½ mile away (unnamed
19-316 W) and (unnamed 19-320 W).
Three delineated wetland boundaries were located either entirely or partially within the 77 acre
Cliff property and were delineated using methods and criteria that follow the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the COE
Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region Version 2.0, Aug. 2010. Pin flags set at the
boundaries of Wetland B, D and E were flagged and located by MNR and also located by Pioneer
Engineering, P.A.
Appendix A
Supporting Site Figures
Akron Ave110th St W
Robert Tr S145th St E
135th St EBacardi AveRi
c
h
Va
l
l
e
y
Bl
v
dDodd Rd135th St W
Biscayne Ave145th St WAlbavar PathC l i f f R d
Alameda Ave
130th St W
120th St E
Bloomfield Path126th St W Weston Hills Dr121st St W
Bonaire Path
Belmont Tr117th St EAvery DrPine LaGun Club Rd1 1 4 th S t E
Stratford LaManor Lake Dr128th St WTamie Ave124th Ct W
Blanca Ave WBayberry TrSpruce St
Biscayne Ave145th St EBlanca Ave WRosemount
Inver Grove HeightsEagan
Municipal Boundary
Roads (Dakota County)¯
Site Location12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 1
Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
Property Boundary (77 acres)
Akron Ave124 th Ct W
EM
EM
EMEM
UBEM
AB
FO
FO
EM
EM
FO
UB
UB
AB
EM
EM
EM
EM
NWI Polygon (2013 Update)
Roads (Dakota County)¯
National Wetl ands Inventory12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
0 350 700175Feet Figure 2
Parcels (Dakota County)
Property Boundary (77 ac.)
Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
Akron AveKin gsley
Kin gsley
Kin gsley -
Kin gsley -
Mahtomedi
Kin gsley -
Kin gsley
Kin gsley
Quamsilt
Quamsilt
Kin gsley -
Aubu rn dal
Kenn ebec
Mahtomedi
Kin gsley -
Mahtomedi
Otterho lt
Spencer s
MahtomediMahtomedi
Mahtomedi
Kin gsley -
Kin gsley -
Quamsilt
Spencer s
Terril lo
Kin gsley -
Spillvill
Otterho lt
Mahtomedi
Kenn ebec
Kin gsley -
Spencer s
Quamsilt
Mahtomedi
Spencer s
Antig o si
Estherv il
Kin gsley -
Chetek sa Antig o si
Wad ena lo
Wad ena lo
Mahtomedi
Kanaranzi
Kenn ebecQuamsilt
Wau keg anKingsleySpencer s Chetek saKennebecTallula s
Otterho lt
Dakota Co. Soil Survey (hydric)
Roads (Dakota County)
Dakota Co. Soil Survey (non-hydric)
¯
Dakota County Soil Survey12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
0 250 500125Feet Figure 3Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
Property Boundary (77 ac.)
Appal
achi
an Tr
124th Ct W
1 2 1 s t S t W
Akron AveUnna med(1 9-3 16 W )
Unna med(1 9-3 20 W )
MN DNR PWI Polygon
Roads (Dakota County)
Property Boundary (77 ac.)
¯
MN DNR Public Waters Inventory Map12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
0 500 1,000250Feet Figure 4Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
9 4 2 101610209829069
3
8978986908
9269 1 4
994938 10109789561000922918 9 3 81014930 10229
3
4
976
942
9
5
2
9
4
0910 100
2
944906 9069409 3 4
934
934942910
946948 9849 5 0
950 1010942
954990954
934 992902912936948926
9469 5 2
932962938 9
9
8
952 1004944
92290499494694293010129409 2 2
952 9269901002922906940930996
964938938944906920
952942 10089 8 6
9249 3 2
9249289289509261022
940
9
3
4
942
9481010976926940
9429 3 0 10081012922
950930
952992
10069401020
9 3 8
914972942
940
922
940948928998
9321008940
9509769209069329 2 4952
938
934916
9381018
10109501004 988938
9
3
8 9909301016 9
9
2
940
930938
9
4
6
936
9409409369089949109249289181014
982962984934932922 996944
970 9869
7
4
978988980972
9761006938906
9389129369
3
2
9421012934
9 3 6
928
928930924938926
914
9
4
0 9329
1
6
1010
936910
9 4 6
918
9 4 89349349
3
8
9269429441008
9 4 0
928
9
1
2
9
3
6
9
2
0
938
924914
932 9329489089
3
6 9749
3
0
9709249
1
8
920928916934
934936
950
9349309
2
2
918930948
930
936
920946922
968
934936934
932924 1006966 1004990934992
964994
962936 996938
956958
954
964962 960966
9
5
2
968
928
9189 6 0 10029 5 8
9 9 8
950956954926928
9529301000
9 3 0
948924950932926948
9
3
8
9 2 0
9369469
4
6
9449389329429309409 3 2 9349409369
2
6928 922942944
area 1
b up pitb wetpit
b1 b2 b4
b5b6
b7b8b9
d up pitd1
d2d3d4d5
d6d7
d8d9d10
e1e2e3e4e5e6e7 e8e9 e10e11e12e13 e14e15e16e17
e18e19e20e21e22
e uppit
area 2
¯
Delineated Wetlands12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
0 350 700175Feet Figure 5
Wetland E2.43 acres
Wetland Pin Flag Location
Delineated Wetland Line (MNR)
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Transect
Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
Wetland B0.50 acres
2' Contour (State LiDAR)
Wetland D0.22 acres
Area 4
Area 3
Area 1
Area 2
Non-Wetland Area
Appendix B
Representative Photos
for
Wetlands B, D, & E
and
Non-Wetland Areas 1-4
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 1 of 7
Wetland B
Photo of Wetland B, view from flag B7 facing southwest at open water part of wetland.
Photo of Wetland B, view from flag B7 facing south at fringe of wet meadow
dominated by reed canary grass.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 2 of 7
Wetland D
Photo of Wetland D, view from southeastern edge of wetland facing northwest.
Barnyard grass in foreground and common spikerush in the center of photo.
Photo of Wetland D, view from field road with wetland to the right.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 3 of 7
Wetland E
Photo of Wetland E, view from southwestern edge of wetland facing north at open
water part of wetland.
Photo of Wetland E, view from flag E18 at edge of wetland facing south.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 4 of 7
Non-Wetland Area 1
Photo of Area 1, view from (on-site) field road facing south at area of barnyard
grass located off-site.
Photo of Area 1, view from along (on-site) field road facing west.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 5 of 7
Non-Wetland Area 2
Photo of Area 2, view from southern edge of depression facing north.
Photo of Area 2, view of culvert (dark area in center) located in lowest part of
depression.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 6 of 7
Non-Wetland Area 3
Photo of Area 3, view of recently tilled field.
Photo of Area 3, view from south side facing north at recently tilled field, clumps
of barnyard grass in lower front right of photo.
Appendix B, Representative Photos
Page 7 of 7
Non-Wetland Area 4
Photo of Area 4, view from south side facing north at recently tilled field.
Appendix C
Wetland Determination Data Forms
US Amy 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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland B-WetMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
PEM/AB
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
100
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
100 200
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Y
2
2
0 0
100.00%
Y
0
Phalaris arundinacea 100 Y FACW
(Plot size:
15
2.13
115 245
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
15 45
Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC
Absolute
% Cover
Wetland Bf yes, optional wetland site ID:
Wetland B is an open water wetland with a narrow fringe of fresh wet meadow dominated by reed canarygrass. This
wetland extends off-site to the west.
Y
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
Y
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Quam silt loam NWI Classification:
0-2 Lat:Long:44.763153 Datum:-93.098085
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X
X
Two primary and two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point (A2, A3, D2 & D5).
*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)
(includes capillary fringe)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface water present?
Yes X NoSaturation present?
Field Observations:
Depth (inches):
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Y
Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):surface
surface
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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils meet the Thick Dark Surface (A12) hydric soil indicator.
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:
*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)
13-20 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M sandy loam
0-12 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
Sampling Point:Wetland B-Wet
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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:
90
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
City/County:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland B-UpMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
100
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
10 20
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
3
1
90 360
33.33%
N
0
Bromus inermis 90 Y FACU
(Plot size:
Urtica dioica 10 N FACW
5
4.03
195 785
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
60 300
0 0
35 105
Rhamnus cathartica 5 Y FAC
Celtis occidentalis 15 N FAC
Quercus macrocarpa 15 N FAC
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Upland sample point is located within an oak woodland with defined side slopes.
N
Quercus ellipsoidalis 60 Y UPL
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
N
N
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Mahtomedi loamy sand NWI Classification:
8-15%Lat:Long:44.763017 Datum:-93.089864
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
side slope
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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 indicators of wetland hydrology were present at the sample point.
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils do not meet any hydric soil indicators.
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:
*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)
15-20 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam
0-14 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam
Sampling Point:Wetland B-Up
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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)
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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland D-WetMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
100
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
0 0
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Y
2
1
0 0
50.00%
Y
0
Eleocharis palustris 100 Y OBL
(Plot size:
0
1.00
100 100
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
100 100
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
Wetland Df yes, optional wetland site ID:
Wetland D is a small Type 1 wetland that earlier in the year likely had a few inches of standing water present but now
has no standing water. A spike rush covers the whole basin.
Y
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
Y
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Kingsley sandy loam NWI Classification:
3-8%Lat:Long:44.766759 Datum:-93.088854
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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
13-20 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M clay loam
Two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point (D2 & D5).
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils meet the Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric soil indicator.
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:
*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)
7-12 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
0-6 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M silty clay loam
Sampling Point:Wetland D-Wet
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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)
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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland D-UpMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
100
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
100 200
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
2
1
0 0
50.00%
Y
0
Echinochloa crus-galli 100 Y FACW
(Plot size:
0
2.00
100 200
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Upland point is located within an area dominated by barnyard grass.
N
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
N
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Kingsley sandy loam NWI Classification:
3-8%Lat:Long:44.766668 Datum:-93.088785
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
side slope
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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)
X
15-20 10YR 4/4 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M silt loam
One secondary indicator of wetland hydrology was observed at the sample point (D5).
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils do not meet any hydric soil indicators.
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:
*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)
7-14 10YR 3/4 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M silt loam
0-6 10YR 3/4 100 silt loam
Sampling Point:Wetland D-Up
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland E-WetMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
PEM/UB
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
80
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
OBL
0 0
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Y
3
2
0 0
66.67%
Y
0
Persicaria punctata 10 N
Typha angustifolia 50 Y OBL
(Plot size:
Lythrum salicaria 20 Y OBL
0
1.00
80 80
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
80 80
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
Wetland Ef yes, optional wetland site ID:
Wetland E is a cattail marsh with a very narrow fringe of fresh wet meadow. Open water is present in the northern part
of the basin.
Y
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
Y
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Quam silt loam NWI Classification:
0-2%Lat:Long:44.767891 Datum:-93.087211
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X
X
13-22 10YR 3/1 100 sand
Two primary and two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point (A2, A3, D2 & D5).
*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)
(includes capillary fringe)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface water present?
Yes X NoSaturation present?
Field Observations:
Depth (inches):
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Y
Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):surface
surface
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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils meet the Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric soil indicator.
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:
*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)
5-12 10YR 2/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M sandy loam
0-4 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
Sampling Point:Wetland E-Wet
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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 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:
60
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
City/County:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Wetland E-UpMN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
95
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
FACU
0 0
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
4
3
85 340
75.00%
Y
0
Arctium minus 5 N
Bromus inermis 80 Y FACU
(Plot size:
Plantago major 10 N FAC
10
3.52
165 580
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
80 240
Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC
Acer negundo 30 Y FAC
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Upland point is located on a side slpoe near a bur oak woodland.
N
Quercus macrocarpa 30 Y FAC
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
N
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Kingsley sandy loam NWI Classification:
15-25%Lat:Long:44.767943 Datum:-93.087071
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
side slope
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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 indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point.
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils do not meet any hydric soil indicators.
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:
*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)
16-20 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
0-15 10YR 2/2 100 sandy loam
Sampling Point:Wetland E-Up
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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)
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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Area 1MN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
100
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
100 200
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
2
1
0 0
50.00%
Y
0
Echinochloa crus-galli 100 Y FACW
(Plot size:
0
2.00
100 200
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Upland point is located within a slight depressional area dominated by just barnyard grass. This area barely comes
onto the subject property.
Y
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
N
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Kennebec silt loam NWI Classification:
0-2%Lat:Long:44.760695 Datum:-93.085721
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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)
X
X
Two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point (D2 & D5).
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils do not meet any hydric soil indicators.
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:
*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)
13-17 10YR 3/2 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M clay loam
0-12 10YR 3/2 100 clay loam
Sampling Point:Area 1
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Area 2MN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
95
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
FACU
0 0
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
4
0
95 380
0.00%
N
0
Dactylis glomerata 30 Y
Taraxacum officinale 5 N FACU
Phleum pratense 30 Y FACU
(Plot size:
Bromus inermis 30 Y FACU
0
4.00
95 380
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Upland point is located within a depressional area dominated by upland grasses. A culvert is present below the lowest
point in the basin.
N
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
N
N
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Kennebec variant NWI Classification:
0-2%Lat:Long:44.763443 Datum:-93.085458
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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)
X
One secondary indicator of wetland hydrology was observed at the sample point (D2).
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils do not meet any hydric soil indicators.
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:
*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)
0-15 10YR 3/2 100 clay loam
Sampling Point:Area 2
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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)
Area was recently tilled.
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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Area 3MN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
20
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
20 40
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Y
2
1
0 0
50.00%
Y
0
Echinochloa crus-galli 20 Y FACW
(Plot size:
0
2.00
20 40
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
0 0
0 0
Y
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Sample point is located within the center of the depressional area dominated by recently tilled barnyard grass. The
FSA review of this basin does not indicate wetland in over 50% of the years with normal precipitation.
Y
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
X X
Y
Y
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Y
Spencer silt loam NWI Classification:
2-6%Lat:Long:44.763554 Datum:-93.088843
Investigator(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
depression
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
US Army 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
Two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the sample point (D2 & D5).
*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)
(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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Soils meet the (F3) hydric soil indicator.
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:
*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)
4-18 10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
0-3 10YR 4/2 100 clay loam
Sampling Point:Area 3
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
US Amy 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): Ken Arndt, MNR
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Applicant/Owner: Lennar State:
talf
Section, Township, Range:
Soil Map Unit Name
Y
Spencer silt loam NWI Classification:
2-6%Lat:Long:44.765253 Datum:-93.090127
X X
Y
Y
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Are "normal circumstances"
present? Yes
Absolute
% Cover
f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Sample point is located within a nearly level area with a small amount of recently tilled barnyard grass. The FSA
review of this basin does not indicate wetland in over 50% of the years with normal precipitation.
N
Dominant
Species
Indicator
Staus
Y
0 0
0 0
0
2.00
10 20
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
(explain)
0 0
Echinochloa crus-galli 10 Y FACW
(Plot size:
Y
0
Cliff Property
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
(Plot size:
10
(Plot size:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
NAD 83
10 20
Morphogical adaptations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
N
2
1
0 0
50.00%
Area was recently tilled and has very little vegetation that was observed except for some clumps of barnyard grass.
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:Rosemount/Dakota Sampling Date:
*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9-26-17
Sampling Point:Area 4MN
Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave
S15, T119N, R15W
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
, or hydrology
, or hydrology
US Army 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
Sampling Point:Area 4
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc**
0-14 10YR 3/2 90 2.5YR 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:
*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)
Soils meet the Redox Dark Surface hydric soil indicator.
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):
Iron Deposits (B5)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Depth (inches):
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
N
Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches):
X
(includes capillary fringe)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface water present?
Yes NoSaturation present?
Field Observations:
One secondary indicator of wetland hydrology was observed at the sample point (D5).
*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)
Appendix D
Recent Climatic Conditions
Appendix D, Recent Climatic Conditions
1
Past Year’s Precipitation Data from Gridded Database
Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group website: http://climate.umn.edu/
Since the delineation of the Cliff property was conducted on September 26, 2017 daily precipitation data
from the months of June, July, and August were reviewed from the Rosemount 3.3 WNW weather station
which is located approximately 2.1 miles west from the project site. Annual precipitation data for the three
months prior to September was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group from 1998-2017
for the area of Dakota County where the nearest precipitation data was collected for the past 20 years.
Precipitation data was obtained using the following as the target location:
County: Dakota Township Number: 115N
Township Name: Rosemount Range Number: 19W
Nearest Community: Rosemount Section Number: 15
Last 20 Years: 1998-2017 the average precipitation for the month of June = 5.19”, July = 4.14”, and August
= 4.70”.
Last Five Years-June: From 2013-2017 the average precipitation was 7.09” and was within the highest
30th percentile.
Last Five Years-July: From 2013-2017 the average precipitation was 5.01” and was within the highest
30th percentile.
Last Five Years-August: From 2013-2017 the average precipitation was 4.96” and was within the highest
30th percentile.
Recent 2017: During June, 2017 3.5” of precipitation was recorded at the Rosemount 3.3 WNW weather
station. In July 8.03” of precipitation was recorded and in August 7.11” was recorded. In the first 25 days
of September, 1.47” of precipitation was recorded at this weather station and on the day of the delineation,
0.23” of precipitation was recorded.
Average warm season (WARM) precipitation was 21.47”, which is within the 30th to 70th percentile from
1998-2017.
Average calendar year (ANN) precipitation was 34.27”, which is within the highest 30th percentile from
1998-2017.
Average water year (WAT) precipitation was 30.04”, which is within the 30th to 70th percentile from 1998-
2017.
Table 1 on the following page lists the recorded precipitation data for the months of June, July, and August
(the three months prior to when the site visit occurred), warm season, calendar year, and water year amounts
from the last 20 years of available recorded data (1998 to 2017).
Appendix D, Recent Climatic Conditions
2
Table 1. Recorded Precipitation Data (1998-2017)
Year Jun Jul Aug WARM ANN WAT
2017 3.41R 5.46R 6.06R
2016 5.12 5.60 8.35 28.58 43.16 46.30
2015 5.58 7.43 4.04 25.97 41.35 34.05
2014 12.00 3.35 5.07 27.28 41.55 42.75
2013 5.65 3.65 2.36 19.97 34.79 33.53
2012 5.64 4.16 2.60 20.71 32.66 31.01
2011 4.62 5.05 3.34 17.94 28.48 33.49
2010 6.99 5.29 6.35 28.36 40.42 42.65
2009 3.79 1.99 7.37 14.79 29.42 25.42
2008 4.23 2.85 3.02 15.29 27.57 29.12
2007 1.66 3.23 8.66 20.74 35.29 31.97
2006 1.74 2.05 5.96 16.32 26.39 30.91
2005 4.47 2.34 4.35 20.22 35.10 30.92
2004 3.28 2.94 1.83 19.86 30.56 29.59
2003 3.38 3.35 1.23 16.35 24.82 27.33
2002 8.92 3.97 8.59 29.69 42.22 41.27
2001 4.70 1.76 2.80 16.31 30.74 33.11
2000 4.52 10.39 3.57 23.85 35.48 31.34
1999 4.10 6.66 3.55 22.08 33.87 35.51
1998 8.21 2.52 6.20 23.60 37.22 36.41
20 yr average 5.19 4.14 4.70 21.47 34.27 34.04
total is in lowest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution
total is => 30th and <= 70th percentile
total is in highest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution
WARM = warm season (May thru September)
ANN = calendar year (January thru December)
WAT = water year (Oct. previous year thru Sept. present year)
Appendix D, Recent Climatic Conditions
3
Average Temperature Climate Data
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Local Climatological Data
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/historical/lcd.html?loc=msp
Average monthly high temperature for the three months preceding field survey and for the actual day of
survey are reported in Table 2 below. Temperature data were obtained from the weather station at the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
Table 2. Monthly average high temperature
June July August September 26, 2017
Temperature (°F) 81.3° 84.8° 77.0° 65.0°
Appendix E
Historic Air Photo Figures
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1984)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 1
Source: 198 4 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1985)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 2
Source: 198 5 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1987)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 3
Source: 198 7 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1988)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 4
Source: 198 8 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1991)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 5
Source: 199 1 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1992)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 6
Source: 199 2 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1993)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 7
Source: 199 3 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1994)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 8
Source: 199 4 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1995)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 9
Source: 199 5 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1996)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 10
Source: 199 6 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9289 4 2 9961006950
948978932994938
942940918 942978952934
930100093010149389409769389369
5
2
100
2908
92893493495010109909
3
4
936
912936948926
9469329 4 0938 938998
952 924994936
9
3
6
938
92890894010029229301020996
964938936920938940
10081018932924928101 6
932942
926936946 926940934
9 4 2
9489761010924
940
9 3 0 982984934938 1012986934922 988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789801010
10049 4 0
970
9 3 8
974
9329 1 4
972
908
9 4 2 9761004
922972
9
1
0
910
928998926 1008
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
93
0
9 3 8
9209309149309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924916
918
932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
9
2
2
970922934
950924
934918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938 996962 10009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954 950952926928924930950 948930
9489389
3
2
946944946940942938
928 9269 3 2924930
932
9349 3 6
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1997)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 11
Source: 199 7 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1998)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 12
Source: 199 8 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (1999)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 13
Source: 199 9 F SA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2000)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 14
Source: 200 0 b w 7-co unty
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2003)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 15
Source: 200 3 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2004)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 16
Source: 200 4 color MSP
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2006)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 17
Source: 200 6 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2008)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 18
Source: 200 8 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Normal)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2009)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 19
Source: 200 9 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Dry)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2010)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 20
Source: 201 0 color 7-cou nty
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2012)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 21
Source: 201 2 color Tw in Cities
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2013)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 22
Source: 201 3 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2015)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 23
Source: 201 5 color FSA
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
9249289 4 2 996950
94810069789321008994938
942940918 978952934 942100093010149389309409769389
5
2
936100
2908
93492893495010109909
3
4
912936936
948926
946932938998
9 4 09 38952994
936
9
3
6908928938940 1002922930996 10209649389369209381008932940
10189249281016
932926936946 942
940
9269349 4 2
9481014
9761010940
9 3 0 924982984934938 1012922 986934988950 10069
4
4
992
10069069789809 4 0
1010
9389329 1 4
970
974
972
9 4 2
908
976922972
9
1
0
910
928998100 8926
942976930 920906932952
938
91691291610049129
4
0
9 3 8
93
0920930914
9309
1
6
940940914918
9
3
8
924
918 916932962928922926918
9249389229329369369
3
6 9289
2
0
9
2
6
934920936
1004
9
3
4
928
938
924
932948918 9749
3
0
970
9
2
2922
934
950
934924918948
930
936934
920946968
9 3 4 9909369329
9
2
9 3 6966
100 2
998
964994938
962 99610009
5
6958 964
954 962960 9669
5
2968926
934
936960
928
9 5 8
9 5 6
954
9 5 2 950926928924930950 948930
9489389 3 2
946944946940938
9
4
2
928 9269 3 2
924
930
932
934936
940942944
¯
0 300 600150Feet Historic Imagery Review (2016)12523 Akron Ave.Rosemount, MN
Appendix E, Figure 24
Source: 201 6 color 7-cou nty
Survey Area (77 ac.)
Non-Wetland Area2' Contour (LiDAR)
Precipitation (Wet)
Area 1
Wetland D
Wetland B
Area 4
Area 3
Area 2
Wetland E
Delineated Wetland (MNR)
Appendix F
Precipitation Worksheets
(using gridded database)
for
Years of Historic Air Photo Imagery Reviewed
(1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1991-1999)
Appendix F Page 1 of 4
Precipitation data for target wetland location:
County: Dakota
Township Number: 115N
Township Name: Rosemount Range Number: 19W
Nearest Community: Rosemount Section Number: 15
1984
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1984
second prior month:
May 1984
third prior month:
April 1984
estimated precipitation total for this location:5.24 2.16 3.61
type of month: dry normal wet normal dry wet
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 3 = 3
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 11 (Normal)
1985
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1985
second prior month:
May 1985
third prior month:
April 1985
estimated precipitation total for this location:2.61 2.80 1.96
type of month: dry normal wet dry normal normal
monthly score 3 * 1 = 3 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 9 (Dry)
1987
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1987
second prior month:
May 1987
third prior month:
April 1987
estimated precipitation total for this location:1.99 2.17 0.26
type of month: dry normal wet dry dry dry
monthly score 3 * 1 = 3 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 1 = 1
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 6 (Dry)
1988
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1988
second prior month:
May 1988
third prior month:
April 1988
estimated precipitation total for this location:0.23 3.06 1.24
type of month: dry normal wet dry normal dry
monthly score 3 * 1 = 3 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 1 = 1
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 8 (Dry)
Appendix F Page 2 of 4
1991
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1991
second prior month:
May 1991
third prior month:
April 1991
estimated precipitation total for this location:1.85 7.71 3.13
type of month: dry normal wet dry wet wet
monthly score 3 * 1 = 3 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 12 (Normal)
1992
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1992
second prior month:
May 1992
third prior month:
April 1992
estimated precipitation total for this location:5.45 1.16 2.29
type of month: dry normal wet wet dry normal
monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 13 (Normal)
1993
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1993
second prior month:
May 1993
third prior month:
April 1993
estimated precipitation total for this location:7.53 4.91 2.72
type of month: dry normal wet wet wet normal
monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 17 (Wet)
1994
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1994
second prior month:
May 1994
third prior month:
April 1994
estimated precipitation total for this location:5.38 2.40 4.16
type of month: dry normal wet normal dry wet
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 3 = 3
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 11 (Normal)
Appendix F Page 3 of 4
1995
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1995
second prior month:
May 1995
third prior month:
April 1995
estimated precipitation total for this location:4.16 3.65 2.35
type of month: dry normal wet normal normal normal
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 12 (Normal)
1996
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1996
second prior month:
May 1996
third prior month:
April 1996
estimated precipitation total for this location:3.84 2.85 0.89
type of month: dry normal wet normal normal dry
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 1 = 1
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 11 (Normal)
1997
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1997
second prior month:
May 1997
third prior month:
April 1997
estimated precipitation total for this location:3.74 1.73 0.96
type of month: dry normal wet normal dry dry
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 1 = 1
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 9 (Dry)
1998
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1998
second prior month:
May 1998
third prior month:
April 1998
estimated precipitation total for this location:8.20 5.32 2.80
type of month: dry normal wet wet wet normal
monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 17 (Wet)
Appendix F Page 4 of 4
1999
(precipitation values are in inches) first prior month:
June 1999
second prior month:
May 1999
third prior month:
April 1999
estimated precipitation total for this location:4.10 5.69 4.94
type of month: dry normal wet normal wet wet
monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 15 (Wet)
Appendix G
Precipitation Graphs
for
Historic Imagery Reviewed
(2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008-2010,
2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016)
Appendix G Page 1 of 11
Precipitation data for target wetland location:
County: Dakota
Township Number: 115N
Township Name: Rosemount Range Number: 19W
Nearest Community: Rosemount Section Number: 15
Year: 2000
Image Date:
5/2/2000
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
4/3/00 - 5/2/00 3/4/00 - 4/2/00 2/3/00 – 3/3/00
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 1.74 1.24 1.14
Condition: Dry Normal Normal
Monthly score: 1 * 3 = 3 2 * 2 = 4 2 * 1 = 2
Multi-month score: 9 (Dry) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 2 of 11
Year: 2003
Image Date:
7/18/2003
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
6/19/03 – 7/18/03 5/20/03 – 6/18/03 4/20/03 – 5/19/03
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 4.70 1.3 5.96
Condition: Dry Normal Wet
Monthly score: 1 * 3 = 3 2 * 2 = 4 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 10 (Normal) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 3 of 11
Year: 2004
Image Date:
4/4/2004
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
3/6/04-4/4/04 2/5/04-3/5/04 1/6/04-2/4/04
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 1.62 2.41 0.48
Condition: Wet Wet Dry
Monthly score: 3 * 3 = 9 3 * 2 = 6 1 * 1 = 1
Multi-month score: 16 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 4 of 11
Year: 2006
Image Date:
7/15/2006
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
6/16/06 – 7/15/06 5/17/06 – 6/15/06 4/17/06 – 5/16/06
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 2.62 1.27 4.63
Condition: Dry Normal Wet
Monthly score: 1 * 3 = 3 2 * 2 = 4 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 10 (Normal) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 5 of 11
Year: 2008
Image Date:
7/8/2008
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
6/9/08 – 7/8/08 5/10/08 – 6/8/08 4/10/08 – 5/9/08
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 2.42 3.61 5.40
Condition: Normal Normal Wet
Monthly score: 2* 3 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 13 (Normal) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 6 of 11
Year: 2009
Image Date:
6/28/2009
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
5/30/09 – 6/28/09 4/30/09 – 5/29/09 3/31/09 – 4/29/09
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 3.90 1.49 1.86
Condition: Dry Dry Dry
Monthly score: 1 * 3 = 3 1 * 2 = 2 1 * 1 = 1
Multi-month score: 6 (Dry) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 7 of 11
Year: 2010
Image Date:
9/12/2010
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
8/14/10 – 9/12/10 7/15/10 – 8/13/10 6/15/10 – 7/14/10
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 1.93 9.85 5.86
Condition: Wet Wet Wet
Monthly score: 3 * 3 = 9 3 * 2 = 6 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 18 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 8 of 11
Year: 2012
Image Date:
4/4/2012
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
3/6/12 – 4/4/12 2/5/12 – 3/512 1/6/12 – 2/4/12
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 2.23 2.03 0.46
Condition: Wet Normal Normal
Monthly score: 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 2 = 4 2 * 1 = 2
Multi-month score: 15 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 9 of 11
Year: 2013
Image Date:
7/12/2013
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
6/13/13 – 7/12/13 5/19/13 – 6/12/13 4/19/13 – 5/18/13
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 5.17 5.54 3.78
Condition: Wet Wet Wet
Monthly score: 3 * 3 = 9 3 * 2 = 6 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 18 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 10 of 11
Year: 2015
Image Date:
9/27/2015
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
8/29/15 – 9/27/15 7/30/15 – 8/28/15 6/30/15 – 7/29/15
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 5.02 4.82 8.56
Condition: Normal Wet Wet
Monthly score: 2 * 3 = 6 3 * 2 = 6 3 * 1 = 3
Multi-month score: 15 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix G Page 11 of 11
Year: 2016
Image Date:
4/22/2016
First prior 30
days:
Second prior 30
days:
Third prior 30
days:
3/24/16 – 4/22/16 2/23/16 – 3/23/16 1/24/16 – 2/22/16
Estimated precipitation total for this location
(in.): 2.34 1.40 1.38
Condition: Wet Normal Normal
Monthly score: 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 2 = 4 2 * 1 = 2
Multi-month score: 15 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)
Appendix H
FSA Hydrology Assessment Worksheets
for
Wetland D
&
Non-Wetland Areas 1-4
Appendix H Page 1 of 5
Wetland D
Year Image Source
Climate
Condition
(wet, dry,
normal)*
Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed, e.g.
crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc)**
Wetland D
1984 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1985 FSA dry SS – soil wetness signature, within delineated boundary
1987 FSA dry
SS – soil wetness signature, from the delineated boundary and
outward to the north and east, vegetation appears darker green than
surrounding field
1988 FSA dry
NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed, area
within delineated boundary appears darker in color form surrounding
field
1991 FSA normal DO – area within delineated boundary shows sign of drown out
1992 FSA normal WS – wetland signature within delineated boundary
1993 FSA wet WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary
1994 FSA normal WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary
1995 FSA normal WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary
1996 FSA normal WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary and to the
north
1997 FSA dry WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary
1998 FSA wet WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary
1999 FSA wet WS – wetland signature within delineated boundary
2000 BW 7-county dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2003 Color FSA normal WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary, open
water is visible
2004 Color MSP wet SS – slight soil wetness signature within review area polygon
2006 Color FSA
(partial) normal AP – altered pattern within review area polygon
2008 Color FSA normal WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary, open
water is visible
2009 Color FSA dry DO – drown out area within delineated boundary
2010 Color 7-county wet SS – slight soil wetness signature within review area polygon
2012 Color Twin Cities wet SS – slight soil wetness signature within review area polygon
2013 Color FSA wet WS – wetland signature within delineated boundary, likely drown out
in the middle
2015 Color FSA wet AP – altered pattern within field
2016 Color 7-county wet WS – wetland signature slightly within delineated boundary, open
water is visible
*Use MN State Climatology website to determine USDA/NRCS climate condition for parcel being investigated
**Use key below to label photo 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 the box below.
WS – wetland signature SW – standing water NV – normal vegetation cover
CS – crop stress SS – soil wetness NSS – no soil wetness
DO – drowned out AP – altered pattern
NC – not cropped
Appendix H Page 2 of 5
Non-Wetland Area 1
Year Image Source
Climate
Condition (wet,
dry, normal)*
Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed, e.g.
crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc)**
Non-Wetland Area 1
1984 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1985 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1987 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1988 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1991 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1992 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1993 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1994 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1995 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1996 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1997 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1998 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1999 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2000 BW 7-county dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2003 Color FSA normal SS – soil wetness signature within the review area polygon on the
property to the south
2004 Color MSP wet SS – soil wetness signature in area outside the property boundary
within part of the review area polygon on the property to the south
2006 Color FSA
(partial) normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2008 Color FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2009 Color FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2010 Color 7-county wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2012 Color Twin Cities wet SS – soil wetness signature in area just outside the property boundary
within the review area polygon on the property to the south
2013 Color FSA wet SS – some soil wetness signature in area outside the property
boundary within the review area polygon on the property to the south
2015 Color FSA wet SS – small soil wetness signature in area outside the property
boundary within the review area polygon on the property to the south
2016 Color 7-county wet SS – small soil wetness signature in area outside the property
boundary within the review area polygon on the property to the south
*Use MN State Climatology website to determine USDA/NRCS climate condition for parcel being investigated
**Use key below to label photo 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 the box below.
WS – wetland signature SW – standing water NV – normal vegetation cover
CS – crop stress SS – soil wetness NSS – no soil wetness
DO – drowned out AP – altered pattern
NC – not cropped
Appendix H Page 3 of 5
Non-Wetland Area 2
Year Image Source
Climate
Condition (wet,
dry, normal)*
Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed, e.g.
crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc)**
Non-Wetland Area 2
1984 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1985 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1987 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1988 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1991 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1992 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1993 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1994 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1995 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1996 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1997 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1998 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1999 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2000 BW 7-county dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2003 Color FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2004 Color MSP wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2006 Color FSA
(partial) normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2008 Color FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2009 Color FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2010 Color 7-county wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2012 Color Twin Cities wet SS – soil wetness signature within review area polygon
2013 Color FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2015 Color FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2016 Color 7-county wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
*Use MN State Climatology website to determine USDA/NRCS climate condition for parcel being investigated
**Use key below to label photo 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 the box below.
WS – wetland signature SW – standing water NV – normal vegetation cover
CS – crop stress SS – soil wetness NSS – no soil wetness
DO – drowned out AP – altered pattern
NC – not cropped
Appendix H Page 4 of 5
Non-Wetland Area 3
Year Image Source
Climate
Condition (wet,
dry, normal)*
Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed,
e.g. crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc)**
Non-Wetland Area 3
1984 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1985 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1987 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1988 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, within review area polygon it
appears darker in color from surrounding fields
1991 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1992 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1993 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1994 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1995 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1996 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1997 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1998 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1999 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2000 BW 7-county dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2003 Color FSA normal SS – soil wetness signature within and slightly outside of review
area polygon
2004 Color MSP wet SS – soil wetness signature within and slightly outside of review
area polygon
2006 Color FSA
(partial) normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2008 Color FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2009 Color FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2010 Color 7-county wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2012 Color Twin Cities wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2013 Color FSA wet SS – soil wetness signature around review area polygon
2015 Color FSA wet SS – soil wetness signature around review area polygon
2016 Color 7-county wet AP – altered pattern within and beyond the review area polygon
*Use MN State Climatology website to determine USDA/NRCS climate condition for parcel being investigated
**Use key below to label photo 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 the box below.
WS – wetland signature SW – standing water NV – normal vegetation cover
CS – crop stress SS – soil wetness NSS – no soil wetness
DO – drowned out AP – altered pattern
NC – not cropped
Appendix H Page 5 of 5
Non-Wetland Area 4
Year Image Source
Climate
Condition (wet,
dry, normal)*
Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed,
e.g. crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc)**
Non-Wetland Area 4
1984 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1985 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1987 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1988 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, area appears greener than surrounding
field
1991 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1992 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1993 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1994 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1995 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1996 FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1997 FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1998 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
1999 FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2000 BW 7-county dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2003 Color FSA normal SS – soil wetness signature within and outside of review area polygon
2004 Color MSP wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2006 Color FSA
(partial) normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2008 Color FSA normal NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2009 Color FSA dry NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2010 Color 7-county wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2012 Color Twin Cities wet SS – soil wetness signature within review area polygon
2013 Color FSA wet NV – normal vegetation cover, no obvious signature observed
2015 Color FSA wet SS – slight soil wetness signature within review area polygon and
surrounding it
2016 Color 7-county wet SS – small area of soil wetness signature within and to the west of
review area polygon
*Use MN State Climatology website to determine USDA/NRCS climate condition for parcel being investigated
**Use key below to label photo 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 the box below.
WS – wetland signature SW – standing water NV – normal vegetation cover
CS – crop stress SS – soil wetness NSS – no soil wetness
DO – drowned out AP – altered pattern
NC – not cropped
Appendix I
MnRAM
Management Classification
&
Site Response Reports
for
Wetlands B, D & E
Management Classification Report for
16
Cliff PropertyWetland B
County
Corps Bank Service Area
DAKOTA
38
8
ID:
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake Pepin)Watershed, #
Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below,
this wetland is classified as
Functional rank of this wetland
based on MnRAM data Functional Category
Self‐defined classification value
settings for this management level
Vegetative Diversity/Integrity
Habitat Structure (wildlife)
Amphibian Habitat
Fish Habitat
Shoreline Protection
Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat
Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity
Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity
Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity
Flood/Stormwater Attenuation*
Commericial use*
Downstream Water Quality*
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Not Applicable
Low
Not Applicable
High
High
High
Moderate
The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as
Moderate
Details of the formula for this action are shown below:
Manage 1
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
High
‐
High
‐
Manage 1
Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat
was
/Moderate
/
/
/
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
(Q43) * [( Q44 + 2*Q23wildlife + Q14 +Q 41 + Q20
reversed)/6]
Value Description
Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat
Question
14 Upland land use0.5
20 Stormwater runoff0.5
23 Buffer width0.5
41 Wildlife barriers0.5
43 Amphib breeding potential--fish presence1
44 Amphib & reptile overwintering habitat0.5
Thursday, November 02, 2017This report was printed on:
* The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable
Management Classification Report for
18
Cliff PropertyWetland D
County
Corps Bank Service Area
DAKOTA
38
8
ID:
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake Pepin)Watershed, #
Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below,
this wetland is classified as
Functional rank of this wetland
based on MnRAM data Functional Category
Self‐defined classification value
settings for this management level
Vegetative Diversity/Integrity
Habitat Structure (wildlife)
Amphibian Habitat
Fish Habitat
Shoreline Protection
Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat
Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity
Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity
Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity
Flood/Stormwater Attenuation*
Commericial use*
Downstream Water Quality*
Low
Moderate
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low
Not Applicable
Moderate
High
Moderate
Exceptional
The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as
Moderate
Details of the formula for this action are shown below:
Manage 2
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Manage 2
Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure
was
/Low
/
/
/
‐
‐
‐
(Q3e*2+Q39+Q40+Q41+(Q23+Q24+Q25)/3+Q13+
Q20)/8
Value Description
Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Str
Question
13 Outlet: hydrologic regime1
20 Stormwater runoff0.5
23 Buffer width0.5
24 Adjacent area Management0.235
25 Adjacent area diversity0.3
39 Detritus0.5
3e <No Description Found>0.1
40 Wetland interspersion/landscape0.5
* The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable
Management Classification Report for
18
Cliff PropertyWetland D
County
Corps Bank Service Area
DAKOTA
38
8
ID:
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake Pepin)Watershed, #
41 Wildlife barriers0.5
Thursday, November 02, 2017This report was printed on:
* The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable
Management Classification Report for
17
Cliff PropertyWetland E
County
Corps Bank Service Area
DAKOTA
38
8
ID:
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake Pepin)Watershed, #
Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below,
this wetland is classified as
Functional rank of this wetland
based on MnRAM data Functional Category
Self‐defined classification value
settings for this management level
Vegetative Diversity/Integrity
Habitat Structure (wildlife)
Amphibian Habitat
Fish Habitat
Shoreline Protection
Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat
Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity
Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity
Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity
Flood/Stormwater Attenuation*
Commericial use*
Downstream Water Quality*
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Not Applicable
Moderate
Not Applicable
High
High
High
Moderate
The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as
Moderate
Details of the formula for this action are shown below:
Manage 1
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High
High
High
‐
High
‐
Manage 1
Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat
was
/Moderate
/
/
/
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
(Q43) * [( Q44 + 2*Q23wildlife + Q14 +Q 41 + Q20
reversed)/6]
Value Description
Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat
Question
14 Upland land use0.5
20 Stormwater runoff1
23 Buffer width1
41 Wildlife barriers1
43 Amphib breeding potential--fish presence1
44 Amphib & reptile overwintering habitat0.5
Thursday, November 02, 2017This report was printed on:
* The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable
16Cliff Property
MnRAM: Site Response Record
For Wetland:Wetland B
Location: 19-119-15-15-001
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 Depressional/Tributary
8-1 36 inches
8-2 95%
9 2 acres
11-Upland Soil Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
11-Wetland Soil Quam silt loam, ponded
12 A
13 A
14 B
15 A
16 100%
17 B
18 A
19 B
20 B
21 A
22 A
23 100 feet
24-A 50%
24-B 0%
24-C 50%
25-A 0%
25-B 50%
Outlet for flood control
Outlet for hydro regime
Dominant upland land use
Wetland soil condition
Vegetation (% cover)
Emerg. veg flood resistance
Sediment delivery
Upland soils (soil group)
Stormwater runoff
Subwatershed wetland density
Channels/sheet flow
Adjacent buffer width
Adjacent area management
Full
Manicured
Bare
Adjacent area diversity/structure
Native
Mixed
Listed, rare, special species?
Rare community or habitat?
Pre-European-settlement condition?
Hydrogeomorphology / topography:
Maximum water depth
% inundated
Immediate drainage--local WS
10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66)
PAB4H Type 5
Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C
Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:
PEM1B Type 2
Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow
Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:
25-C 50%
26-A 15%
26-B 35%
26-C 50%
27 A
28 C
29 No
30 0%
31 0 feet
32
33
34
35 No
36 No
37 C
38 C
39 B
40 B
41 B
42 Adequate
43 A
44 B
45
46 C
47
48 No
49 C
50 Yes
51 C
52 C
53 A
54 C
55 C
56 C
Sparse
Gentle
Moderate
Steep
Adjacent area slope
Downstream sens./WQ protect.
Nutrient loading
Shoreline wetland?
Rooted veg., % cover
Wetland in-water width
Emerg. veg. erosion resistance
Erosion potential of site
Upslope veg./bank protection
Rare wildlife?
Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community
Vegetative cover
Veg. community interspersion
Wetland detritus
Interspersion on landscape
Wildlife barriers
Hydroperiod adequacy
Fish presence
Overwintering habitat
Wildlife species (list)
Fish habitat quality
Fish species (list)
Unique/rare opportunity
Wetland visibility
Proximity to population
Public ownership
Public access
Human influence on wetland
Human influence on viewshed
Spatial buffer
Recreational activity potential
Shoreline Wetland
Amphibian-breeding potential
57 NA
58 Recharge
59 Discharge
60 Discharge
61 Discharge
62 Discharge
63 Discharge
64 No
65
66 0.5
0
0
67 0 feet
68
69 0
70 0
71 B
72 B
Commercial crop--hydro impact
Wetland soils
Subwatershed land use
Wetland size/soil group
Wetland hydroperiod
Inlet/Outlet configuration
Upland topo relief
Restoration potential
LO affected by restoration
Existing size
Restorable size
Potential new wetland
Average width of pot. buffer
Ease of potential restoration
Hydrologic alterations
Potential wetland type
Stormwater sensitivity
Additional treatment needs
Groundwater-specific questions
For functional ratings, please run the
Summary tab report.
Additional information
This report printed on: 11/2/2017
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake PepinWatershed
: Service Area:8WS#38
18Cliff Property
MnRAM: Site Response Record
For Wetland:Wetland D
Location: 19-119-15-15-001
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 Depressional/Isolated
8-1 0 inches
8-2 0%
9 2 acres
11-Upland Soil Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes
11-Wetland Soil Quam silt loam, ponded
12 A
13 A
14 C
15 B
16 100%
17 C
18 A
19 B
20 B
21 A
22 A
23 5 feet
24-A 15%
24-B 0%
24-C 85%
25-A 0%
25-B 50%
25-C 50%
Outlet for flood control
Outlet for hydro regime
Dominant upland land use
Wetland soil condition
Vegetation (% cover)
Emerg. veg flood resistance
Sediment delivery
Upland soils (soil group)
Stormwater runoff
Subwatershed wetland density
Channels/sheet flow
Adjacent buffer width
Adjacent area management
Full
Manicured
Bare
Adjacent area diversity/structure
Native
Mixed
Sparse
Listed, rare, special species?
Rare community or habitat?
Pre-European-settlement condition?
Hydrogeomorphology / topography:
Maximum water depth
% inundated
Immediate drainage--local WS
10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66)
PEM1A Type 1
Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba
Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100%
26-B 0%
26-C 0%
27 A
28 C
29 No
30 0%
31 0 feet
32
33
34
35 No
36 No
37 NA
38 NA
39 B
40 B
41 B
42 Inadequate
43 A
44
45
46 NA
47
48 No
49 C
50 Yes
51 C
52 C
53 B
54 C
55 C
56 C
57 NA
Gentle
Moderate
Steep
Adjacent area slope
Downstream sens./WQ protect.
Nutrient loading
Shoreline wetland?
Rooted veg., % cover
Wetland in-water width
Emerg. veg. erosion resistance
Erosion potential of site
Upslope veg./bank protection
Rare wildlife?
Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community
Vegetative cover
Veg. community interspersion
Wetland detritus
Interspersion on landscape
Wildlife barriers
Hydroperiod adequacy
Fish presence
Overwintering habitat
Wildlife species (list)
Fish habitat quality
Fish species (list)
Unique/rare opportunity
Wetland visibility
Proximity to population
Public ownership
Public access
Human influence on wetland
Human influence on viewshed
Spatial buffer
Recreational activity potential
Commercial crop--hydro impact
Shoreline Wetland
Amphibian-breeding potential
58 Recharge
59 Discharge
60 Discharge
61 Recharge
62 Recharge
63 Discharge
64 No
65
66 0.22
0
0
67 0 feet
68
69 0
70 0
71 B
72 B
Wetland soils
Subwatershed land use
Wetland size/soil group
Wetland hydroperiod
Inlet/Outlet configuration
Upland topo relief
Restoration potential
LO affected by restoration
Existing size
Restorable size
Potential new wetland
Average width of pot. buffer
Ease of potential restoration
Hydrologic alterations
Potential wetland type
Stormwater sensitivity
Additional treatment needs
Groundwater-specific questions
For functional ratings, please run the
Summary tab report.
Additional information
This report printed on: 11/2/2017
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake PepinWatershed
: Service Area:8WS#38
17Cliff Property
MnRAM: Site Response Record
For Wetland:Wetland E
Location:19-119-15-15-001
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 Depressional/Isolated
8-1 30 inches
8-2 30%
9 7 acres
11-Upland Soil Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes
11-Wetland Soil Quam silt loam, ponded
12 A
13 A
14 B
15 A
16 80%
17 B
18 A
19 B
20 C
21 A
22 A
23 20 feet
24-A 100%
24-B 0%
24-C 0%
25-A 0%
25-B 100%
Outlet for flood control
Outlet for hydro regime
Dominant upland land use
Wetland soil condition
Vegetation (% cover)
Emerg. veg flood resistance
Sediment delivery
Upland soils (soil group)
Stormwater runoff
Subwatershed wetland density
Channels/sheet flow
Adjacent buffer width
Adjacent area management
Full
Manicured
Bare
Adjacent area diversity/structure
Native
Mixed
Listed, rare, special species?
Rare community or habitat?
Pre-European-settlement condition?
Hydrogeomorphology / topography:
Maximum water depth
% inundated
Immediate drainage--local WS
10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66)
PUBH Type 5
Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C
Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:
PEM1B Type 2
Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow
Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:
25-C 0%
26-A 0%
26-B 25%
26-C 75%
27 A
28 B
29 No
30 0%
31 0 feet
32
33
34
35 No
36 No
37 C
38 B
39 A
40 B
41 A
42 Adequate
43 A
44 B
45
46 C
47
48 No
49 B
50 Yes
51 C
52 C
53 A
54 B
55 B
56 C
Sparse
Gentle
Moderate
Steep
Adjacent area slope
Downstream sens./WQ protect.
Nutrient loading
Shoreline wetland?
Rooted veg., % cover
Wetland in-water width
Emerg. veg. erosion resistance
Erosion potential of site
Upslope veg./bank protection
Rare wildlife?
Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community
Vegetative cover
Veg. community interspersion
Wetland detritus
Interspersion on landscape
Wildlife barriers
Hydroperiod adequacy
Fish presence
Overwintering habitat
Wildlife species (list)
Fish habitat quality
Fish species (list)
Unique/rare opportunity
Wetland visibility
Proximity to population
Public ownership
Public access
Human influence on wetland
Human influence on viewshed
Spatial buffer
Recreational activity potential
Shoreline Wetland
Amphibian-breeding potential
57 NA
58 Recharge
59 Discharge
60 Discharge
61 Discharge
62 Recharge
63 Discharge
64 No
65
66 2.43
0
0
67 0 feet
68
69 0
70 0
71 B
72 B
Commercial crop--hydro impact
Wetland soils
Subwatershed land use
Wetland size/soil group
Wetland hydroperiod
Inlet/Outlet configuration
Upland topo relief
Restoration potential
LO affected by restoration
Existing size
Restorable size
Potential new wetland
Average width of pot. buffer
Ease of potential restoration
Hydrologic alterations
Potential wetland type
Stormwater sensitivity
Additional treatment needs
Groundwater-specific questions
For functional ratings, please run the
Summary tab report.
Additional information
This report printed on: 11/2/2017
Mississippi (Red Wing/Lake PepinWatershed
: Service Area:8WS#38
Appendix D
Notice of Decision
for
Cliff Property
by
City of Rosemount (WSB & Associates, Inc.)
11-29-17
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1
of 3
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit (LGU)
City of Rosemount
Address
2875 145th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant Name
Lennar
(Ken Arndt, MNR)
Project Name
Lennar Cliff Property
Date of
Application
November
2, 2017
Application
Number
WE-17-006
2235-340
Attach site locator map.
Type of Decision:
Wetland Boundary or Type No-Loss Exemption
Sequencing
Replacement Plan Banking Plan
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any):
Approve Approve with conditions Deny
A field review was conducted on October 25, 2017 by the TEP (LGU, BWSR, SWCD) and the applicant prior to
receiving the completed wetland delineation report on November 2, 2017. Wetlands B, D, and E, and Areas 1-4
were reviewed onsite. The TEP reviewed the boundaries of Wetlands B, D, and E and agreed with the placement.
The soils of Area 1 were investigated by the TEP onsite and the TEP determined that the area was non-wetland
based on the lack of hydric soils. Area 2 was reviewed onsite and the TEP agreed that the area is non-wetland
because it drains through a culvert to the east side of Akron Ave. The TEP agreed that a historic aerial photo
review of Areas 3 and 4 would be necessary to determine if they were wetlands and requested that the historic
aerial photo review be submitted with the wetland delineation report.
BWSR provided comment stating that they agree with the upland determinations of Areas 1-4 in the final wetland
delineation report. No other comments were received.
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2
of 3
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION
Date of Decision: November 29, 2017
Approved Approved with conditions (include below) Denied
LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary):
For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank:
Bank Account #
Bank Service Area
County
Credits Approved for
Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest
.01 acre)
Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the
approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following:
Financial Assurance: For project-specific replacement that is not in-advance, a financial assurance
specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9
(List amount and type in LGU Findings).
Deed Recording: For project-specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the
BWSR “Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants” and “Consent to Replacement Wetland” forms
have been filed with the county recorder’s office in which the replacement wetland is located.
Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR
has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan.
Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met!
MNR performed Level 2 wetland delineation on Wetlands B, D, E, and Areas 1-4. Historic aerial photo review
was completed for Wetland D, and Areas 1-4.
The following were determined to be wetland:
Wetland B (0.50 acre within review area) – Type 5 Open Water (PABH); Manage 1
Wetland D (0.22 acre within review area) – Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin (PEMA); Manage 2
Wetland E (2.43 acres within review area) – Type 3/5 Shallow Marsh/Open Water (PEMC/PUBH); Manage 1
The following areas were determined to be upland:
Area 1 – non-hydric soils
Area 2 – lack of hydrology because water flows from area to opposite side of Akron Ave
Area 3 – lack of hydrology; 11% of historic aerial photos showed signatures
Area 4 – lack of hydrology; 11% of historic aerial photos showed signatures
The LGU agrees with the wetland boundary/type of Wetlands B, D, and E. The decision is valid for five years.
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3
of 3
LGU Authorized Signature:
Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255,
Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as
specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner
and are available from the LGU upon request.
Name
Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Title
Principal
Signature
Date
11/29/17
Phone Number and E-mail
763-287-7196
amoffatt@wsbeng.com
THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT.
Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all
appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands.
Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period
for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be
responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts.
This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP
and specified in this notice of decision.
3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION
Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition
for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice
to the following as indicated:
Check one:
Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send
petition and $500 fee (if applicable) to:
Kim Lindquist
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
Appeal of LGU governing body decision.
Send petition and $500 filing fee to:
Executive Director
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES
SWCD TEP member: David Holmen, david.holmen@co.dakota.mn.us
BWSR TEP member: Ben Carlson, ben.carlson@state.mn.us
LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): Kim Lindquist kim.lindquist@ci.rosemount.mn.us
DNR TEP member: Becky Horton, becky.horton@state.mn.us
DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member)
WD or WMO (if applicable): Mark Zabel, Vermillion JPO mark.zabel@co.dakota.mn.us
Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different) MNR (Ken Arndt), ken.arndt@mnrinc.us; Lennar
(Joe Jablonski), joe.jablonski@lennar.com
Members of the public who requested notice (notice only):
Mitch Hatcher, mhatcher@wsbeng.com; Brian Erickson, brian.erickson@ci.rosemount.mn.us
Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only) Ryan Malterud, Ryan.m.malterud@usace.army.mil;
BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only)
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 4
of 3
5. MAILING INFORMATION
For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA_areas.pdf
For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR_TEP_contacts.pdf
Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices:
NW Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
2115 Birchmont Beach Rd.
NE
Bemidji, MN 56601
NE Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
1201 E. Hwy. 2
Grand Rapids, MN
55744
Central Region:
Reg. Env. Assess.
Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Southern Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
261 Hwy. 15 South
New Ulm, MN 56073
For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr_regions.pdf
For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687
or send to:
US Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District, ATTN: OP-R
180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700
St. Paul, MN 55101-1678
For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to:
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Wetland Bank Coordinator
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
6. ATTACHMENTS
In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments:
Lennar Cliff Property Wetland Delineation Report
SheetPurchase Sketch for:1 of 1c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
LENNAR
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 117254-LOT SPLIT -
2.dwg
Folder #: 8172
Drawn by:TSS