Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application

Transcription

1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application Local Government Unit (LGU) Wright SWCD Address 311 Brighton Ave S, Suite C Buffalo, MN Applicant Name Wright SWCD 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Mink and Somers Lakes Limestone Phosphorus Filter Date of Application Application Number Type of Application (check all that apply): Wetland Boundary or Type No-Loss Exemption Sequencing Replacement Plan Banking Plan Summary and description of proposed project (attach additional sheets as necessary): The Wright SWCD has completed a wetland boundary/type and WCA exemption application for a water quality enhancement project. The landowner (Don Rachel) has given the Wright SWCD permission to install this project on his property. The project area is located in T121N, R27W, Sec. 24 (Corinna Township) PID The purpose of the application is to identify the wetland boundary relative to the proposed filter, quantify wetland impacts, and detail how the proposed impacts qualify for an exemption under WCA Rules Subpart. 2 (C). The filter will function to remove Soluble Reactive Phosphorus from water that drains through the wetland and into Mink and Somers Lakes, which are both impaired for high levels of nutrients. The Wright SWCD is both the LGU and the applicant for this application. 2. APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with , Subp. 3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Andrew Grean Wetland Specialist Address (if different than LGU) Phone Number and Address (763) andrew.grean@mn.nacdnet.net Comments must be received by (minimum 15 business-day comment period): Date, time, and location of decision: Wright SWCD Office Buffalo, MN Decision-maker for this application: Staff Governing Board or Council Signature: Date: September 8, 2016 BWSR Forms Page 1 of 3

2 3. LIST OF ADDRESSEES SWCD TEP member: Andrew Grean, Wright SWCD, BWSR TEP member: Ben Meyer, BWSR, LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): Jeremy Carlson, Wright County Highway Dept., DNR TEP member: Jason Neuman, DNR, DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) WD or WMO (if applicable): Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different) Don Rachel (Landowner), Andrew Grean (Wright SWCD Applicant), Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): Frank Svoboda, Cody Okeson, USFWS, Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Andrew Beaudet, ACOE, BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only) 4. MAILING INFORMATION For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: For a list of DNR TEP representatives: Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Bemidji, MN NE Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Grand Rapids, MN Central Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South New Ulm, MN For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: For a list of Corps of Project Managers: or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 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 ATTACHMENTS In addition to the application, list any other attachments: BWSR Forms Page 2 of 3

3 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 preapplication 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 11

4 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: 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 ( 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 ( 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 11

5 PART ONE: Applicant Information Project Name and/or Number: 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: Donald Rachel Mailing Address: 4125 Napier Court NE, St. Michael, MN Phone: Address: drachel@rachelcontracting.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: Address: Andrew Grean, Wright SWCD Agent Name: Andrew Grean, Wright SWCD Mailing Address: 311 Brighton Ave Suite C, Buffalo MN, Phone: Address: Andrew.grean@mn.nacdnet.net PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Wright City/Township: Corinna Township, Wright County Parcel ID and/or Address: Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): T121N, R27W, Sec. 24 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): 5 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: 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 attached Mink and Somers Lakes Limestone Phosphorus Filter report. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11

6

7 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11

8 Project Name and/or Number: 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: WCA Rules Subpart 2. C. 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 attached Mink Lake Limestone Phosphorus Filter report. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 11

9 Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Name and/or Number: 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: See attached Mink Lake Limestone Phosphorus Filter report. 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 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: See attached Mink Lake Limestone Phosphorus Filter report. 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 Subp. 4): See attached Mink Lake Limestone Phosphorus Filter report. 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. NA. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 11

10 Mink and Somers Lakes Limestone Phosphorus Filter Wetland Boundary/Type and Project Description Corinna Township, Wright County, Minnesota Prepared for: Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by: Wright Soil and Water Conservation District 311 Brighton Ave, Suite C Buffalo, MN September, 2016

11 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 I. Purpose The Wright Soil and Water Conservation District (Wright SWCD) is planning to construct a filter that is designed to remove soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) from water that is draining to Mink and Somers Lakes. The filter will be located along a stream/wetland complex that drains into Mink Lake. The filter will require some permanent impacts to the wetland as well the modification of the wetlands current hydrologic regime. The Wright SWCD anticipates that any permanent and indirect impacts to this wetland will qualify as an exempt activity under WCA Rules Subp. 2. C. We are also requesting a determination from the Army Corps of Engineers to not require mitigation for this project. Project construction is pending approval of this application and would begin during the fall of II. Site Location The project is located in Section 24 of Corinna Township, T121N R27W. The project area is located just south of 85 th Street NW on property owned by Mr. Donald Rachel PID s and The project area is located just east of Mink Lake (Figure 1). III. Methods Wetlands in the assessment area were delineated on October 30 th, Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination Methodology in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were determined through analysis of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. IV. Results Antecedent Climate Conditions At the time of the review of the assessment area, conditions were abnormally wet. Antecedent climate conditions based on the Precipitation Documentation Worksheet from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group indicate the prior period has been wetter than normal. Although the 1 st month prior to sampling (September) was normal, July and August were very wet. See Table 1 for results of the antecedent climate analysis. 2

12 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Table 1. Antecedent Climate Conditions National Wetland Inventory Review The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) indicates the project area contains one (1) Type 3/PEM1C wetland (Figure 2). Soils Review The project area bisects two areas of partially hydric soils. Cordova clay loam, Lester loam, and Le Sueur clay loam are located in the project area. The results of the soils analysis can be seen in Figure 3. DNR Public Waters Review The Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Map (DNR PWI) indicates one (1) DNR Public Water Basin (Mink Lake - #86-229) near the project area (Figure 4). 3

13 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Wetland Delineation Results and Current Condition One (1) wetland basin was investigated in order to describe its current condition to determine potential impacts from the proposed filter project. The entire wetland basin is composed of various wetland types along with a perennial stream that flows through it. The center of the wetland is a Type 3/shallow marsh with a fringe of Type 1/seasonally flooded, Type 2/fresh meadow, and Type 6/shrub-carr wetland types. In order to define the current boundary of the entire basin, transects were taken in three (3) locations. Each transect is defined by the wetland (W) and upland (U) sample point along with a number defining the transects (1 and 2). One investigation point was taken as well due to the presence of wetland indicators (W3) (Figure 5). Transect 1 consists of W1 and U1 and it was taken along the Type 2 fringe adjacent to the stream. The vegetation at W1 was composed of primarily reed canarygrass with some small woody vegetation (glossy buckthorn and red cedar) on the upslope fringe of the plot. Soils were hydric, meeting indicator A12, and secondary hydrology indicators D2 and D5 were met. U1 was located upslope from W1 and was composed of primarily smooth brome. Soils were still hydric, meeting indicator A12, but no hydrology indicators were met due to the vegetation and geomorphic position. Transect 2 consists of W2 and U2 and it was taken along the Type 1 fringe along the eastern most portion of the wetland basin. The vegetation at W2 was composed of woody vegetation such as boxelder and sandbar willow and some herbaceous vegetation such as reed canarygrass and stinging nettle. Soils were hydric, meeting indicator A11, and both primary (A3) and secondary (D2 and D5) hydrology indicators were met. U2 was located upslope from W2 and the vegetation was composed of woody species such as boxelder and green ash. The sapling/shrub and herbaceous stratum contained prickly gooseberry, common buckthorn, and some stinging nettle. Soils did not meet any indicators and no hydrology indicators were met. An investigation point (W3) was taken along the northern edge of the basin due to the presence of some FAC vegetation and an apparent slight rise in elevation. After further investigation this point was found to have hydrophytic vegetation (boxelder, sandbar willow, reed canarygrass), hydric soils (A11), and both primary (A2 and A3) and secondary (D2 and D5) hydrology indicators. Using the vegetation as an indicator of the overall quality of this wetland basin it appeared as though it was typical of many other medium quality wetlands in this area. Vegetation in the Type 3 basin was composed of primary narrowleaf cattail, the Type 2 fringe was primarily reed canary grass with some pockets of sandbar willow, and the eastern most Type 1 fringe was a mixture of boxelder, green ash, and some woody and herbaceous vegetation like prickly gooseberry, reed canarygrass, and stinging nettle. This does not constitute a formal assessment (HGH or MnRam for example) but simply observations made during the site visit. 4

14 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Photo 1 Photo was taken during delineation field work. The wetland is composed of primarily reed canary grass and narrow leaved cattail. V. Limestone Phosphorus Filter Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements The Wright SWCD has secured grant funding to install a limestone filter for the purpose of removing soluble reactive phosophorus (SRP) and sediment from a tributary to Mink and Somers Lakes. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Mink and Somers Lakes are impaired for aquatic recreation due to excessive concentrations of nutrients like phosphorus. The 10-year total phosphorus (TP) average for Mink and Somers Lakes is ppb, respectively, which is 2-3 times greater than the average TP concentration for lakes in this ecoregion which is 40 ppb. The Wright SWCD took seven (7) water samples in from the unnamed stream that flows through the wetland identified in the delineation. Results of these samples showed TP concentrations ranging from ppb, with over 90% of the TP being in the soluble form (SRP). 5

15 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 The practice of using limestone filters to remove SRP is new but is growing due to the nutrient loading issues facing many lakes in Minnesota. This filter is based off of the Minnesota Filter design which was developed by researchers at the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory ( ). The basic concept of these filters is to pass nutrient rich water through a medium containing a cation such as calcium or iron to induce a precipitation reaction that results in the removal of phosphorus. Figure 1. Schematic cross-section of a phosphorus filter. The Mink-Somers design is based off of this concept. The watershed of the wetland is over 300 acres and consists of primarily agricultural row crops. An unnamed stream conveys water to the wetland and ultimately Mink and Somers Lakes. The water samples indicate that the wetland is saturated with phosphorus, resulting in the wetland exporting SRP despite the fact that the water is very low in sediment. The proposed filter has been designed to divert the unnamed stream through a rectangular basin filled with crushed limestone. The outlet of this basin will drain via a small 4 inch weep hole at a rate greater than the streams current base flow (weep 0.48 cfs, approximately 0.3 cfs). The waters residence time in the filter will be approximately one (1) hour to maximize SRP precipitation rates as well as to minimize hydrology changes to the wetland. During rain events the water will rise within the limestone filter until it begins to drain via a V-notch weir (elevation ). An emergency spillway (a sheet pile weir) in the middle of the berm is the emergency overflow if the water rises above the level of the V-notch weir (elevation ). See Figure 6 and Appendix B for additional design details. Permanent wetland impacts will result from the placement of the filter. The impacts will result from the construction of the berm as well as the area that will contain the limestone aggregate (Figure 6 and Appendix B). Permanent wetland impacts will be 4,895 sf. The berm will also alter the hydrology of the wetland and stream. The filters initial outlet (weep hole at ) will handle the streams current base flow and is a similar elevation as the wetland, therefore, the upstream wetland basin is not anticipated to have any wetland type conversions. The berm will 6

16 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 alter the systems response to rainfall events. The wetland will bounce between 2.92 and 3.6 ft based on our HydroCAD 10 modeling of the 2, 10, 50, and 100 year rainfall events (Table 2). Rainfall Event 2 yr 10 yr 50 yr 100 yr Peak Water Elevation ' ' ' ' Wetland Base Elevation ' ' ' ' Wetland "Bounce" 2.92' 3.27' 3.57' 3.6' Table 2. HydroCAD 10 was used to model the systems watershed and response to rainfall events. The site selection for this project is driven by the unique circumstances required to facilitate the use of this kind of a filter. The first requirement is a source of water that is high in SRP and low in particulate matter such as sediment or other debris. High sediment loads or debris can clog the filter. There must be sufficient gradient to allow the water to pass through the filter without periods of prolonged inundation or tail water effects. Prolonged inundation of the limestone could result in reduced precipitation rates or even the release of phosphorus that was previously captured. The proposed site meets these requirements and also has a cooperative landowner making it an excellent fit for this project. Avoidance 1. No Build Wetland impacts could be avoided by not installing the limestone filter. This is not a desirable alternative given the known nutrient load that is entering Mink/Somers Lakes via the stream and wetland. This nutrient source would continue to contribute to these lakes nutrient impairments. 2. Alternative Conservation Practices Wetland impacts could be avoided by implementing conservation practices throughout the watershed. With enough adoption a comparable phosphorus reduction could potentially be reached. The Wright SWCD has worked with multiple landowners in this watershed, unfortunately, the implementation of conservation practices has been limited. There are a number of restorable wetland areas that would reduce the amount of phosphorus being transported downstream, unfortunately, the landowners have been hesitant to loose crop acreage to wetland restorations. Other practices such as water and sediment control basins (WASCOBS) and grassed waterway have been proposed but due to farming practices, topography, and landowner willingness, implementation has not been possible. Given the adoption of conservation practices is voluntary, implementation has been limited in this area. The Wright SWCD will continue to reach out to landowners in this watershed to adopt conservation practices but in the meantime phosphorus continues to enter Mink and Somers Lakes, therefore, this alternative is not preferable. Minimization Wetland impacts have been minimized where feasible. The berms side slopes will be constructed at 3:1 to minimize the fill footprint. As previously mentioned, the hydrology of the 7

17 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 system has been designed to eliminate permanent pool changes upstream of the filter. The filters initial outlet (4 weep hole) has a capacity of 0.48 cfs and the wetlands outlet (the unnamed stream) has a base flow of approximately 0.3 cfs. The weep hole has been set at an elevation similar to the wetland ( ) to further avoid any permanent pool changes upstream. The wetland bounce has been minimized as much as possible while still providing adequate upstream sedimentation and maximizing the waters contact time within the filter. Although the degree of bounce is greater than what is usually recommended, we are requesting flexibility given the wetlands currently degraded state and the unusually high amount of SRP that is being exported from the wetland. 8

18 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figures 9

19 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 1. Site Location 10

20 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 2. National Wetland Inventory 11

21 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 3. Soil Survey 12

22 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 4. Department of Natural Resources Public Water Inventory 13

23 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 5. Delineated Wetland Boundary 14

24 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Figure 6. Wetland Impacts 15

25 Mink and Somers Lakes Phosphorus Filter Wetland Delineation and Impact Review September 2016 Appendix A Data Sheets 15

26 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site Mink Lake Phosphorus Filter - Wright SWCD City/County: Wright County Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Donald Rachel State: MN Sampling Point: Investigator(s): AG, JJ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Soil Map Unit NameCordova Clay Loam Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): 5 Lat: Long: Datum: NWI Classification: 121N, 27W, S24 Sloped Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances" Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present? N Y Is the sampled area within a wetland N Wetland hydrology present? N f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) High amounts of rainfall earlier in the summer have resulted in wetter than normal conditions according to WETS analysis. VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Rhamnus frangula 5 Y FACU that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2 3 Juniperus virginiana 5 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 5 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20.00% (A/B) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Zanthoxylum americanum 10 Y FACU Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 4 FAC species 20 x 3 = 60 5 FACU species 100 x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column totals 120 (A) 460 (B) 1 Bromus inermis 70 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = Poa pratensis 20 Y FAC 3 Asclepias syriaca 5 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Cirsium arvense 5 N FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is 3.0* Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 100 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 2 Vitis riparia 3 N FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic 3 =Total Cover vegetation present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) None 10/30/15 U1 US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region

27 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks YR 2/1 100 CL YR 6/ YR 4/4 30 C M C U1 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (explain in remarks) X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: None Hydric soil present? Y Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland hydrology present? N Remarks: Sample point taken upslope from W1 - altough hydric soil observed no signs of saturation or inundation. Most likely to far upslope to be affected by the adjacent stream. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region

28 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site Mink Lake Phosphorus Filter - Wright SWCD City/County: Wright County Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Donald Rachel State: MN Sampling Point: Investigator(s): AG, JJ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Soil Map Unit NameCordova Clay Loam Adjacent to Stream Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0 Lat: Long: Datum: NWI Classification: 121N, 27W, S24 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances" Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present? Y Y Is the sampled area within a wetland Y Wetland hydrology present? Y f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) High amounts of rainfall earlier in the summer have resulted in wetter than normal conditions according to WETS analysis. VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 juniperus virginiana 5 Y FACU that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2 3 Rhamnus frangula 3 Y FACW Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 6 (B) 4 5 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 8 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 5 Y FACW Total % Cover of: 2 Zanthoxylum americanum 3 Y FACU OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 98 x 2 = FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 5 FACU species 13 x 4 = 52 8 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column totals 116 (A) 263 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = Poa pratensis 5 N FAC 3 Bromus inermis 5 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is 3.0* Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 100 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 2 Vitis riparia 5 Y FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic 5 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) None None 10/30/15 W1 US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region

29 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks YR 2/1 100 CL YR 6/ YR 4/4 40 C M C W1 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) X Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: None Hydric soil present? Y Depth (inches): Stopped at 24" Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X X Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Plot located adjacent to small stream which was flowing during site visit. Hydrology most likely driven by the stream and low elevation relative to nearby Mink Lake. No water table observed in soil pit most likely due to late season sampling. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region

30 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site Mink Lake Phosphorus Filter - Wright SWCD City/County: Wright County Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Donald Rachel State: MN Sampling Point: Investigator(s): AG, JJ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Soil Map Unit NameLester Loam Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances" Are vegetation, soil, or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present? Y N Is the sampled area within a wetland N Wetland hydrology present? N f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) High amounts of rainfall earlier in the summer have resulted in wetter than normal conditions according to WETS analysis. VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Acer negundo 50 Y FAC that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 2 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Quercus bicolor 20 5 Y N FACW FACW Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 5 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: % (A/B) 75 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Ribes cynosbati 15 Y FAC Total % Cover of: 2 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 Ostrya virginiana 5 N FACU FACW species 33 x 2 = 66 4 FAC species 100 x 3 = FACU species 5 x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ) Column totals 138 (A) 386 (B) 1 Ribes cynosbati 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Urtica dioica 5 N FAC 3 Geum aleppicum 5 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Impatiens capensis 3 N FACW Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is 3.0* Hillslope Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1 2 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) 33 0 Local relief (concave, convex, none): =Total Cover =Total Cover Section, Township, Range: 5 Lat: Long: Datum: NWI Classification: 121N, 27W, S24 None None 10/30/15 U2 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region

31 SOIL YR 5/1 100 SL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks YR 3/3 100 C YR 2/1 100 C U2 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: None Hydric soil present? N Depth (inches): Remarks: A layer of lighter colored soil prior to reaching the darker mineral soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 18 Wetland hydrology present? N Remarks: Sample point taken upslope from W2 - higher elevation most likely drives the lack of hydrology for this location. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region