HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppl form/activities affecting water resources Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources
in Minnesota
This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource(wetland,
tributary,lake,etc.)in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs.Applicants for Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources(DNR)Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to
the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form
(see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information).This form is only
applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs;other local
applications and approvals may be required.Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources
impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over
different types of resources.
Regulatory Review Structure
Federal
The St. Paul District of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States(wetlands,tributaries,lakes,etc.)under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)and
regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project
managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area.
State
There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA)regulates most activities affecting wetlands.It is administered by local government units(LGUs)which can be counties,
townships,cities,watershed districts,watershed management organizations or state agencies(on state-owned land).The
Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the
Public Waters Work Permit Program(DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply
with state water quality standards.One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project.
Required Information
Prior to submitting an application,applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff
to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project.Project proponents can request a pre-
application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in
Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a
venue(such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings)for potential applicants to discuss their projects with
multiple agencies prior to submitting an application.Contact information is provided below.
The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations.
• For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations,submit Parts 1,2 and 5,and Attachment A.
• For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions,WCA no-loss determinations,and activities not requiring mitigation,
submit Parts 1 through 5,and Attachment B.
• For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan,submit Parts 1 thru 5,and Attachments C and D.
• For local road authority activities that qualify for the state's local road wetland replacement program,submit Parts 1
through 5,and Attachments C,D(if applicable),and E to both the Corps and the LGU.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 9
Submission Instructions
Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to:
U.S Army Corps of Engineers.Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of
responsibilities and contact information,visit the St. Paul District's website at:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select"Minnesota"from the contact Information box.
Alternatively,applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the
appropriate field office.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification:Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless
specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they
determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project.
Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary,contact your
county Soil and Water Conservation District(SWCD)office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR)web site
(www.bwsr.state.mn.us)to determine the appropriate LGU.
DNR Public Waters Permitting:In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System(MPARS)for
submission of Public Waters permit applications(https://webappsll.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login).
Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To
avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies,applicants can use the
information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function
will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which,at a minimum,will satisfy Parts one and two
of this joint application. For certain types of activities,the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary information
required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that
the joint application contains all of the required information,including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the
project(see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required
information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the
remainder of the joint application.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 9
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
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: See Attachment 1
Mailing Address: See Attachment 1
Phone: See Attachment 1
E-mail Address: See Attachment 1
Authorized Contact(do not complete if same as above): Dr.Glen Nelson
Mailing Address: 500 Tonkawa Road,Orono, MN 55305
Phone: (952)473-0333
E-mail Address: gnelson@tonkawa.com
Agent Name: Douglas Mensing(Applied Ecological Services, Inc.)
Mailing Address: 21938 Mushtown Rd, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: 612-202-2252
E-mail Address: dougm@appliedeco.com
PART TWO: Site Location Information
County: Hennepin City/Township: Orono
Parcel ID and/or Address: 520,630&550 Tonkawa Rd, Long Lake, MN 55356
Legal Description(Section,Township,Range): SW Y.of Section 5,Township 117,Range 23
Lat/Long(decimal degrees): 44.968308/-93.624132
Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets,roads,highways. See Attachment 1
Approximate size of site(acres)or if a linear project,length(feet): 2.98 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/enp,form 4345 2012oct pdf
PART THREE: General Project/Site Information
If this application is related to a delineation approval,exemption determination,jurisdictional determination,or other
correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number.
Describe the project that is being proposed,the project purpose and need,and schedule for implementation and completion.The
project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements
that effect aquatic resources(wetland, lake,tributary,etc.)and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings
showing the location,character,and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.
See Attachment 1
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 9
f
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) Identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view
map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed
impacts.Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.
Aquatic
Type of Impact Duration of Existing Plant County,Major
Aquatic Resource Resource Type (fill,excavate, Impact Overall Size of Watershed
(wetland,lake, #,
ID(as noted on drain,or Permanent(P) Size of Impact2 Community Aquatic Types and Bank
tributary etc.) Impact Area in
overhead view) remove or Temporary Resource 3 p 4 Service Area#
Impact
vegetation) (T)1 of Impact Areas
Wetland A wetland remove T(200) vegetation N/A Shallow Marsh, Hennepin,
invasive management: Fresh(Wet) Major
vegetation, 2.98 ac; Meadow,and Watershed 20,
excavate,thin- excavation and Hardwood and Bank
spread,and re- thin-spread: Swamp Service Area 7
plant with 2.1 ac
diverse natives
lif 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).
'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp.8,otherwise enter"N/A".
°Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`d Ed.as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp.2.
SRefer 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:
N/A
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. Consultation occurred 12/11/13.
By signature below,I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature: A4, Date:
I hereby authorize Douglas Mensing(of Applied Ecological Services)to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish,upon request,supplemental information in support of this application.
1 The term"impact"as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 9
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
Attachment 1
PART ONE. Applicant Information
Parcel Address Owner Name Mailing Address Phone E-mail
520 Tonkawa Road Tonkawa, Inc. TONKAWA INC, 952-404- mherreid@carlson.com
Orono, MN 55356 Attn: Mark 301 CARLSON PKWY 5003
SUITE 275
(PID:0511723320005; Herreid, MINNETONKA, MN
RLS No. 1305 Tract D) President 55305
550 Tonkawa Road Carlson CARLSON HOLDINGS, 952-404- mherreid@carlson.com
Orono, MN 55356 Holdings, Inc. 301 CARLSON PKWY 5003
SUITE 275
(PID:0511723320004; Attn: Mark MINNETONKA, MN
RLS No. 1305 Tract C) Herreid,Sr. VP 55305
&CFO
630 Tonkawa Road M A&S M MICHAEL A 952-831- MAC@civilactiongroup.com
Orono, MN 55356 Clements CLEMENTS 7776
PID:0511723330018; TO x310
( OR
ORONO MMN N 5 55535566
Rosenthal Addition,
Block 1, Lot 2)
PART TWO. Site Location Information
(from Google earth 2014)—'Nelson Wetland" marker represents site location; see also Sheet 1.0 of
Restoration Plan set
N
� A
A
84
• • e
JNelson Wetland
16 135Fo�St
161
Pahl
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 9
e
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
Attachment 1 (continued)
PART THREE. General Project/Site Information
Overview: The applicant is pursuing a"Letter of Permission"(LOP)from the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers and a"No-Loss Determination"from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD, the
Local Governmental Unit for the site). No mitigation is proposed, since no wetlands will be lost and
significant improvements in ecological function, values, and integrity are anticipated.
Previous Work/Approvals: Since 2012,data review, site assessments,field data collection, and several
meetings with regulatory agency staff have been completed to develop this restoration/enhancement
plan. The wetland associated with the proposed project(Wetland A) was delineated by Applied
Ecological Services, Inc. in May 2013. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision
approving the Wetland Boundary and Type was issued June 2, 2014.
Existing Conditions: The proposed project entails ecological restoration/enhancement of an existing,
severely degraded wetland (Wetland A). The contributing drainage area to the wetland is approximately
16.5 acres. The wetland's outlet consists of a 24"CMP culvert on the west side of the basin;this culvert
has a maximum flow capacity of-23 cfs. Wetland A is 2.98 acres and consists mostly of invasive cattails,
purple loosestrife, and reed canary grass. The MCWD classifies the wetland as Manage 3 (lowest
quality) and"Low"for Vegetative Diversity/Integrity. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
(MLCCS) mapping identifies the wetland as containing 51-75%cover by invasive purple loosestrife. The
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM v3.4) was used to assess Wetland A's existing
functions and values (see Attachment 2 for the Wetland Functional Assessment Summary under existing
conditions). MnRAM scores the wetland as"Low"to "Moderate"in almost every category,with Vegetative
Diversity/Integrity scoring "Low"for all wetland plant communities present.
Proposed Conditions: The applicant proposes to herbicide invasive vegetation throughout the wetland,
followed by a prescribed burn and a second herbicide treatment. Under frozen conditions, an excavator
will be used to excavate approximately 2,588 cubic yards of soil (:54 ft deep)from a 0.5-acre portion of the
wetland in order to create an area of Deep Marsh habitat and to control invasive vegetation. The upper
foot of soil (approximately 807 cubic yards)will be infested with propagules of invasive vegetation (i.e.,
cattail tubers), and therefore will be removed from the site. The remainder of the excavated material will
be thin-spread (51 ft thick) over lower portions of the wetland to a maximum elevation of 964.5 feet in
order to maintain wetland conditions. In order to maintain existing intermittent flows in the wetland, two
meandering channels will be constructed between the proposed Deep Marsh area and two existing
culverts beneath Tonkawa Road: an existing equalization culvert(on the south edge of the wetland) and
the existing wetland outlet(on the west edge). These actions will restore the wetland to a diverse habitat
complex of native Wet Meadow, Deep Marsh, and Lowland Hardwood Swamp(see Plan Sheet 3.0).
Surrounding upland buffer areas are currently being restored through invasive plant removal (e.g.,
buckthorn, garlic mustard)and installation of native seed and plants. Two proposed rain gardens
(designed separately) will manage and treat 1.42 acres of runoff prior to entering the wetland. An existing
compost pile located near Wetland A will be moved away from the wetland or removed from the site
altogether. An existing woodchip trail located in the uplands east of the wetland will be extended in the
uplands. Plan Sheet 3.0 illustrates all elements of the proposed restoration/enhancement project. The
MnRAM Wetland Functional Assessment Summary for Wetland A's proposed conditions(post-
restoration/enhancement) is provided in Attachment 2.
The proposed project will result in"no-loss"of wetland quantity, quality, or biological diversity(see
Attachment B-No-Loss Applicability). The comparison of Wetland A's existing and proposed conditions
(using MnRAM) indicates a significant increase in wetland functions and values. A portion of the wetland
will change wetland type (approximately 1.6 acres from Type 3 to Type 2, and approximately 0.5 acre
from Type 3 to Type 4); however,this will result in an increase in uncommon native Wet Meadow habitat,
and the created Deep Marsh area will provide greater habitat diversity within the wetland, benefitting
native waterfowl and waterbirds (currently not able to use the wetland), as well as provide more and
enhanced habitat for native reptiles and amphibians and possibly small fish. The upland buffer
surrounding the wetland will also be improved significantly in terms of its ecological integrity and function
through invasives removal and planting of native trees, shrubs, graminoids, and forbs with wildlife value.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 9
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975
Attachment 1 (continued)
Schedule: Th r
The proposed wetland restoration/enhancement schedule follows:
• Early August 2014: Broadcast herbicide invasive cattail, reed canary grass, and purple
loosestrife in wetland.
• Late August 2014: Conduct prescribed burn of wetland (to remove thatch and stimulate re-
growth of invasive plants).
• September 2014: Repeat broadcast herbicide.
• January 2015-March 2015: Excavate Deep Marsh area, haul off site top foot of excavated soil,
and thin-spread remaining soil in deeper wetland areas designated for Wet Meadow restoration.
• May/early June 2015: Conduct final herbicide of any germinating invasive plants.
• June 2015 (at least 2 weeks after herbiciding): Broadcast native Wet Meadow seed and install
native wetland plant plugs (mostly edge of Deep Marsh); install native shrubs and trees within
wetland edges.
• July 2015 through 2017: Short-term ecological management, monitoring, and annual reporting.
• Fall 2017: Remove erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• 2018 and beyond: Long-term ecological management and monitoring in perpetuity.
Monitoring Reports: Annual monitoringreports will be completed for the first three ears following
P P Y 9
restoration/enhancement activities (i.e., 2015 through 217). Reports will follow the MN Board of Water
and Soil Resources'"Replacement Wetland Annual Monitoring Report"format.
Performance Standards: Performance standard to be applied to the wetland follow:
1) The combined cover of invasive cattail, purple loosestrife, and reed canary grass shall not exceed
20%total cover at any time during the 2015-2017 short-term management period.
2) By the end of the second year of management(end of 2016) and through the end of the short-
term management period (end of 2017),total vegetation cover shall be no less than 80%, not
including open water areas.
3) Just prior to the end of the short-term management period (end of 2017), restored Wet Meadow
areas shall contain a minimum of: 30%cover by native grass/sedge species, 20%cover by
native forb species, and 33%of installed species present. Deep Marsh areas shall contain at
least 6 planted species widely dispersed throughout the planted areas.
Other Enclosures with this Submittal
1. Restoration Plan Set
2. Certificate of Survey
3. Wetland Delineation Report
4. Wetland Type and Boundary Approval
5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Pending Submittals
1. Joint Escrow/Letter of Credit(for erosion control and vegetation establishment) -shall be held by
the MCWD with an agreement that the City of Orono shall be named specifically and will be able
to draw on the LOC if warranted.
2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)Water Resource Permit Application
3. City of Orono Land Use&Conditional Use Permit Application (to acquire CUP/Land Alteration
Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit)
4. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit-to be prepared prior to
construction.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 9
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
Attachment 2
Wetland Functional Assessment Summary
for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 9
MnRAM Site Assessment Report Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Wetland: Nelson_Wetland_A Project: Nelson Restoration Project
Wetland ID: 1, Township 117, Section 5, Range 23
HENNEPIN County, Mississippi (Metro) Watershed, Lake Minnetonka Subwatershed, Corps Bank Service
Area#7
Assessment Purpose: Planning
A site visit was made to this wetland on 5/23/2013 by DMM. Site conditions were NA. This wetland is
estimated to cover 2.98 acres.
This report reflects conditions on the ground at the date of the assessment and, unless noted or implicit in the
standard questions, does not reflect speculation on the future or past conditions.
This wetland is located in or near the city of Long Lake
General Features
Hydrogeomorphology
The maximum water depth at this site is 24 inches, with 2 percent inundated. With an immedidate drainage
area of 16.5 acres, the catchment area is smaller than would be expected for a wetland with standing water.
This catchment area may be appropriate for a drier-type wetland (Type 1 or 2). If there is standing water, it
may be due to recent rainfall or there may be sources of hydrology that are not visible. the site may be fed by
groundwater, or it may be artificially supported.
As a Depressional/Tributary wetland, this site has an outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage
entering from the upstream subwatershed. As such, Placeholder for Depress ional/Tributary
discussion.
This wetland has been created/restored from its original size, which was 2 acres.
Soils
The soils in the immediate wetland area are primarily Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent
slopes. The adjacent upland, to about 500 feet, is Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded.
Vegetation and Upland Buffer
The extent of vegetation in this wetland is about 100 percent and the naturalized buffer width averages 65
feet. Vegetated buffers around wetlands provide multiple benefits including wildlife habitat, erosion protection,
and a reduction in surface water runoff.
This buffer not only provides an excellent buffer for wetland water quality, it also serves as an important
resources for wildlife habitat.
Special Features
There were no special features observed at the site at the time of this assessment
Vegetative Communities
Page 1 of 4
The following plant communities were observed:
(See Appendix A for details on the Dominant Species per plant community)
Hardwood Swamp Type 7, PF01 A. This community had a vegetative index of low and comprised 10 percent
of the entire area.
Fresh Wet Meadow Type 2, PEM1 B. This community had a vegetative index of low and comprised 10
percent of the entire area.
Shallow Marsh Type 3, PEM1 C. This community had a vegetative index of low and comprised 80 percent of
the entire area.
The highest rated community was the Hardwood Swamp community rated at 0.1. Averaging all the
communities together, the Vegetative Diversity and Integrity of this wetland is Low. A more accurate look
uses a weighted average; using this method, this site shows a Low Vegetative Diversity and Integrity.
The majority of vegetation at this site, such as it is, does not contribute to wetland function beyond water
retention and flow resistance. However, because the weighted average can "hide" smaller communities,
always check for even small patches of high-quality species.
Functional Ratinas
Function Rating Comment
Vegetative Diversity Low If vegetation is present, the primary communities are compromised by
extensive invasive and/or non-native species. Ongoing maintenance will
be necessary to restore native ecologic communities, although the
presence of invasives upstream will limit the success of restoration
efforts.
Additional stormwater Moderate Sediment removal would improve the ability of this site to maintain water
treatment needs quality.
Maintenance of Moderate There has been some degree of human alteration of the wetland
Hydrologic Regime hydrology, either by outlet control or by altering immediate watershed
conditions. However, the wetland retains some of the hydrologic regime
similar to the original wetland type, either in part of the wetland or
overall to some extent. Because of the interference (whether active or
inadvertant), some characteristic vegetative communities have likely
been affected, as also have the functions of flood attenuation, water
quality and groundwater interaction.
Flood/Stormwater/Att Moderate The wetland provides some flood storage and/or flood wave
enuation attenuation. It may have either an altered or unrestricted outlet,
disturbed wetland soils, thin or little emergent vegetation (with channels)
or it may be situated high in a watershed with a low proportion of
impervious surfaces, moderate runoff volumes, loamy upland soils, and
one or more other wetlands present within the subwatershed.
Page 2of4
Downstream Water Moderate This wetland has some ability and opportunity to protect downstream
Quality resources. The ability of the wetland to remove sediment from
stormwater is determined by emergent vegetation and overland flow
characteristics. A high nutrient removal rating indicates dense
vegetation and sheet flow to maximize nutrient uptake and residence
time within the wetland. The opportunity for a wetland to protect a
valuable water resource diminishes with distance from the wetland so
wetlands with valuable waters within 0.5 miles downstream have the
greatest opportunity to provide protection, as do those that receive more
(and less-treated) runoff.
Maintenance of Moderate Wetland water quality is average. Sediment removal from incoming
Wetland Water water would benefit the site. Also consider reducing the amount of
Quality stormwater directed at the site. Sustaining a diverse wetland may
require additional control over upland land use and the buffer.
Shoreline Protection Not The site does not fringe a deepwater habitat, lake, or is not within any
Applicable type of watercourse.
Maintenance of Moderate The site provides good habitat and is relatively accessible to wildlife,
Characteristic although it may be somewhat isolated on the landscape and lack the
Wildlife Habitat rich vegetative community and complex structure that would support a
Structure wider range of wildlife.
Maintenance of Not The site is too isolated or does not remain wet enough to support a
Characteristic Fish Applicable population of fish or to allow for even temporary use as a refuge.
Habitat
Maintenance of Not Wetland never or rarely contains standing water and is not inundated
Characteristic Applicable longenough most years to allow amphibians to successfully breed.
Amphibian Habitat
Aesthetics/Recreation Moderate Many wetlands are visible from nearby buildings or roads and are
/Education/Cultural accessible for some recreational activities. Excess negative human
influence (such as trash or alteration) will reduce the ranking of well-
used and highly-accessible sites.
Wetland restoration Not Because restoration would affect permanent structures or infrastructure
potential Applicable (houses, roads, septic systems), this site is not suitable for restoration.
Wetland Sensitivity to Exceptional This site is exceptionally sensitive to stormwater; sedge meadows, open
Stormwater and and coniferous bogs, calcareous fens, low prairies, wet to wet-mesic
Urban Development prairies, coniferous swamps, lowland hardwood swamps, or seasonally
flooded basins.
Page 3 of 4
Appendix A: Dominant Species By Plant Community
Wetland Type Plant Community Dominant Species Percent Cover
PFO1 Type 7 Hardwood Swamp
Green ash >10-25%
Box elder >50-75%
PEM1 Type 2 Fresh Wet Meadow
Reed canary grass >75-100%
PEM1 Type 3 Shallow Marsh
Purple loosestrife >10-25%
Narrow-leaved cattail >10-25%
Hybrid cattail >75-100%
Page 4 of 4
MnRAM Site Assessment Report Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Wetland: Nelson_proposed Project: Nelson Restoration Project
Wetland ID: 2, Township 117, Section 5, Range 23, , ,
HENNEPIN County, Mississippi (Metro) Watershed, Lake Minnetonka Subwatershed, Corps Bank Service
Area#7
Assessment Purpose: Planning
A site visit was made to this wetland on 7/23/2014 by DMM. Site conditions were NA. This wetland is
estimated to cover 2.98 acres.
This report reflects conditions on the ground at the date of the assessment and, unless noted or implicit in the
standard questions, does not reflect speculation on the future or past conditions. The following notes were
recorded by the reviewer:
This assessment is intended to characterize the wetland under post-restoration conditions.
This wetland is located in or near the city of Long Lake
General Features
Hydrogeomorphology
The maximum water depth at this site is 48 inches, with 15 percent inundated. With an immedidate drainage
area of 16.5 acres, it is doubtful that this wetland is sustainable given its small catchment area.
As a Depressional/Tributary wetland, this site has an outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage
entering from the upstream subwatershed. As such, Placeholder for Depressional/Tributary
discussion.
This wetland has been created/restored from its original size, which was 2 acres.
Soils
The soils in the immediate wetland area are primarily Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent
slopes. The adjacent upland, to about 500 feet, is Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded.
Vegetation and Upland Buffer
The extent of vegetation in this wetland is about 95 percent and the naturalized buffer width averages 100
feet. Vegetated buffers around wetlands provide multiple benefits including wildlife habitat, erosion protection,
and a reduction in surface water runoff.
This buffer not only provides an excellent buffer for wetland water quality, it also serves as an important
resources for wildlife habitat.
Special Features
There were no special features observed at the site at the time of this assessment
Vegetative Communities
Page 1 of 4
This wetland represents pre-European settlement conditions.
The following plant communities were observed:
(See Appendix A for details on the Dominant Species per plant community)
Hardwood Swamp Type 7, PF01 A. This community had a vegetative index of moderate and comprised 10
percent of the entire area.
Fresh Wet Meadow Type 2, PEM1 B. This community had a vegetative index of moderate and comprised 75
percent of the entire area.
Deep Marsh Type 4, PUBF. This community had a vegetative index of moderate and comprised 15 percent
of the entire area.
The highest rated community was the Hardwood Swamp community rated at 0.5. Averaging all the
communities together, the Vegetative Diversity and Integrity of this wetland is Exceptional. A more accurate
look uses a weighted average; using this method, this site shows a Exceptional Vegetative Diversity and
Integrity.
One or all three of the following are present: 1) highly diverse wetlands with virtually no non-native species, 2)
rare or critically impaired wetland communities in the watershed, or 3) the presence or previous sighting of
rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. Regardless of the quality or quantity of other communities, the
presence of one of these will move the ranking of the entire site.
Functional Ratings
Function Rating Comment
Vegetative Diversity Exceptional One or all three of the following are present: 1) highly diverse wetlands
with virtually no non-native species, 2) rare or critically impaired wetland
communities in the watershed, or 3) the presence or previous sighting
of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species.
Additional stormwater High Because the maintenance of wetland water quality index is high, no
treatment needs additional treatment is called for.
Maintenance of Moderate There has been some degree of human alteration of the wetland
Hydrologic Regime hydrology, either by outlet control or by altering immediate watershed
conditions. However, the wetland retains some of the hydrologic regime
similar to the original wetland type, either in part of the wetland or
overall to some extent. Because of the interference (whether active or
inadvertant), some characteristic vegetative communities have likely
been affected, as also have the functions of flood attenuation, water
quality and groundwater interaction.
Flood/Stormwater/Att Moderate The wetland provides some flood storage and/or flood wave
enuation attenuation. It may have either an altered or unrestricted outlet,
disturbed wetland soils, thin or little emergent vegetation (with channels)
or it may be situated high in a watershed with a low proportion of
impervious surfaces, moderate runoff volumes, loamy upland soils, and
one or more other wetlands present within the subwatershed.
Page 2 of 4
Downstream Water Moderate This wetland has some ability and opportunity to protect downstream
Quality resources. The ability of the wetland to remove sediment from
stormwater is determined by emergent vegetation and overland flow
characteristics. A high nutrient removal rating indicates dense
vegetation and sheet flow to maximize nutrient uptake and residence
time within the wetland. The opportunity for a wetland to protect a
valuable water resource diminishes with distance from the wetland so
wetlands with valuable waters within 0.5 miles downstream have the
greatest opportunity to provide protection, as do those that receive more
(and less-treated) runoff.
Maintenance of High Wetland water quality is high, indicating little need for additional
Wetland Water treatment. As long as upland land use and existing buffer conditions do
Quality not change, this wetland can be expected to sustain current
characteristics.
Shoreline Protection Not The site does not fringe a deepwater habitat, lake, or is not within any
Applicable type of watercourse.
Maintenance of Exceptional The site is known to be used by rare or state or federally-listed wildlife
Characteristic species OR has a scarce or rare wetland plant community and a high
Wildlife Habitat vegetative community quality rating. In either case, the wetland is
Structure exceptional for local priorities or under state or federal guidelines.
Maintenance of Moderate Permanently flooded but isolated wetlands can support native
Characteristic Fish populations of minnows and some isolated deep marshes have
Habitat intermittent populations of sunfish and northern pike after flood events.
Poor water quality, due to runoff and insufficient buffer and vegetation,
can affect the sustainability of fish populations.
Maintenance of Moderate Predatory fish may be present due to occasional connection to other
Characteristic waters. Winter habitat unreliable if shallow water allows winterkill. As
Amphibian Habitat with fish, excess sedimentation may smother eggs so pretreatment of
stormwater runoff and a wide, unmanicured buffer improves conditions
for reproduction. Barriers to migration may also impact the value of a
site to more-mobile frogs, salamanders, and turtles.
Aesthetics/Recreation Moderate Many wetlands are visible from nearby buildings or roads and are
/Education/Cultural accessible for some recreational activities. Excess negative human
influence (such as trash or alteration) will reduce the ranking of well-
used and highly-accessible sites.
Wetland restoration Not Because restoration would affect permanent structures or infrastructure
potential Applicable (houses, roads, septic systems), this site is not suitable for restoration.
Wetland Sensitivity to Exceptional This site is exceptionally sensitive to stormwater; sedge meadows, open
Stormwater and and coniferous bogs, calcareous fens, low prairies, wet to wet-mesic
Urban Development prairies, coniferous swamps, lowland hardwood swamps, or seasonally
flooded basins.
Page 3 of 4
Appendix A: Dominant Species By Plant Community
Wetland Type Plant Community Dominant Species Percent Cover
PFO1 Type 7 Hardwood Swamp
Bluejoint >10-25%
Box elder >10-25%
Fowl bluegrass >10-25%
Green ash >10-25%
Hackberry >10-25%
American elm >10-25%
PEM1 Type 2 Fresh Wet Meadow
River bulrush >10-25%
Lake sedge >10-25%
Tussock sedge >10-25%
Woolgrass >10-25%
Dark green bulrush >10-25%
PUBF Type 4 Deep Marsh
Soft stem bulrush >10-25%
Broad-leaved arrowhead >10-25%
Common water plantain >10-25%
Giant bur reed >10-25%
Pickerelweed >10-25%
Page 4 of 4
Project Name and/or Number: Nelson Restoration Project(AES 12-0975)
Attachment B
Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss
Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation
Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland
replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either
exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction.
Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies:
No-Loss Applicability: The proposed project will not result in the loss of wetland quantity,quality,or biological diversity.
Rather,the project will:
1) retain all existing wetland acreage;
2) enhance the biological integrity of those acres through removal of dense/aggressive invasive vegetation;
3) actively revegetate with a diversity of native wetland species;
4) provide wetland habitat diversification,-
5)
iversification;5) provide active ecological monitoring,management and stewardship;
6) improve ecological integrity and native diversity of upland buffers around the wetland;
7) better manage runoff with native rain gardens before it reaches the wetland;and
8) create additional wetland-like habitat through the construction of two native rain gardens in uplands.
Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above.Be specific and provide and refer to attachments
and exhibits that support your contention.Applicants should refer to rules(e.g.WCA rules),guidance documents(e.g.BWSR
guidance,Corps guidance letters/public notices),and permit conditions(e.g.Corps General Permit conditions)to determine the
necessary information to support the application.Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project
Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide:
See Attachment 1,Part Three
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 9