Loading...
Item 5.1 Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet Request for City Council Action DEPARTMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT REQUESTOR: MEETING DATE: Planning City Planner Licht 9 November 2026 PRESENTER(s) REVIEWED BY: ITEM #: Planning City Administrator/Finance Director Flaherty City Engineer Wagner City Attorney Kendall 5.1 – Quaday Avenue EAW STRATEGIC VISION MEETS: THE CITY OF OTSEGO: X Is a strong organization that is committed to leading the community through innovative communication. Has proactively expanded infrastructure to responsibly provide core services. Is committed to delivery of quality emergency service responsive to community needs and expectations in a cost-effective manner. X Is a social community with diverse housing, service options, and employment opportunities. Is a distinctive, connected community known for its beauty and natural surroundings. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution establishing findings that the Quaday Avenue Mixed Use project does not have potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not to be required. ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED? No Yes, held by Planning Commission 19 October 2026 BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Darkenwald Corporation proposes to develop three parcels with an area of 137 acres in the southwest quadrant of TH 101 and Northeast River Road (CSAH 42). The EAW reviews the proposed development of these three parcels, collectively referred to as the “Project”. The developer divides the Project into two components, referred to as “RES 100” and “MXD 35.” • RES 100 is comprised of PIDs #118-500-274202 and #118-500-271400 west of Quaday Avenue. RES 100 surrounds a large existing natural environment lake that would be protected, and new park space and greenways will be provided as part of the development. In total, 122 single-family homes are proposed in this portion of the Project. • MXD 35 involves development of PID #118-500-262201 with multifamily housing and a senior living campus on the southern portion and 65,000 square feet of commercial space on the northern portion. The multifamily component will include 230 units. The senior living campus will include 32 townhomes, 47 assisted-living apartments, and 34,000 square feet of memory-care space. The combination of residential dwelling units, institutional square footage, and commercial square footage requires Environmental Review through a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in accordance with Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 32. The EAW was approved by City staff for publication by the Environmental Quality Board on 22 September 2026. Notice of the EAW was provided to agencies as required by the Environmental Quality Board and notice of availability was published in the Elk River Star News inviting public comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 19 October 2026 to receive comments and questions regarding the EAW. The public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the project does not have potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not to be required. The EAW comment period ended on 22 October 2026. Minnesota Rules Section 4410.1700, Subp. 2 requires the City to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement within 30 days of the close of the comment period. The developer has prepared a response to the comments received regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and findings of fact regarding the need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement as required by Minnesota Rules Section 4410.1700, Subp. 7. The draft responses have been reviewed by City staff and City staff recommends approval. Upon approval by the City Council, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment Responses will be forwarded to the respective agencies, the Environmental Quality Board Distribution List and the Environmental Quality Board to complete the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process. A declaration that an Environmental Impact Statement is not to be required does not entitle the developer to the proposed project. The proposed development remains subject to approval of applications including, but not limited to, a Zoning Ordinance amendment, preliminary plat, and final plat. The developer is working to complete the information required for these applications for consideration at future Planning Commission and City Council meetings. A public hearing with notice mailed to surrounding property owners within 350 feet is required for these applications, which will be conducted by the Planning Commission. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: • EAW dated September 15, 2026 (https://www.otsegomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2500) • Resolution 2026-104 • Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Record of Decision POSSIBLE MOTION PLEASE WORD MOTION AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR IN THE MINUTES: Motion to adopt Resolution 2026-104 adopting findings that the Quaday Avenue Mixed Use project does not have potential significant environmental effects in accordance with recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. BUDGET INFORMATION FUNDING: BUDGETED: Fund 701 – Development Escrows N/A 1 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO: 2026-104 QUADAY AVENUE MIXED USE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET; RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONLCUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 32 requires that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared for mixed residential and commercial projects where the sum of ratios of applicable residential and commercial thresholds equals or exceeds one; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was completed for proposed Quaday Avenue Mixed Use development, WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, copies of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet were distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution list and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was publicly noticed in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor, commencing the 30-day public comment period; and WHEREAS, a public notice was published in the official City newspaper, the Elk River Star News, on September 26, 2026, announcing the completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, its availability to interested parties, and the process for submitting comments on the EAW; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on October 19, 2026, to consider the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, preceded by published and mailed notice; based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and evidence received, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Record of Decision as presented. WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended on October 22, 2026, and the City of Otsego accepted all written comments received; and WHEREAS, the Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Record of Decision regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet attached as Exhibit A are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Environmental Assessment Worksheet at its meeting on November 9, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; 2. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained; 2 3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; 4. The City makes a “Negative Declaration”; 5. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required; and 6. The City adopts the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision and directs the City Clerk to maintain the Record of Decision and distribute said decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules. (remainder of page intentionally blank signatures follow) 3 ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 9th day of November, 2026. MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: CITY OF OTSEGO __________________________________ Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Audra Etzel, City Clerk Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Record of Decision for Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Environmental Assessment Worksheet Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) Proposer City of Otsego 13400 90th St. NE Otsego, MN 55330 D. Daniel Licht Phone: (763) 441-4414 ddl@planningco.com Darkenwald Corporation 105 5th Ave S, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Kendra Lindahl Phone: (612) 638-0225 klindahl@landform.net TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 EAW NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMENT PERIOD ............................................................................ 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED .......................................................................................................................................... 1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 1 FINDING OF FACT .................................................................................................................................................. 5 RECORD OF DECISION ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Appendix A: Comment Letters ............................................................................................................................ Appendix B: City of Otsego Negative EIS Need Declaration Resolution ............................................................. Appendix C: Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Environmental Assessment Worksheet ............................................. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision INTRODUCTION Darkenwald Corporation (Proposer) proposes to develop three parcels totaling 137 acres in Otsego, MN (RGU). The project will include 431 residential units, 34,000 sq. ft. of institutional space, and 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Phase One includes 122 single family homes. Phases Two will include the commercial, multifamily, and senior living campus facilities. The Project would include development on the current agricultural land and a portion of wetlands and woodland. Construction of the project is planned to start 2026 with Phase One and will continue for the next 5 to 8 years. EAW NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMENT PERIOD In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed and distributed to persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list. The EQB published notice of availability of the EAW in the EQB Monitor on September 22, 2026, initiating a 30-day comment period that concluded on October 22, 2026. A public notice was published in the City’s official newspaper, the Elk River Star News, on September 26, 2026. Appendix A includes copies of the comment letters and Appendix C includes the EAW. COMMENTS RECEIVED The following comment letters or emails were sent to the City of Otsego: Email 1: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Email dated October 13, 2026, from Chris Green, Project Manager Environmental Review Email 2: Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Email dated October 20, 2026, from Amy Spong, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Email 3: Citizen Comment Email dated October 21, 2026, from Jason Bebler, Otsego Resident Email 4: Citizen Comment Email dated October 5, 2026, from Kathrine Wrobel, Otsego Resident Email 5: Citizen Comment Email dated October 5, 2026, from Mari Dahlke, Otsego Resident Email 6: Citizen Comment Email dated September 29, 2026, from John and Karen Torgerson, Otsego Residents RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW comments received during the 30-day comment period. Comments responses are provided in italicized text. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Email 1: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment 1: Transportation: The project proposer did not address air pollution levels during construction and post-construction stages of the project. Please include how the proposer will minimize air pollution from dust and diesel truck traffic during construction and air pollution after construction from increased traffic. Response: The Green House Gas (GHG) Emission Calculator was used in Section 18 as required by the EQB. This calculator tool includes Construction and Operation Phases that take into account the calculator averages based on projected building area, number of units, and size of construction project. During construction dust management and air quality effects were discussed in Section 17. The Project would discourage idling where possible during construction and dust mitigation methods commonly used such as erosion control blankets and application of water to prevent fugitive dust. For post-construction, there will be an increase in emissions from increased traffic generation, but this effect was not found to be significant when reviewed alone. However, since this is a statewide issue, best management practices that were listed in Section 18.b.i. will be implemented where applicable. These were provided by the EQB and meet the intent and purpose of the GHG Emissions section of the EAW. Email 2: Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Comment 1: No significant archaeological sites will be affected by this project and that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, or within the Historic Sites Network, that will be affected by this project. Response: Noted. Email 3: Citizen Comment- Jason Bebler (Please refer to the attached email for the complete comments) Comment 1: Omission of the Protected Tributary Creek (D1) and a violation of shoreland setback requirements: Response: This creek was identified on the map and is included in the analysis as it relates to the Natural Environment Lake (#86-6W). This creek is not assigned a specific shoreland classification, only the general “tributary” label. This includes restrictions of 300 feet for shoreland regulations that apply to rivers and creeks only. As noted in Section 16, any development applications will be required to follow all local shoreland requirements, such as setbacks, impervious surface limits, and height restrictions, where applicable. In areas were the shoreland overlaps with the Natural Environment Lake, the more restrictive lake shoreland overlay requirements apply. Comment 2: Critical Habitat Destruction for proposed road over nesting wetlands and federal wildlife violations that create irreversible habitat fragmentation. Response: This EAW required a Natural Heritage Review Letter through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and this is found in Appendix C of the EAW. Section 14 lists the findings for wildlife, both state and federal regulated species as they are found and reported in this project area. No threatened or endangered species were found within or near the project site by the MN DNR, and the federal service system provided a list of potential migratory birds and proposed threaten species that may be found within or near the Project site. Any incidental spotting of any listed species will be reported to the applicable agency as required. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Any development impacts the existing land, whether agriculture, commercial, or residential. This project is proposed in an area that is currently surrounded by urban style development. Any proposal for development on this site will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local ordinances regarding species protection, wetland and water impacts, and required buffering to these surface waters. The EAW collected the required information and includes mitigation strategies to protect state-listed species identified by the MN DNR. Comment 3: Failure of Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Sequencing with reliance on fills and localized ecological collapse possible. Response: The Project site has recorded Wetland Delineations and Notices of Decision on these delineations. These are found in Appendix B of the EAW. Any development proposal will be required to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. Additionally, the City of Otsego has regulations for wetland protection, such as buffers and placing all wetlands into Outlots that are deeded to the City for preservation as natural open space as a condition of subdivision approval. Comment 4: Unmitigated Stormwater and Watershed Pollution with Chloride (road salt) influx and thermal shock. Response: The development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local standards for stormwater management and runoff. Specific stormwater plans and engineering are reviewed by the City during the normal development application process for compliance with these standards. Email 4: Citizen Comment- Kathrine Wrobel (Please refer to the attached email for the complete comments) Comment 1: Is there a planned walking path behind our lot line? If so, I want to understand the distance from our lot and how much of the existing brush will be between our lot and the walking path. I also want to understand where the path starts and ends. Response: The EAW evaluates the potential for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal standards and not site design specifics in this manner. Any development specific design questions will be evaluated during the development application process. Comment 2 and 3: There are a great deal of mature trees in this area. We are concerned about the amount of trees and greenery that would be removed by adding these houses. Response: The EAW evaluates the potential for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal standards and not site design specifics in this manner. Any development specific design questions will be evaluated by the City during the development application process. Comment 4: What builder will be used for the residential houses and what style homes? Response: The EAW evaluates the potential for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal standards and not site design specifics in this manner. Any development specific design questions will be evaluated by the City during the development application process, although identification of a specific builder for the proposed lots is not required. Comment 5: A general concerned statement about how much wildlife is in this undeveloped area. Response: The EAW evaluated potential for impacts to existing wildlife and identified mitigation strategies to minimize the impact on protected species. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Email 5: Citizen Comment- Mari Dahlke (Please refer to the attached email for the complete comments) Comment 1: I would like to know directly where roads, paths, and houses will be located in connection to my property. Response: The EAW evaluates the potential for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal standards and not site design specifics in this manner. Any development specific design questions will be evaluated by the City during the development application process. Email 6: Citizen Comment- John and Karen Torgerson (Please refer to the attached email for the complete comments) Comment 1: We noticed on the EAW that a few wildlife species were left off the list of those found in and around the lake. Response: The MN DNR through their Natural Heritage Review process, and the Federal review provides information regarding potential migratory bird, insects, fish, plants, and other wildlife that may be impacted by any development or changes to the identified site. These reports and findings are found in Section 14 and Appendix C of the EAW. Incidental sightings of these species if found during any part of the development process are reported where applicable. The species that were included are ones identified by both state and federal agencies as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, or simply information provided regarding known potential migratory species in the area. This information comes from their databases of known sightings, migratory patterns, and research. Any species not on this list is either not found in the area or is not considered to be one of the above categories. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision FINDING OF FACT An EAW was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 14 (A) (2). The EAW and the respective comments have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. Site Description and Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, the Project Area consists of agricultural cropland, wetlands, a natural environment lake, and an unnamed tributary creek. A portion of the site will be graded and changed from the current state for the proposed developments. Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria and the City’s findings are presented in the EAW document. Criteria A: Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (A) indicates the first factor that the RGU must consider is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.” City of Otsego’s findings are set forth for each category below in the published EAW document: 1. Cover Types 2. Shorelands and Floodplains 3. Land Use 4. Geology and Soils 5. Water Quality 6. Wetlands and Surface Waters. 7. Wastewater 8. Hazardous Materials 9. Ecological Resources 10. Historic Resources 11. Visual Resources 12. Air 13. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)/ Carbon Footprint. 14. Noise 15. Transportation The City of Otsego finds that the EAW considers the type, extent, and reversibility of any potential environmental effects. Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (B) indicates the second factor the City must consider is “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” The City’s findings are set forth in the published EAW document. The City finds that the EAW considers all known and possible cumulative effects. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Criteria C: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (C) indicates the third factor the City must consider is the “extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.” The City’s findings are set forth in the published EAW document. Environmental effects on water quality, wetlands, and traffic are subject to additional approvals and/or mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances, management plans, and permitting processes .A list of possible permits and approvals is found on Table 6 of the EAW document. These processes would provide additional opportunities to require mitigation. Potential environmental effects associated with this Project would be mitigated in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The City of Otsego therefore finds that potential environmental effects of the Project are less than significant and “subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.” Criteria D: Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (D) indicates the final factor the RGU must consider is the “extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.” The City’s findings are set forth in the published EAW document and below: 1. The proposed Project design, plans, EAW, related studies, and mitigation measures apply knowledge, approaches, standards, and best management practices gained from previous experience and projects that have, in general, successfully mitigated potential offsite environmental effects. 2. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and controlled. 3. Other projects studied under environmental reviews in Minnesota have included studies and mitigation measures comparable to those included in this EAW. 4. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed by the Project design, assessment, permitting and development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. 5. The environmental effects of this development can be anticipated and controlled by the permit application and review processes of the state and local regulatory authorities. 6. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, the City of Otsego finds that the environmental effects of the Project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision RECORD OF DECISION Based on the EAW, the Response to Comments and the Findings of Fact, City of Otsego concludes the following: 1. All requirements for environmental review of the Project have been met. 2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the Project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified have included proper mitigative responses to be included within the final design of the Project. Mitigation will be required to be provided where impacts are expected to result from Project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigative measures will be required to be incorporated into Project design and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the applicable permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. City of Otsego makes a “Negative Declaration;” and 6. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Appendix A: Comment Letters October 13, 2026 VIA EMAIL D. Daniel Licht City of Otsego 13400 90th Street NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Quaday Avenue Mixed Use - Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear D. Daniel Licht: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Quaday Avenue Mixed Use project (Project) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The Project consists of three parcels totaling 137 acres in Otsego, MN (RGU). The project will include 431 residential units, 34,000 sq. ft. of institutional space, and 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Phase One includes 122 single-family homes. Phase Two will include the commercial, multifamily, and senior living campus facilities. Construction is planned to start in 2026 with Phase One and will continue for the next 5 to 8 years. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Transportation: The project proposer did not address air pollution levels during construction and post-construction stages of the project. Please include how the proposer will minimize air pollution from dust and diesel truck traffic during construction and air pollution after construction from increased traffic. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by telephone at 507-476-4258. Sincerely Chris Green This document has been electronically signed. Chris Green Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division CG:kj cc: See next page. D. Daniel Licht Page 2 October 13, 2026 cc: Melinda Neville, MPCA Andri Dahlmeier, MPCA Linnea Savereide, MPCA Lauren Dickerson, MPCA Deepa deAlwis, MPCA David Sahli, MPCA Julie Henderson, MPCA Eric Alms, MPCA Brian Timerson, MPCA MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER October 20, 2026 D. Daniel Licht City Planner City of Otsego ddl@planningco.com RE: EAW – Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Development T121 R23 S26 & S27, Otsego, Wright County SHPO Number: 2026-1572 Dear D. Daniel Licht: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above-referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we have determined that no significant archaeological sites will be affected by this project and that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, or within the Historic Sites Network, that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Amy Spong Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Date: October 21, 2026 To: D. Daniel Licht, City Planner Email: ddl@planningco.com Mailing Address: City of Otsego, 13400 90th St. NE, Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Formal Public Comment and Request for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Quaday Avenue Mixed-Use EAW (Proposer: Darkenwald Corporation) Dear Mr. Licht, Please accept these formal comments regarding the recently published Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the 137-acre Quaday Avenue Mixed-Use development. As a local resident and directly impacted stakeholder, I am writing to alert the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to a severe, critical deficiency in the developer’s submittal: the complete omission of a designated tributary creek corridor from key engineering and site layout plans. Because the current proposal fails to reflect actual hydrological features and threatens protected wildlife with irreversible degradation, I formally request that the City of Otsego issue a Positive Declaration and order a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under Minnesota Rules 4410.1700. The draft EAW relies on inaccurate mapping and standard, boilerplate mitigation measures that are fundamentally insufficient for this specific site. A comprehensive EIS must be ordered to fully analyze the following critical points: 1. Fatal Inaccuracy: Complete Omission of Protected Tributary Creek (D1) • Undocumented Waterbody: The site plan and development exhibits completely gloss over or entirely omit the presence of the 1,600 -foot tributary creek (legally identified as D1 in accompanying technical evaluation documents) flowing through the RES100 subpart into Natural Environment Lake #86-6w. • Violation of Shoreland Setbacks: By failing to map this stream corridor accurately, the developer's current layout violates the City of Otsego's Shoreland Overlay District mandates. Under state and local rules, this tributary stream requires a strict structure setback of 100 to 150 feet from its Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), which is entirely ignored in the published site layouts. 2. Critical Habitat Destruction: Proposed Road Over Nesting Wetlands • Targeted Nesting Grounds: The developer explicitly proposes constructing a residential access road designed to serve four homes directly through the sensitive riparian area of this creek corridor. • Federal and State Wildlife Violations: This specific creek area serves as a documented, highly utilized nesting and foraging habitat for protected waterfowl, including migratory ducks and Sandhill Cranes. Draining, clearing, or paving over this immediate stream zone directly violates the intent of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). • Irreversible Habitat Fragmentation: While winter clear-cutting might prevent the immediate crushing of active eggs, a permanent road structure destroys the micro- habitat completely. The long-term traffic, light pollution, noise, and household disruptions will permanently prevent these site-faithful avian populations from ever returning to nest. 3. Failure of Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Sequencing • Immediate Reliance on Fills: The Wetland Conservation Act explicitly mandates a three- step sequence: Avoid, Minimize, and Replace. By designing a road directly through an unmapped creek bed to reach only four residential lots, the developer has failed to prove true avoidance. • Localized Ecological Collapse: Purchasing off-site wetland banking credits elsewhere in the Mississippi River - St. Cloud watershed does absolutely nothing to replace the local ecological functions of this creek. The local waterfowl populations will be permanently displaced from this neighborhood. An EIS must force a total layout revision to completely eliminate this destructive road alignment. 4. Unmitigated Stormwater and Watershed Pollution • Chloride (Road Salt) Influx: Constructing a vehicle corridor directly adjacent to and over the creek will cause toxic winter road salt (sodium chloride) to flow directly into the water. Standard engineered stormwater retention ponds cannot filter out dissolved chloride. This permanent pollutant will flow unfiltered down the creek and pool straight into the connected lake, poisoning the aquatic food web. • Thermal Shock: Runoff from hot asphalt during summer storms will empty directly into the creek bed, spiking water temperatures. This thermal pollution destroys the macroinvertebrate populations that nesting waterfowl rely on as their primary food supply. Conclusion An RGU cannot legally approve a project based on an EAW that leaves out major, protected surface water features. The environmental potential for significant, unmitigated damage to our local public waters and protected migratory birds is clear. I strongly urge the City of Otsego to hold Darkenwald Corporation accountable, reject the current incomplete EAW data, and order a full Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for your timely review and strict adherence to Minnesota’s environmental protection laws. Sincerely, Jason Bebler 15541 76th Ct NE jbebler@charter.net / (612) 220-4988 1 of 2 Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:52:10Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:52:10Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:52:10Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:52:10    PM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight Time Subject:Subject:Subject:Subject:Questions about the Proposed Quaday Ave Development Date:Date:Date:Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 at 11:58:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time From:From:From:From:Katherine Wrobel To:To:To:To:D. DANIEL LICHT Attachments:Attachments:Attachments:Attachments:image.png Hello, Questions about the proposed Quaday Ave Development: 1. We are in lot 37 (highlighted in yellow) in this image. Is there a planned walking path behind our lot line? If so, I want to understand the distance from our lot and how much of the existing brush will be between our lot and the walking path. I also want to understand where the path starts and ends. 2.  There are a great deal of mature trees in this area. Will there be trees cut down in our sight lines? If so, which ones and will they be replanted? 3. What further information can you provide on the houses highlighted in blue? We are concerned about the amount of trees and greenery that would be removed by adding these houses. Not to mention the disruption it adds to the houses along Parrell and 76th Ct.  4. What builder will be used for the residential houses and what style homes? 5. A general concerned statement about how much wildlife is in this undeveloped area...We constantly have pheasants, rabbits, ducks, some occasional deer and otters, and all kinds of birds in our backyard and within our sight lines. Developing this whole area puts all of those animals at risk, as well as changing the whole reason we loved this spot... the wildlife, mature trees, and peacefulness of the area.  Thank you. -Katherine Wrobel 2 of 2 1 of 1 Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:59:17Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:59:17Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:59:17Monday, October 5, 2026 at 12:59:17    PM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight TimePM Eastern Daylight Time Subject:Subject:Subject:Subject:137-Acre Quaday Development Date:Date:Date:Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 at 9:00:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time From:From:From:From:Mari Dahlke To:To:To:To:D. DANIEL LICHT, Jason Dahlke Hello City Planner, I have received the information for the 137-acre development project on Quaday Ave. My house is currently located at 7660 Paris Ave NE durectly attached to the current farm. I would like to speak to a planner for what will now become directly in our backyard. I request a phone call or onsite visit to share this description. I have seen the maps in the document and the expansive housing plan. I would like to know directly where roads, paths, and houses will be located in connection to my property. I can be reached at 612-819-9862 to schedule a time for you to visit the property. Thank you, Mari Dahlke 1 of 1 Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 10:02:28Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 10:02:28Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 10:02:28Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 10:02:28    AM Central Daylight TimeAM Central Daylight TimeAM Central Daylight TimeAM Central Daylight Time Subject:Subject:Subject:Subject:Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comments Date:Date:Date:Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 7:25:42 AM Central Daylight Time From:From:From:From:Karen Torgerson To:To:To:To:D. DANIEL LICHT We noticed on the EAW that a few wildlife species were left off the list of those found in and around the lake.  Having lived here for 8 years, we have noticed several birds that make the area their home for the summer, namely: Swans - don’t know the kind of swan, but suspect they are Trumpeter; we have seen one or two pairs nest here each summer and their number has been growing—this last fall I saw a flock of 9 swans fly over our house in preparation for migration. Snow geese - flocks have been seen migrating through here on their way north. Ring -tailed pheasants - these birds nest in the hayfield east of our lot and come to our bird feeder regularly. Bluebirds - these birds have been spotted regularly all summer long. Thrush - we believe they are brown thrush, staying for the summer. We are sure there may be some birds that we have not noticed, but the above list represents the ones that make the area their home.  How will the construction affect them? Thanks for your help. John and Karen Torgerson Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Appendix B: City of Otsego Negative EIS Need Declaration Resolution Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Appendix C: Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Environmental Assessment Worksheet Quaday Avenue Mixed Use Otsego, MN Environmental Assessment Worksheet Proposer: Darkenwald Corporation Responsible Government Unit (RGU) City of Otsego September 15, 2026 Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 1 Table of Contents 1. Project title: Quaday Avenue Mixed Use ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Proposer:............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3. RGU: .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: ............................................................................................................................. 3 5. Project Location: ................................................................................................................................................. 4 6. Project Description: ............................................................................................................................................ 4 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience: .................................................................................................................... 7 8. Cover types: ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 9. Permits and approvals required: ...................................................................................................................... 12 10. Land use: ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 11. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: ................................................................................................. 14 12. Water resources: ......................................................................................................................................... 17 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: ............................................................................................ 26 14. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): ............................... 28 15. Historic properties: ...................................................................................................................................... 31 16. Visual: .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 17. Air: ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint: ................................................................................. 33 19. Noise: ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 20. Transportation: ............................................................................................................................................ 36 21. Cumulative potential effects: ...................................................................................................................... 38 22. Other potential environmental effects: ...................................................................................................... 39 RGU CERTIFICATION: ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 2 Tables Table 1. Project Magnitude..................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Climate Consideration and Adaptation ................................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Cover Types ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 4. Green Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. Tree Canopy ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 6. Permits and Approval .............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 7. Soils within Project Site Area of Interest (AOI) ....................................................................................... 16 Table 8. NWI Summary of Resources Identified in Project Site ............................................................................ 18 Table 9. Verified Wells within and Adjacent to the Project Site ........................................................................... 19 Table 10. Estimated Daily Flows .......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 11. Water Supply Wells ............................................................................................................................... 24 Table 12. MPCA Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 13. Estimated Solid Waste Composition ..................................................................................................... 27 Table 14. USFWS IPaC Listed Species .................................................................................................................... 29 Table 15. USFWS IPaC Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................. 30 Table 16. Summary Green House Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 33 Table 17. Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................. 36 Figures Figure 1. County Location Map Figure 2. USGS 7.5-Minute Topo Map Figure 3. Existing Conditions Map Figure 4. Site Plan Figure 5. Cover Types Map Figure 6. USDA Soils Map Appendices Appendix A. Figures Appendix B. Wetland Report Appendix C. Natural Heritage Review and IPaC Review Letters Appendix D. Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Model Appendix E. Transportation Impact Study Appendix F. Archaeological Study Report and Findings Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 3 December 2022 version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This most recent Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and guidance documents are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/ The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Guidance documents provide additional detail and links to resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 21. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title: Quaday Avenue Mixed Use 2. Proposer: Darkenwald Corporation Contact person: Kendra Lindahl, Landform Title: Principal Planner Address: 105 5th Ave S, Suite 513 City, State, ZIP: Minneapolis, MN, 55415 Phone: 612-638-0225 Fax: N/A Email: klindahl@landform.net 3. RGU: Contact person: D. Daniel Licht Title: City Planner Address: 13400 90th St. NE City, State, ZIP: Otsego, MN 55330 Phone: 763-441-4414 Fax: N/A Email: ddl@planningco.com 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: Discretionary: EIS Scoping Citizen petition  Mandatory EAW RGU discretion Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): The project triggers an EAW under MN Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 32 for mixed residential and industrial- commercial uses. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 4 5. Project Location: • County: Wright • City/Township: Otsego • PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26; and part of the East Half of Section 27, all in Township 121, Range 23, Wright County, Minnesota • Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River- St. Cloud • GPS Coordinates: 45.260202, -93.565143 • Tax Parcel Number: Wright County PIDs: 118500271400, 118500274202, and 118500262201 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. • List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during the life of the project (as detailed below in item 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience). 6. Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). Darkenwald Corporation (Proposer) proposes to develop three parcels totaling 137 acres in Otsego, MN (RGU). The project will include 431 residential units, 34,000 sq. ft. of institutional space, and 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Phase One includes 122 single family homes. Phases Two will include the commercial, multifamily, and senior living campus facilities. Construction of the project is planned to start 2026 with Phase One and will continue for the next 5 to 8 years. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities The project consists of three existing parcels. “The Project” refers to the entire EAW area, however, to make it simpler when discussing the many components, the project includes two subparts referred to by the developer as “RES100” and “MXD35”. These subparts are divided by Quaday Avenue, which runs north/South through the entire Project. RES100 is PID #118500274202 and #118500271400. RES100 contains a large existing natural environment lake that would be protected, and new park space and greenways will be provided as part of the development. In total, 122 single-family homes are proposed in this portion of the Project. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 5 MXD35 includes PID #118500262201 and consists of multifamily units and a senior living campus on the southern portion and 65,000 sq. ft. of commercial space on the north. The multifamily portion will include 230 units, and the senior campus will include 32 townhomes, 47 apartments that include assisted living, and 34,000 sq. ft. of memory care units. This development is market dependent, and the exact breakdown and placement of structures is unknown at this time. Analysis of the area considered the concept shown on all exhibits and figures as the most intense development option with the largest impact to ensure a comprehensive approach to evaluation. This plan includes a small grocer, a drive-through fast food-style restaurant, and a medium-sized convenience store and gas station with underground storage tanks on the commercial parcels. Construction Activities 1) Construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes Standard construction methods are expected to be used. The site layout and landscaping would work with the existing topography of the area. For RES100, a majority of the existing wetlands and tree cover will be untouched, with the potential for one wetland impact and removal of an estimated 20.5% of tree cover. As new developments come in, new trees and shrubs will be planted as required at time of application. This subpart of the Project will include construction of new public streets connecting the Project site to 78th Street, Quaday Avenue and existing residential streets to the north, west, south, and east. The large natural environment lake and surrounding areas would be unaffected by operation of the subpart and protected from any potential negative construction activities. For MXD35, standard construction methods are also expected to be used. This subpart of the Project includes an extension of 78th Street from Quaday Avenue to Quam Avenue on the east side of the project site. The MXD35 subpart has two distinct phases that would be independent of one another on either side of this new street extension. The commercial properties will be similar in size and scope to those found along Trunk Highway 101, and the apartment and senior living campus projects to the south will be developed around the existing topography and wetlands. A small, farmed wetland would be impacted to build the new street 78th Street. A stormwater management system would be constructed for the Project. The Project is located in the Otsego East Sewer District and is planned to develop with municipal sanitary sewer and water services. Utilities would be extended to serve the entire Project area. 2) Modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes No modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes are anticipated. 3) Significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures The site has is mostly clear with some small existing structures and stockpiles found throughout. Most existing structures will be kept untouched and built around. There is no plan to remove all structures found on the site today. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 6 4) Timing and duration of construction activities Construction activities will be broken down by the identified subparts of the Project, RES100 and MXD35. For RES100, construction is expected to start with the southern half of the lot in the fall of 2026 and continue over into 2027. The remaining portions of RES100 would begin construction later in 2026 with the bulk of the construction taking place in 2027 and finishing in 2028. MXD35 is still in the early design phase and will likely not begin full construction until late 2027 or early 2028. This subpart of the Project will be completed in multiple phases with the commercial development likely coming before the multi-family to the south. This subpart of the Project is anticipated to be completed within ten years. Overall, the expected construction timeline may change based on material availability, site complications discovered during construction or market demand for specific unit types. c. Project magnitude: Table 1. Project Magnitude Description Number Total Project Acreage 137 acres total (72 disturbed) Linear project length N/A Number and type of residential units 431 Total Units Single Family Detached: 122 Single Family Attached: 32 Multi-Family: 277 Residential building area (in square feet) 475,000 Commercial building area (in square feet) 60,000 Industrial building area (in square feet) 0 Institutional building area (in square feet) 34,000 Other uses – specify (in square feet) N/A Structure height(s) Single Family Housing: 35 feet Multi-Family Housing: 40 feet Commercial: 25 feet d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this Project is to develop a residential neighborhood with single-family homes and a mixed-use site with commercial and multi-family uses along Trunk Highway 101. This project will bring development as intended by the City of Otsego to an area with utility access and will be developed privately. e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. N/A. The EAW is for a full build out of the Project area. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes  No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. N/A. This is a new Project. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 7 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience: a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project. Minnesota is expected to become warmer and wetter, with more cold weather warming, extreme temperatures, and overall damaging rains when they do occur. In Minnesota, annual average temperatures have risen up to three degrees statewide, and annual precipitation has increased up to 3.4 inches from 1895 to 2020. The highest average temperature increases occurred during the winter. Current climate warming trends, most notably during the winter, are anticipated to continue. In addition to increasing the volume of rain, the intensity of the storms is expected to increase as well. Storms that were once considered rare are becoming more frequent with averages per storm reaching up to 3 inches at a time in some areas.1 Wright County climate changes are following the overall statewide trends, indicating Minnesota’s climate is becoming warmer and wetter. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 show historic trends for both average temperature and annual precipitation from 1895 to 2025. During this time period, Wright County experienced an average annual temperature increase of 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade and an annual precipitation increase of 0.28 inches per decade. Exhibit 1. Historical Annual Average Temperature in Wright County (1895 – 2025) Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). Exhibit 2. Historical Annual Average Precipitation in Wright County (1895 – 2025) Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). https://arcgis.MnDNR.state.mn.us/ewr/climateexplorer/main/historical 1 MnDNR, undated(a). Climate Trends. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html. Accessed April 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 8 The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) utilizes temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative soil moisture conditions and serve as an indicator of long-term drought conditions. The index ranges from -5 to +5 indicating dry and wet conditions, respectively. PDSI values are reported on a monthly basis. Exhibit 3 shows historic PDSI values for the month of August from 1895 to 2025 for Wright County, which indicates an increase of 0.17 per decade. Generally, the PDSI historical data indicates that the region is experiencing a wetter climate. Exhibit 3. Historical PDSI Values for Wright County (1895 – 2025) Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). Projected climate trends indicate that temperatures within the Wright County will continue to increase. Exhibit 4 illustrates projected temperatures for the Wight County. There are several models present in the calculations, with the blue line representing the mean of all models included in this analysis. Exhibit 4 shows the modeled present condition, mid-century (2040-2059) at Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, late-century (2080-2099) at RCP 4.5, and late-century (2080-2099) at RCP 8.5. RCP is a greenhouse gas concentration scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the fifth assessment report. RCP 4.5 is an intermediate scenario in which emissions decline after peaking around 2040 and RCP 8.5 represents a worst-case scenario in which emissions continue rising through the 21st century. Under the RCP 4.5 scenario, the annual temperature is anticipated to increase within Wright County from a modeled present mean of 44.26°F (1980-1999) to a mid-century (2040-2059) model mean of 47.83°F and a late-century (2080-2099) model mean of 50.26°F. Under the RCP 8.5 worst-case scenario, Wight County would experience a late-century (2080-2099) model mean temperature of 54.09°F. In comparison to the modeled present mean (1980-1999), the late-century (2080-2099) modeled mean annual temperature would increase by approximately 13.6% under the RCP 4.5 scenario and increase by approximately 22.2% under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Exhibit 4. Projected Temperatures in Wright County Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 9 Exhibit 5 presents projected average annual precipitation for Wright County. This method uses the same mean and averaging as temperature for predicting future trends. With the RCP 4.5 scenario, the annual precipitation is anticipated to increase within Wright County from a modeled present mean of 30.3 inches (1980-1999) to a mid-century (2040-2059) model mean of 31.1 inches and a late-century (2080-2099) model mean of 32 inches. Under the RCP 8.5 worst-case scenario the late- century (2080-2099) model mean precipitation of 34.3 inches. In comparison to the modeled present mean (1980-1999), the late-century (2080-2099) modeled mean annual precipitation would increase by approximately 5.6% under the RCP 4.5 scenario and increase by approximately 13.2% under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Exhibit 5. Projected Precipitation in Wright County Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). https://arcgis.MnDNR.state.mn.us/ewr/climateexplorer/main/historical Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 10 b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project’s proposed activities and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified. Table 2. Climate Considerations and Adaptations Resource Category Climate Considerations (example text provided below is to be replaced with project- specific information) Project Information Adaptations Project Design Minnesota is projected to get warmer and wetter with more extreme storms. Urban heat island is possible at a project of this scale and contributes to rising temperatures in development. Increased impervious surface coverage with construction of streets, buildings, and parking areas will impact existing wetland and natural drainage facilities. The Project will be providing landscaping with placement to help address the impact of urban heat island from the additional impervious surface creation. The Project will also include buffers around all wetlands featuring natural vegetation as recommended by the City of Otsego. This mixed with new stormwater ponding will help manage stormwater runoff and overall pollution possibilities on site. Land Use Minnesota is projected to get warmer and wetter with more extreme storms. Heavier rainfalls are expected to bring higher risk of localized flooding. This may also contribute to increasing public health and social needs for vulnerable populations. This Project is converting vacant land and existing farming areas to a new development. This conversion will lead to more impervious surfaces and reduced open space. This Project will use landscaping and preserved wetlands to enhance existing open space to be more usable. The stormwater ponding and wetland buffers will limit impacts on existing runoff and water resources across the site. The land use is consistent with the long- term plans for Otsego, and extends an existing neighborhood and street network within a developed neighborhood Water Resources Address in item 12 Address in item 12 Address in item 12 Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/ Wastes Minnesota climate is trending upward in temperature and overall precipitation. This includes more aggressive and intense storms. The Project will follow the sediment control requirements of the NPDES permit and satisfy water quality requirements of the City and watershed. The Project has a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction. The site will be monitored and follow all the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control agency (MPCA) for permits and all construction activities on site. No long-term storage of hazardous materials or waste is anticipated. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) Address in item 14. Address in item 14. Address in item 14. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 11 8. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Appendix A Figure 6 shows all cover types across the site and have been summarized below. Table 3. Cover Types Cover Types Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands and shallow lakes (<2 meters deep) 26.2 25.6 Deep lakes (>2 meters deep) 0 0 Wooded/forest 7.5 5.0 Rivers/streams 0 0 Brush/Grassland 38.5 21.2 Cropland 61.4 0 Livestock rangeland/pastureland 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 41.3 Green infrastructure TOTAL (from table below*) 0 0 Impervious surface 3.4 32.1 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) 0 11.8 TOTAL 137 137 Table 4. Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure* Before (acreage) After (acreage) Constructed infiltration systems (infiltration basins/infiltration trenches/ rainwater gardens/bioretention areas without underdrains/swales with impermeable check dams) 0 0 Constructed tree trenches and tree boxes 0 Constructed wetlands 0 0 Constructed green roofs 0 0 Constructed permeable pavements 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0 TOTAL* 0 0 Table 5. Tree Canopy Trees Percent Number Percent tree canopy removed or number of mature trees removed during development 20.5% N/A Number of new trees planted N/A 750 Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 12 9. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Table 6. Permits and Approval Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Otsego Mandatory EAW Decision Draft prepared Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be obtained Conditional Use Permit- Shoreland PUD To be obtained Preliminary Plat Approval To be obtained PUD Development Stage Plan To be obtained PUD Final Stage Plan To be obtained Final Plat Approval To be obtained Conditional Use Permits – As needed To be obtained Grading Permit To be obtained Building Permit To be obtained Zoning Map Amendment To be obtained Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Approval To be obtained Municipal Water Connection Permit To be obtained Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be obtained Wetland Boundary NOD Complete Wetland Fill Permit To be obtained Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Approval To be obtained Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS General Permit To be obtained Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be obtained US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Wetland Permit To be obtained Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Review Completed Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Plumbing Permit To be obtained Electrical Permit To be obtained Wright County Right-of-way Permit To be obtained Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 10-20, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No.22. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 21. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 13 10. Land use: a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks and open space, cemeteries, trails, prime or unique farmlands. RES100 is currently vacant farmland with some homes, sheds, general accessory structures, and a large natural environment lake in the middle. The properties surrounding it are all single-family home subdivisions that have been built over the years. There is a tributary creek that through this lake, and there are plans for a park near the water in the Otsego Future Parks and Trails System Map. MXD35 is a vacant parcel that is cut by the right-of-way for frontage roads and Trunk Highway 101 along the eastern property line. To the north is County State Aid Highway 42 (CSAH 42) and then some medium and high-density residential developments. The south is a collection of unimproved sports fields. ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. RES100 is guided Low Density Residential (LD) by the Otsego 2023 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development of this subpart would be consistent with this future land use designations. The site is approximately 72 net acres with 122 units equaling an average of 1.7 du/net ac. This is under the maximum density of 3 du/ac of the LD land use. The site is in the East Sewer District and will be served by public utilities that are connecting to existing infrastructure from the developed properties to the west, south, and east. The Otsego Future Parks and Trail System Map indicate trails along Quaday Avenue and 78th Street with a neighborhood park planned for RES100. This park is shown in the plan with a greenway connection around potions of the natural environment lake. MXD35 is guided Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The project will require an amendment to allow for the high density uses on the southern portion of the site. This will likely be to Mixed Use or High Density Residential (HDR) which would allow 8-22 du/ac. The proposed 309 multi-family units, which include townhomes, apartments, and applicable senior living facilities, would fit within this proposed density 13.7 du/net acre. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. RES100 is zoned A-1 (Agricultural- Rural Service Area) and a portion of the property is in the Shoreland Overlay District for an unnamed Natural Environment Lake, #86-6w, that is completely contained in the area for RES100. The property will be rezoned to PUD as part of the approval process, and a conditional use permit for a Shoreland PUD will be applied for the development. There is also a tributary creek that runs through the property that would be subject to State and local regulations regarding buffers. MXD35 is zoned R-3 (Residential-Long Range Urban Service Area) and will be rezoned once the final projects are applied for, either to a PUD or a higher density designation for the southern portion and a commercial zone for the norther half. MXD35 does not contain any other special districts, overlays, or preservation zones. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 14 iv. If any critical facilities (i.e. facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity. Not applicable. There are no floodplains on the site that are to be built in or impacted. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The Project is compatible with surrounding future land uses identified in the City of Otsego 2023 Comprehensive Plan, except for the amendments that were discussed in the previous section. The Project is compatible with surrounding zoning identified in the previous section. The proposed Project includes planned infrastructure improvements related to new public streets, utilities and surface water management and treatment. Erosion control measures would be required and utilized per state requirements during construction, and the Zoning Ordinance addresses noise, smoke, odor, and other potential negative impacts on surrounding areas that could be encountered with increased intensity of use on the site. Landscaping installations required with the Project would have known and proven benefits for birds, wildlife, shade cooling, air quality, and carbon reduction. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above and any risk potential. The Project is preserving significant natural open space with trees, wetlands, and the large natural environment lake in the center of the project. The Project extends existing neighborhoods that surround the area and build off the planned street grid. The intensity of uses and size of the proposed buildings will help provide buffers from Trunk Highway 101 to the lower density residential and eventually agricultural uses. The City would proactively monitor the construction to ensure compliance with all City and state regulations. 11. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. The Geologic Atlas of Wright County, Minnesota indicates the surficial geology in the Project site is identified as the “Mississippi river valley train.” This is sediment that was left behind from the glacial flows along the Mississippi River and forms the terraces of soil along the river. The project is the dividing line between the upper and lower parts of the Mississippi River valley train soils found in the surrounding area. This surface type features silty clay and can sometimes contain deep stretches of crossbedding with other soil types. This till is comprised of light brown to yellow-brown gravelly sands and occasional gravel deposits with boulders and cobbles. The Geologic Atlas of Wright County, Minnesota indicates the bedrock geology in the project site is found to be Tunnel City Groups from the Upper Cambrian Period. This type of bedrock is characterized as “dominantly white to yellowish gray, fine- to medium-grained, cross-stratified, friable, quartz sandstone with minor amounts of glauconite.” It is comprised of very fine-grained sandstone and siltstone embedded in shale paintings of varying coarseness and size. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 15 Portions of RES100 are found to be in the Wonewoc Sandstone category of the Upper Cambrian period. These are sandier and siltier stone, but they are commonly found adjacent to Tunnel City Group and the contact is distinct but not problematic. The estimated depth to bedrock in the Project site generally ranges between 101-150 feet below recorded the surface in the majority of the site with small portions between 51-100 feet on the northern portion of MXD35. Bedrock topographic contours being between 701-750 feet MSL for the southwest half of RES100 and 751-800 feet MSL for the remaining RES100 site and all of MXD35.2 Sinkholes and karst lands are not known to be prone in Wright County where the Project is located. Minnesota Karst Lands and Sinkhole Mapping provided by the MnDNR does not show karst lands or sinkholes in or near the Project site.3 This Project is not anticipated to have any environmental effect on the geological features found on site. b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 12.b.ii. The approximately 137-acre Project site features mixed topography. MXD35 is relatively flat with a slight slope that climbs as you head south. RES100 features a variety of topography with a large flat outcropping above the lake on the southeast corner and higher lands on the north 1/3 of the site where most of the development will occur. The site is currently undeveloped with around 2.47% impervious surface coverage, most of which is the existing minor collector, Quaday Avenue. Wetlands are present across the Project, with the large natural environment lake containing most of the wetlands in or around its border. According to the U.S. Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data 4, there are thirteen soil map units within the Project site. The calculation below includes a small buffer around the outside of the Project site to ensure there are no unknown or strange soils that may affect the project development. A soil map unit is typically comprised of more than one soil series. The various series in a map unit represent associated soils that formed on different landscape positions within the map unit. The map unit is named after the most dominant soil series by area extent. Table 7 below lists the soil map units within the Project site and includes Hydrologic group. A map of the soils in the Project area can be found in Figure 6 in Appendix A. 2 Robert G. Tipping, 2013. C-30 Geologic Atlas of Wright County, Minnesota. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11299/159422. Accessed May 2026. 3 MnDNR, undated. Karst Feature Inventory. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/springs.html Accessed May 2026. 4 Soil Survey Staff, NRCS, USDA, 2024. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Accessed via Online tool May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 16 Table 7. Soils within project site Area of Interest (AOI) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydrologic Group Acres % of project site 258C Sandberg loamy sand, 2 to 12% slopes A 2.6 1.9% 258E Sandberg loamy coarse sand, 6 to 30% slopes A 14.7 10.7% 260 Duelm loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes A 16.4 12.0% 261 Isan-Isan, frequently ponded, complex, 0 to 2% slopes A/D 17.0 12.4% 441 Almora loam, 0 to 2% slopes B 5.6 4.1% 543 Markey muck, occasionally ponded, 0 to 1% slopes A/D 9.1 6.6% 1260E Stonelake-Nebish complex, 12 to 25% slopes A 1.7 1.2% 1377B Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2 to 6% slopes A 5.5 4.0% 1378 Fordum loam, 0 to 2% slopes occasionally flooded B/D 8.5 6.2% D62A Hubbard-Mosford complex, Mississippi River Valley, 0 to 3% slopes A 31.5 23.0% D67A Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes A 1.6 1.1% D67B Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6% slopes A 6.5 4.7% D67C Hubbard loamy sand, 2 to 12% slopes A 7.3 5.3% W Water N/A 9.2 6.7% The soils on the Project site are predominantly coarse-textured soils within the Sandberg, Duelm, and Hubbard series, which are characterized by high infiltration rates and are generally classified within Hydrologic Soil Group A. These soils are very deep, well drained, and formed in sandy glacial outwash or alluvium, particularly within the Mississippi River Valley. A portion of the site includes poorly drained and organic soils, such as the Isan-Isan complex and Markey muck, which are classified as Hydrologic Soil Group A/D due to seasonal saturation and ponding conditions. Additional soils present include Almora loam (Group B) and Fordum loam (Group B/D), which exhibit moderately slow infiltration and are occasionally subject to flooding or a seasonal high-water table. Many of these poor soils are found in areas that are not suited for development and would likely be left as is for the purpose of maintaining open space and preserving pre-existing infiltration conditions wherever possible. Minor inclusions of steeper or mixed complexes, such as Stonelake-Nebish and Dorset–Two Inlets, are also present but comprise a relatively small percentage of the site. Overall, the site contains a mix of highly permeable sandy soils and localized areas of hydric or moderately permeable soils, as summarized in Table 7. The Project would significantly alter the existing soil and topographic conditions through grading and construction activities. It is anticipated that approximately 73.2 acres of the Project site soils would be disturbed by grading or filling activities related to site leveling for structure and road construction. Soil balance and grading volumes are not yet known and will be determined as design and grading plans are further developed. Total new impervious surface coverage is anticipated to be approximately 23.43% of the entire Project. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 17 The project will adhere to erosion and sediment control practices during demolition, construction, and operations in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit, and applicable local permitting requirements. See EAW Item 12.b.ii for additional details regarding stormwater management and erosion and sediment control measures. 12. Water resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and floodway/floodplain, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include the presence of aquatic invasive species and the water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. The Project site is located within the 24- Mississippi-St. Cloud watershed, as defined by the MnDNR 81 watershed classification, and is part of the larger Upper Mississippi River Watershed.5 The Project includes 14 delineated wetlands that cover a total of 26.23 acres. Appendix B includes the Wetland Delineation Report and Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) report provided by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company. There is a Natural Environment Lake, #86-6w, located within the Project. As stated in the Wetland Notice of Decision (NOD), found in Appendix B, there is tributary creek (D1) which measures 1,600 feet in length located on the RES100 subpart of the Project just to the north and west of the large wetland / lake. There are no other county ditches, public waters, trout streams/lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, outstanding resource value waters in or directly adjacent to the Project.6 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) impaired waters viewer shows one impaired water located within 1 mile of the Project.7 The Mississippi River is within 1 mile of the site and its impairments are: Aquatic Consumption (AQC), Aquatic Recreation (AQR), Fecal coliform (FC), and PCB-F. Additionally, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been established for Hg-F. A review of the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) identified no regulated floodway or floodplain located in the Project.8 Of the 14 delineated wetlands by Kjolhaug in the Wetland NOD dated 12-2-2022, 12 are west side of Quaday Avenue on the RES100 subpart of the Project site. WL1A through WL1H goes from the west side of the site to the northeast corner of the RES100 site as multiple segments separated by culverts on the west side of Quaday Avenue. WL2 and WL3 are individual wetlands also located within RES100. WL1 and WL1H are described as; open water, shallow marsh, wet meadow, a deciduous forested seasonally flooded basin and partially drained. It has cattails, reed canary grass, green ash, elm and willow plants. 5 UMD, Undated(a). Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas. Available at: https://mnatlas.org/gis-tool/?id=k_0063. Accessed May 2026. 6 MnDNR, 2024. Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Areas GIS Data Set. Available at: https://gis.data.mn.gov/datasets/minnesota::migratory-waterfowl-feeding-and-resting-areas-2/about. Accessed May 2026. 7 MPCA, undated(a). MPCA Impaired Waters Viewer. Available at: https://mpca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcfc5a12d2fd4b16bc95bb535d09ae82. Accessed May 2026. 8 FEMA, 2025. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) mapping tool. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 18 WL1A through WL1H are described as excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh and drainage ditch. They have cattail, reed canary grass, sedge and willow shrubs. WL2 and WL3 are both excavated shallow open water, and they have cattails, reed canary grass, and willow shrubs. WL4 and WL5 are located east of Quaday Avenue and on the MXD35 subpart of the Project. They are individual and do connect to any clear ditch or swale of any other waterbody on site. WL4 is described as; wet meadow / swale, and has reed canary grass, lake sedge, bulrush, giant goldenrod and willow shrubs. WL5 is a seasonally flooded basin, and has pigweed, yellow nut sedge and giant foxtail. Table 8. NWI Summary of Resources Identified in Project Resource ID Resource Type Wetland Classification Type Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers & Reed WL1 Wetland Type 5/3/2/1 PUBG/PEMC/B/ PEMAd/PFOIAd Open Water, shallow marsh, wet meadow, deciduous forested seasonally flooded basin, partially drained WL1A Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1B Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1C Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1D Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1E Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1F Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1G Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL1H Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL2 Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL3 Wetland Type 5/3 PUBG/Cxd Excavated shallow open water and shallow marsh / drainage ditch WL4 Wetland Type 1 PEMA Wet Meadow Swale WL5 Wetland Type 1 PEMAf Seasonally Flooded Basin DITCH D1 Ditch N/A N/A Ditch Wetlands within the Project site fall under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The Project Proposer submitted a Wetland Delineation Report to the City of Otsego and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in October of 2022. The City of Otsego is the Local Government Unit (LGU) administering the WCA for the project site. The TEP reviewed the site November 3, 2022 with Kjolhaug. The City of Otsego and the Notice of Decision (NOD) were completed on December 2, 2022. Appendix B includes the Wetland Delineation Report and NOD. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 19 ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. There are no known springs, seeps or karst features present within the Project. The Project site is not within a MDH wellhead protection area or a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). A review of the MDH MWI identified zero wells within the Project and four verified wells within a 900ft radius of the Project.9 These wells are presented in Table 9. Based on a review of the wells located near the Project, the estimated depth to static water level ranges from 15 to 20 feet approximately. Table 9. Verified Wells within and Adjacent to the Project Site Well ID Use Type Distance from Project Status Depth Static Water Level 640509 Domestic 20 feet Active 84 feet 20 feet 146249 Domestic 100 feet Active 96 feet 20 feet 143406 Domestic 850 feet Active 96 feet 16 feet 429270 Domestic 500 feet Active 93 feet 15 feet The City of Otsego Wellhead Protection Plan provides for management and protection of municipal water supply wells. The plan was implemented in 2005 and renewed in 2023. It identifies four wellhead protection areas, but no areas overlap the Project. Municipal water service for the Project is provided by the City of Otsego. As listed in Table 10, the City of Otsego operates 11 wells that draw the municipal water supply from the Tunnel City and Mt. Simon bedrock aquifers. The nearest well, City Well #9, is located about 1/3 miles North of the Project.10 b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. The Project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater that is typical of residential and mixed-use development. Domestic wastewater from this Project is expected to be routed to the Otsego East Wastewater Treatment Facility (E-WTF). Wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities of the City have been prepared and designed for the Project. The majority of the RES100 subpart will connect to an existing 18-inch municipal gravity trunk sanitary sewer line that runs west to east under 78th Street NE. 9 Minnesota Department of Health, 2025. Minnesota Well Index Tool. Available at: https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/#. Accessed May 2026. 10 City of Otsego, MN, 2020. Otsego Drinking Water System Master Plan. Available at: https://www.otsegomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/222/Otsego-Water-Master-Plan-PDF. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 20 The eastern part of the RES100 subpart will connect to an existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line that runs south to north under Quaday Avenue. The southeast portion of the RES100 subpart will connect to a stub at the existing cul-de-sac of 74th St. NE. The MXD35 subpart will connect to existing sanitary sewer at the intersection of 78th Street NE and Quaday Avenue where there is an 8-inch stub. Additionally, there are two other 8-inch sanitary stubs further south on Quaday Avenue. Our estimated flows are for the Project are found in Table 10 below. Overall, the project will not exceed the planned capacity for this area. Residential Units are calculated using the average per capita and person per unit found in the Otsego Wastewater Master Plan. Commercial and Institutional property are calculated using the estimated daily flows per acre. Table 10. Estimated Daily Flows Use Number Gallons per day (gpd) Total Residential Units 431 units 150 per unit 64,650 gpd Commercial/Institutional 11 acres 300 per acre 3,500 gpd TOTAL 67,950 gpd According to The City of Otsego Wastewater Master Plan of 2018, the existing E- WTF has additional available capacity. The Wastewater Master Plan includes tables and data that list the current flows and loads that apply to the E-WTF and in all cases the current capacities will be able to handle the additional development added from this Project. The Wastewater Master Plan used land use plans, watershed basin data, historic flow and load data, and established current and projected flows and loadings at E-WTF. The tables and summaries provided in the Wastewater Master Plan indicate that there is additional capacity available and furthermore there will be additional capacity provided as the facilities are built out per expert projections. Domestic wastewater from this Project is expected to be routed to the Otsego East Wastewater Treatment Facility (E-WTF). The E-WTF has been expanded and the updated Wet Weather Flow of the E-WTF is 2.7 MGD. The Dry Weather Flow is 3.3 MGD. The City of Otsego has the available capacity to treat the sanitary wastewater anticipated from this Project.11 Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. Where both sewer and potable water utilities are being installed in parallel, the easements must be wide enough to accommodate the required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines. 11 City of Otsego, MN, 2018. Otsego Wastewater Master Plan. Available at: https://www.otsegomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/208/Otsego-Wastewater-Master-Plan-PDF. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 21 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. If septic systems are part of the project, describe the availability of septage disposal options within the region to handle the ongoing amounts generated as a result of the project. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity and amount with this discussion. The Project does not propose to discharge to a SSTS. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. The Project would not result in wastewater discharges to surface waters. ii. Stormwater - Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post construction including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate and change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters. Pre-Construction Stormwater Runoff The Project area consists of farmland with mixed fields, row crops, woodland, wetlands, buildings, bituminous driveways and gravel driveways. Runoff for the RES100 subpart flows primarily from the west to the northeast. Water drains down the wetland complex and wetland segments and then eventually goes out in a stormwater pipe that goes under and across 78th Street NE. Some stormwater from the eastern edge also flows towards the east to Quaday Avenue NE and then continues via stormwater pipes to the north. The topography of RES100 is primarily gently sloping terrain into a series of separate wetlands across RES100. There are also steeper areas that surround the large wetland. The existing land use of the Project consists of agricultural land and home sites. Surface water runoff drains towards existing wetland areas in multiple directions across all areas of the Project. No existing stormwater features are present within the existing Project today. Runoff from existing farmland areas in the Project subpart, RES100, likely contains pesticides, sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) from fertilizers and typical agricultural practices. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 22 The MXD35 subpart consists of farmland with mixed fields, row crops, woodland and wetlands. Runoff generally flows from west to east and the lowest part of the site is the northeast corner. A few large mounds are present on the south end of the MXD35 subpart and the topography of the subpart site is primarily gently sloping terrain into wetlands are situated on the northern half. Storm sewer pipes and structures are not present on the subpart and runoff makes its way north and east into ditches along C.S.A.H. 42 and Quam Avenue NE. The existing land use of the Project subpart, MXD35, consists of agricultural land and undeveloped land. Runoff from existing farmland areas in the MXD35 likely contains pesticides, sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) from fertilizers and typical agricultural practices. Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff After project construction, the change in land use from mostly agricultural to residential and commercial development on both the RES100 and MXD35 subparts of the Project is expected to add 28.7 acres (totally 32.1 acres) of impervious surface and result in an increase of urban runoff pollutants from the Project. The elimination of agricultural land can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite Best Management Practices (BMP). The construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, and building rooftops will increase the volume to nearby surface waters. The increased impervious surface areas would result in higher runoff rates and volumes compared to the existing conditions. This would also change pollutants, however, these changes would be mitigated and approved by the project’s LGU, the City of Otsego. Stormwater BMPs would be constructed to mitigate stormwater runoff rate, volumes, and pollutant loading. The design goal of the proposed drainage plan is to follow the existing drainage patterns to the extent possible and to meet the City of Otsego, and MPCA’s stormwater requirements. Due to the presence of clay soils on site, volume reduction practices are not a viable option. Permanent stormwater management will consist of wet sedimentation to provide settling of sediment before discharge and achieve required water quality standards. Runoff will predominately be conveyed to sedimentation ponds via storm sewer pipes. Potential adverse effects of runoff volume and quality will be mitigated primarily by construction of stormwater basins. These basins will be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and meet the requirements of the City of Otsego Engineering Manual and the City’s Policy on Stormwater Drainage Submittal Requirements for Developers. The City also regulates stormwater through its Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Ordinances. The manual, policy and ordinances require that stormwater ponds be designed to meet Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Impervious surface runoff from storm events will be retained in stormwater basins until it is discharged at or below existing peak runoff rates. Temporary sediment basins and stormwater discharged during construction will need to meet MPCA requirements set forth under the General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. A Construction SWPPP would be required for the NPDES permit issued by the MPCA because the Project will disturb more than one acre of land. The SWPPP is prepared during final project design and submitted for State approval prior to beginning construction. Project construction would adhere to the approved SWPPP and the City of Otsego, MN would inspect for compliance. Typical of urban development, erosion control would initially occur through installation of silt fence. Additionally, temporary sediment basins with ponds and seeded/vegetated ground cover where construction has paused and perimeter control to avoid erosion will be used. Stockpiles would be stabilized when not in use and stockpile perimeter would be controlled. All permanent slopes 4:1 or steeper would have erosion control blankets installed. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 23 BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Inspection of BMPs will be required after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 hours. The NPDES permit also require perimeter sediment control maintenance and sediment removal. BMPs to be implemented during construction include: • Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for stormwater ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. • Installation of silt fence and other perimeter erosion controls prior to initiation of earthwork and maintenance of these controls until viable turf or ground cover is established on exposed areas. • Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce tracking of dirt onto public streets. • Stabilization of exposed soils within the time limits specified in the General NPDES Permit. • Installation of energy dissipation, such as riprap, at storm sewer outfalls. • Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading.12 iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. Surface/Groundwater Appropriations and Dewatering The Project is unlikely to require dewatering and groundwater appropriation to facilitate the installation of sanitary sewer and the excavation of stormwater basins. Well Abandonment Wells will not be used for the construction and development of the Project. Connection to a Public Water Supply The Project will connect to the City of Otsego municipal water supply. The City of Otsego draws its public water supply from the Tunnel City-Wonewoc and Mt. Simon bedrock aquifers. The City currently maintains nine active wells, two emergency wells, four pump houses and three water towers. The nearest well, Well #9, is located about 1/3 miles North of the Project.13 These wells are shown on Table 11 below. 12 MPCA, 2023. NPDES Permit for Construction Activity. Available at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm2-81a.pdf. Accessed May 2026. 13 City of Otsego, MN, 2020. Otsego Drinking Water System Master Plan. Available at: https://www.otsegomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/222/Otsego-Water-Master-Plan-PDF. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 24 Table 11. Water Supply Wells Well No. Unique Well No. Year Installed Capacity Depth Geologic Unit Status 1 554501 1994 400 gpm 201 feet Tunnel City-Wonewoc Sealed 2 622715 1998 400 gpm 172 feet Tunnel City-Wonewoc Emergency Only 3 657343 2001 600 gpm 370 feet Tunnel City-Wonewoc Active 4 696888 2003 1100 gpm 494 feet Mt. Simon Active 5 696889 2004 1100 gpm 490 feet Mt. Simon Active 6 709269 2004 1200 gpm 343 feet Mt. Simon Active 7 721663 2005 1000 gpm 429 feet Mt. Simon Active 8 752116 2007 1200 gpm 437 feet Mt. Simon Emergency Only 9 848409 2020 1200 gpm 323 feet Mt. Simon Active 10 867646 2023 600 gpm 270 feet Tunnel City-Wonewoc Active 11 880246 2024 600 gpm 320 feet Tunnel City-Wonewoc Active On behalf of the City, AE2S performed an evaluation of the City’s Water System and infrastructure to understand and analyze the demands and regulatory requirements. The existing active wells citywide have a combined permitted capacity to pump 8,000 gallons of water per minute. The City’s future water supply will need future improvements in order to meet future demands. This has been planned for when accommodating future growth through fees associated with development. Based on past use and permitted capacity, the existing municipal wells have sufficient surplus capacity to serve the proposed project. Water flow, pressure, and storage will be adequate to serve the Project. The existing watermain to service the RES100 subpart is available on the north, east and west sides of the site. There are watermains under 78th Street NE, Quaday Avenue, Parrish Avenue, and a stubbed main at the cul-de-sac of Paris Avenue. The existing watermain to service the MXD35 subpart is available under Quaday Avenue and runs the entire stretch of the project site. Three existing 12-inch water service stubs are found along Quaday Avenue. There is also a stub at intersection of Quaday Avenue and Pinnacle Avenue available for connection. iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 25 The design of the Project aims to avoid wetland impacts but will result in some wetland impacts. Permanent impacts are expected to Wetlands 1, 4, and 5 due to proposed access roads and proposed buildings. Temporary impacts are expected to Wetlands 1 and 2 due to proposed sanitary sewer construction. The disturbed wetlands will be returned to their original shape once sanitary sewer construction is completed. Per the NOD, Wetlands 3 and 7 are incidental wetlands. Wetland 3 was noticed on historical aerial imagery between 2006 and 2008 but not prior to then, and likely was created because of neighboring construction and development to the east. Wetland 7 was determined to be created from previous sanitary sewer installation activities. Anticipated permanent wetland impacts could total 0.22 acres of the existing 11.38 acres of wetlands within the Project. This exact impact will depend on the final design of the extension of 78th Street NE and will be finalized once the project starts to develop with all applicable agencies. All necessary wetland permitting would be obtained prior to any wetland impacts occurring. Impacts would be regulated under WCA as administered by the LGU. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers or Corps) would regulate impacts to jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Any wetland impacts requiring mitigation would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of wetland bank credits. Credits would be purchased from an appropriate wetland bank following the current siting prioritization in the WCA rules. The City of Otsego must approve the proposed wetland impacts and plan for replacement before any impacts occur. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers must issue a jurisdictional determination. If any of the impacted wetlands are Corps jurisdictional, a Section 404 permit would be required. The wetland impacts are expected to have minimal effect on the host watershed, as the total impact area is small. The replacement wetlands in the wetland bank would be higher quality wetlands and better able to provide ecosystem services than the existing wetlands. Wetland requirements of the City of Otsego are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a protective natural vegetation buffer at least 20 feet wide surrounding wetlands. The ordinance requires that wetlands and buffers be platted as outlots and deeded to the City. The project Proposer will be required to implement BMPs or other management practices that help reduce and eliminate wetland impacts over time. The project Proposer and construction contractors will choose stormwater practices appropriate for the site and install practices according to permit guidelines. Stormwater treatment basins will be designed to treat runoff from impervious surfaces and help maintain the hydrology of avoided wetlands either through discharge of treated surface runoff or infiltration. b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 26 Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. The Project is not expected to affect or alter other surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches). 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. The Project site is not known to include environmental hazards and the agricultural and natural open space land use history suggests a low potential for environmental contamination. The Project site is not known to include previous building sites, disposal areas, storage tanks or pipelines. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was not completed for the project site. A review of MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) database was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within the Project site or immediately adjacent.14 These are found in Table 12. Table 12. MPCA Sites Site ID and Name MPCA Programs Location 224744 – Emerson Pointe Construction Stormwater Southeast of RES100 129557 – Boulder Pass- Otsego Construction Stormwater South of RES100 246958 – Boulder Pass Construction Stormwater South of RES100 4617 – VFW Mining, Excavation Construction Stormwater South of MXD35 190840 – Ulmer Residence Petroleum Remediation, Leak Site Northwest of MXD35 12454 – Caprice Woodcraft Hazardous Waste Across HWY 101 from MXD35 197232 – Food Mart Petroleum Remediation, Leak Site Across HWY 101 from MXD35 An additional review of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) WIMN database was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites. One MDA sites were identified within 1 mile of the Project site.15 Case File #CF-8982 for “Federated Coops” was an emergency pesticides contaminant case that was closed in 2004. The site is not adjacent to the Project and is located on the opposite side of Trunk Highway 101. 14 MPCA, undated(a). What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) tool. Available at: https://mpca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9d45793c75644e05bac197525f633f87. Accessed May 2026. 15 MN Department of Agriculture, undated(a). What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) tool. Available at: https://mnag.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=85bade4ea512411aa32a80079246255f. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 27 b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Neither the construction process nor the proposed residential and commercial mixed-use development is expected to generate substantial solid or hazardous wastes, solid animal manure, sludge, or ash. Construction contractors will be required to dispose of wastes generated at the site during construction using approved methods and facilities. Contractors will be expected to minimize and mitigate adverse effects from solid waste generation and storage by recycling construction waste to the degree practicable. Brush and tree waste generated by construction will likely be chipped or otherwise disposed of rather than burned on site. The City of Otsego is serviced by five private garbage haulers within the City. They provide services to both residential and commercial properties, and they provide weekly collection of refuse (garbage) and bi-weekly collection of recycling. Solid waste generated in the City of Otsego that is not recycled or hazardous is trucked to a nearby landfill, such as the Elk River Landfill. Once constructed, the Project will generate wastes typical of residential and commercial mixed-use development operations. Most solid waste is expected to include organics, paper, other waste, and plastic found in Table 13 below. Table 13. Estimated Solid Waste Composition Waste Type Estimated % Organic 31 Paper 24.5 Other 18.3 Plastic 17.9 Hazardous 0.4 Metal 4.5 Glass 2.2 Electronics 1.2 Total 100 Source: 2013 Statewide Waste Characterization (Burns & McDonnell for MPCA 2013). c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any new above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Indicate the number, location, size and age of existing tanks on the property that the project will use. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 28 Development of the Project site is not expected to generate or require storage of substantial amounts of hazardous wastes or materials. Future operation of the mixed-use commercial and residential buildings is expected to result in the storage or generation of small amounts of typical household and retail cleaners, paints, lubricants, and small engine fuels over time. The project may include temporary storage of fuel for construction equipment, which will be conducted in accordance with local and state regulations. The MXD35 subpart is shown with a small convenience store and gas station; however, the size is not official and therefore the amount of underground storage tanks is assumed. The average gas station includes four underground storage tanks for fuel of 10,000-20,000 gallons each. The size, location, and protection of each of these tanks would be evaluated at the time of building permit and construction. These underground storage tanks would follow all required procedures of the MPCA and the U.S. EPA for any spill prevention through proper maintenance registration, proper labeling and cleaning, and prevention of water from entering the tanks. d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling Normal construction and household and commercial hazardous wastes are anticipated. Toxic or hazardous materials such as fuel for construction equipment and materials used in the construction of the mixed-use buildings (paint, adhesives, stains, contaminated rags, acids, bases, herbicides, and pesticides) will likely be used during site preparation and building construction. Spills of these materials are not likely to occur, but a substantial spill could require notification of the Minnesota Duty Officer. Contractors and builders will be responsible for proper management and disposal of wastes generated during construction. Homeowners will be responsible for management and disposal of hazardous waste thereafter. Homeowners will be able to dispose of household hazardous waste at the Wright County Household Hazardous Waste Facility. 14. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. The Project site is located within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (222), the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section (222M), and the Big Woods Subsection (222Mb) as defined by the MnDNR.16 The Big Woods subsection consisted largely of oak woodland and maple-basswood forest, and over 75% of the subsection is covered in cropland. An additional 5-10% is for pasture while the rest falls under upland forest or wetlands. The land cover within the Project was reviewed and is described in Item 8 and Table 3. Appendix A, Figure 6 illustrates the land cover types within the Project site based on geospatial data and high-quality public aerial imagery. 16 MnDNR, undated(a). Field Guide to Native Plant Communities of Minnesota – The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222/index.html. Accessed May 2026. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 29 The mixed forest, brush/grassland, cropland, wetlands, and ponds may provide nesting, foraging, and/or travel habitat for a variety of urban wildlife species, including passerine birds, raptors, squirrels, rabbits, deer, coyotes, foxes, and other small mammals. Suitable roosting habitat for bats may be present within the limited forested areas. Wetlands and ponds within the project site may also provide habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic species, such as turtles, fish, frogs, salamanders, and toads. b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA- ) and/or correspondence number (MCE ) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage Review letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. A formal NHIS review request (MCE #2026-00451) was submitted to the MnDNR through the Minnesota Conservation Explore (MCE) system and a final letter was received on July 8, 2026. This letter lists some state-listed species that may be impacted by this Project with suggestions for how to mitigate any potential impacts. This letter is available to view in Appendix C. The NHIS review indicated two main concerns related to state-listed species. This includes protentional for bat roosting in the trees near the Project and a state-listed mussels that is documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Project. As recommended by the letter, any incidental sightings of the species and other possible threatened or endangered species will be reported to the DNR following the standard procedures. Additionally, the NHIS review letter request species items to help protect the listed species. This includes avoiding tree removal from June 1 to August 15 for the bats that may be possible in this area. For the mussels in the Mississippi River, effective stormwater management and erosion control systems will be in place during construction and the entire of the project to help prevent run-off and pollution to the Mississippi River pursuant to local and state controls and recommendations. This is essential for any development project, and we understand the close vicinity of the Project to the Mississippi River requires additional review and scrutiny of all stormwater management during the lifetime of the Project. The NHIS review letter recommended a review of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website to ensure compliance with any federal laws and regulations. The IPaC generated species list letter found in Appendix C identified threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may potentially be affected by activities at the Project site. These species are shown on Table 14. The IPaC letter noted that there are no critical habitats within the Project site. Table 14. USFWS IPaC Listed Species Common Name Scientific Name Status Whooping Crane Grus americana Essential Population Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Proposed Threatened Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis Proposed Threatened Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 30 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) considers the Monarch Butterfly as a candidate species under consideration for official listing. During the breeding season, when Monarch butterflies are typically present in Minnesota, the butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.). In the fall monarchs begin migrating to their respective overwintering sites. The Western Regal Fritillary follows a similar pattern in migration and breeding as the Monarch butterfly. No identified critical habitats are in or near the location for either of the species. The whooping crane is a migratory bird species with an experimental population in Wisconsin. The project site does not contain prairie or coniferous forest habitat preferred by the whooping crane for nesting and breeding. Any sighting of the whooping crane within the project site would likely be from the experimental population in Wisconsin. This population however, is not federally regulated. In addition, the USFWS IPaC review mentions 12 different migratory birds that are likely to be present or impacted from construction activities in the area. These are found on Table 15. Table 15. USFWS IPaC Migratory Birds Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Season Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Dec 1 to Aug 31 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus May 15 to Oct 10 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis May 20 to Aug 10 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Mar 15 to Aug 25 Gold-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera May 1 to Jul 20 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus Jun 1 to Aug 20 Henslow’s Sparrow Centronyx henslowii May 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Breeds Elsewhere Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus May 10 to Sept 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds Elsewhere Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Breeds Elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina May 10 to Aug 31 c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project including how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. The Project may affect the number and type of wildlife species in the area, but changes in wildlife abundance are not expected to be regionally significant. The existing cropland and woodland provide wildlife food and cover. Some wildlife species that depend on agricultural cropland and woodland will be displaced by the project. The project will likely have short-term negative effects and long-term positive effects on species adapted to suburban habitats. Non-migratory species with small home ranges, like small mammals, may experience adverse effects such as displacement and mortality during project construction. The Project is unlikely to adversely affect butterfly species that may occur in the area as the habitat currently on the site is generally unsuitable. These insects prefer fields and parks where milkweed and native flowering plants are common. The existing land consists of cropland and wooded areas that lack this type of vegetation and frass types. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 31 Project construction is not expected to increase the potential for spread of invasive and weedy species as much of the project site has been agricultural fields for decades. BMPs to mitigate the spread of invasive species may include the cleaning of construction equipment before transport, which might reduce the potential spread of invasive species. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, ecosystems, and sensitive ecological resources. Any sightings of identified species above or other potentially protected species will be documented according to the law and reported as such. Measures to protect wetlands and natural vegetation where possible are also included as part of the landscaping and buffer plan on the site. Additional measures to mitigate potential effects to all butterfly species identified above include considering the revegetation of disturbed areas, storm water ponds and landscape areas that are not turf grass with native prairie and wildflower seed mixes. 15. Historic properties: Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey was completed for the Project and is found in Appendix F. The Phase I survey included a background literature review within and surrounding the proposed Project area along with a targeted archaeological field survey. The proposed Project area is approximately 137.8 acres in size, however, only 100 acres of the area will be subject to development and an assessment of archaeological potential found that approximately 79 acres of the Project area contain a high potential for cultural resources. Therefore, this survey was focused on the approximate 79-acre Survey Area within the Project area. During the field survey, a total of 79 acres of the 100-acre development area within the 137.7-acre Project area were subject to a targeted Phase I archaeological survey for the Project. A portion of one archaeological site (21WRbn) that overlaps with a portion of the Project Area was revisited. During the archaeological investigation for the proposed Project, no archaeological resources 50 years old or older were observed or recovered within the Project area. The resource may exist within the mapped alpha site boundary but not within the current Project area. Based on the research completed and the results of the archaeological survey, the resource associated with the alpha site does not occur within the Project area and the portion of site 21WRbn that overlaps with the Project area is not part of the overall alpha site. Since the resource associated with the alpha site recording is not within the Project area, the alpha site will not be affected by the Project, and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. No Phase I archaeological survey took place within the remaining 58.7 acres of the development area within Project area, as there is a low potential for the undertaking to impact cultural resources in these areas. The Phase I study declared a finding of No Historic Properties Affected within the Project area and no further archaeological work is recommended for the Project. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 32 16. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The current land use on the Project site and adjacent properties is similar to the intensity or use of the proposed project. The RES100 subpart is surrounded by subdivision of single-family home development in all directions. The MXD35 subpart is surrounded by high traffic volume roads and is bordered by Trunk Highway 101 on the west. There are no designated scenic views or vistas present in the vicinity of the Project site. The primary visual impact would be the transition of views from undeveloped agriculture to a new suburban neighborhood, stormwater ponds, high density housing and commercial development. The Project site will not include industries that would emit vapor plumes. Wetland and lake impacts and tree removal would be minimized to the extent possible and additional vegetative screening may be added, where appropriate. The Project design is to help provide a natural transition from the highway to the rural areas beyond the Project to the south and west. 17. Air: a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. The proposed Project will not include heavy industrial facilities, but the Project will involve some stationary source air emissions. New residences are expected to include heating and cooling systems operated by natural gas and electricity, which will result in direct or indirect sources of stationary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions found in Item 18. Emissions from heating and cooling systems are expected to be similar to those from other homes in the surrounding area. A full inventory of potential electric and natural gas equipment to be installed as part of future development within the Project site is not known at this time. Under Conditionally Insignificant Activities and Conditionally Exempt Stationary Sources per Minnesota Rules Part 7007.1300, sources such as oil or natural gas- powered appliances/equipment, heating and cooling systems, fertilizer use or the underground storage tanks for the potential gas station on the MXD35 subpart are exempt. b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The proposed Project will generate increased traffic in the area, which will result in a relatively small corresponding increase in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other vehicle-related air emissions. The existing site already features a high traffic volume roadway that will remain relatively unaffected for level of service and wait time, as identified in the Traffic Study found in Appendix F. The project does not include air quality monitoring or modeling. Criteria pollutants identified by the U.S. EPA are ozone, PM, CO, NO2, lead, and SO2. The project is not located in any nonattainment or maintenance area for any of the criteria pollutants. Item 18 is sufficient analysis for the Project. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 33 c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 17a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. The Project is not expected to generate dust or odors at levels considered unusual for suburban development construction practices. Dust and odors produced during construction are expected to be consistent with applicable regulations of the MPCA and local governments. Dust and odor levels are expected to be slightly higher during project construction than post-construction. The construction process is expected to generate some fugitive dust, but dust is not expected to be generated in objectionable quantities. The dust receptors near the project site include a suburban neighborhood to the east, agricultural use to the north, and industrial/office uses to the west and south. Odors routinely generated during construction will be typical of those associated with construction activity, such as exhaust from diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment. Consideration will be given to suppression of airborne dust by application of water if fugitive dust generation during site grading exceeds levels typically expected during normal construction practices. After construction is complete, dust levels will be minimal since all surfaces would be paved or revegetated. Normal residential dust generation is expected post-construction for day- to-day operations. With these mitigation measures in place, the quality of life for nearby residences is not anticipated to be affected. 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint: a. GHG Quantification: For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. The GHG emissions for the Project were calculated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator (V.1.2, March, 2026) tool and are based on the methodologies for developing a carbon footprint described in Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB’s) EAW Guidance. The GHG model can be found in Appendix D. Table 16. Summary Green House Gas Emissions Phase Cumulative CO2e Emissions Annualized CO2e Emissions Construction 2,999.89 58.82 Employee commuting 457.34 8.97 Construction equipment 2,534.78 49.70 Land use change (construction) 7.77 0.15 Operation 222,807.55 4,368.78 Building energy consumption 70,628.03 1,384.86 HFC leakage 3,152.05 61.80 On-road vehicles 125,524.44 2,461.26 Treatment of waste off-site 23,503.03 460.84 Total 225,807.43 4,427.60 Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 34 The projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and include a best estimate of average annual emissions over the life of the proposed project. Estimates are summarized in Tables 16 by source type. The specific calculations and assumptions used are found in the model. b. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. The following possible activities may be considered to help mitigate the proposed development scenarios’ GHG emissions: • Keeping as many existing trees as possible. • Proposed development within the project site would plant over 750 new trees and 1,000 new shrubs. • Energy-efficient lighting in buildings and parking lots. • Use of low carbon and energy-efficient building materials. • Installation of energy-efficient windows and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. • Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure • Installation of low-flow fixtures and water efficient operations. • Use of renewable energy sources. • Others as needed ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. Reducing energy usage from energy-efficient lighting and building materials would reduce the GHG emissions from the proposed project. This is typical of new developments of this size and scale. Any development from this project will follow all applicable government standards from all applicable regulatory agencies as required. This includes any further mitigation strategies if they are required. iii. Quantify the proposed projects predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons/#of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals. The lifetime for the proposed development scenarios is estimated at 50 years. Thus, the conservative estimates of lifetime emissions associated with the proposed development scenarios are approximately 225,807 tons for the project. The proposed development scenarios’ GHG emissions would have minimal effect on the State of Minnesota’s or the local area’s GHG reduction goals. The State of Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act and related climate policies have established a goal to reduce all GHG emissions at a net zero on all emissions by 2050. This Project generates most of its emission from building energy consumption and on road vehicles and would have minimal effect on the State of Minnesota’s or the local area’s GHG reduction goals. However, when accounted with the growing population and demand for more housing in the entire state, the impact still adds to the overall increase in emissions. As suggested in the previous section, mitigation strategies will be implemented where possible, and as the developments are proposed and entitled. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 35 The overall energy grid is expected to reduce overall emissions as more renewable resources are installed, and this mixed with the proposed items above will contribute to the long-term goal of net zero emissions by 2050. 19. Noise: Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. 1) Existing noise levels/sources in the area Existing sources of noise include traffic noise from surrounding roadways. Trunk Highway 101 is along the eastern border of the site adjacent to the MXD35 subpart, and associated frontage roads and collectors such as Quam Avenue, Quaday Ave, and River Road Northeast (CSAH 42) frame MXD35 as large volume roadways. Some existing noise is generated from surrounding uses such as the residential neighborhood to the north, south, and west. 2) Nearby sensitive receptors Nearby sensitive receptors include existing residential neighborhoods to the Project site. 3) Conformance to State noise standards The State of Minnesota’s noise rules (Minn. Rules Ch. 7030) establish noise limits by noise area classifications (NACs) based on land use at the location of the person that hears noise. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate operational noise that would exceed state noise standards. The Project is expected to minimize disturbances caused by construction noise and conform to Minnesota noise rules and standards. These rules require noise to stay within specified levels depending on the land use and the time of day or night. 4) Quality of life It is anticipated that local noise levels will temporarily increase during project construction, but noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels after construction is complete. Noise levels on and adjacent to the project site will vary considerably during construction, depending on the amount of construction that occurs simultaneously, the time of operation, and the distance between construction equipment and receptors. Noise generated by construction equipment and building construction will be limited to the hours of 7 am to 7pm Monday through Friday, and 8 am to 5 pm on Saturday as identified in by the Otsego Engineering Manual. Contractors will be required to minimize noise impacts by maintaining equipment properly, including the use of mufflers and other noise controls as specified by manufacturers. Additional traffic added to surrounding roadways is not expected to generate noise to a degree with would exceed noise standards or diminish quality of life for people living or working nearby. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 36 20. Transportation: a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. A Transportation Study was completed for the Project and is found in Appendix F. Information from that study has been incorporated into this section of the EAW. Currently, there are no existing parking spaces as the land is vacant. The proposed Project will have around 1,000 parking spaces, with a mix of surface and underground spaces included with the multi-family apartment buildings. Table 17 below shows the estimated daily trips, peak traffic times, and is based on the assumed uses for the Project. This table also accounts for assumptions made regarding multi-modal transportation options given the project’s connection to and extension of multi-use trails, and the transfer of existing traffic to other local roads once the new street network is completed. Table 17. Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary Land Use (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Residential - Apartments (221) 390 units 34 114 95 53 1,740 Residential - Single-Family (210) 84 units 16 43 48 30 764 Residential - Townhomes (215) 24 units 3 8 7 5 158 Commercial – Shopping Plaza (821) 49,100 SF 104 70 206 215 4,980 Gasoline / Service Station (945) 20 FP 232 232 211 211 4,068 Subtotal 389 467 567 514 11,710 Multi-use / Modal Reduction (15%) (-58) (-70) (-85) (-77) (-1,756) Total Proposed Development Site Trips 331 397 482 437 9,954 Pass-by / Diverted-Link Reduction (25%) (-60) (-60) (-50) (-50) (-1,000) Net New System Proposed Development Trips 271 337 432 387 8,954 b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance, A full analysis of the existing system and the proposed Project site improvements was done that utilized information on crashes, level of service, traffic counts, and additional regional analysis. This Traffic Study found that at peak AM and PM hours, the overall level of service will remain unaffected by the project but did offer recommendations to accomplish this. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 37 The overall findings are as follows: a. The northbound left-turn movement from Quaday Avenue to River Road (CSAH 42) will begin to become more challenging under build conditions, particularly during the p.m. peak hour; 95th percentile queues for this movement are expected to extend approximately 125 feet. b. All other intersection delays are expected to increase by approximately one (1) to four (4) seconds, except for the eastbound 78th Street approach at Quam Avenue; the eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS C with peak queues ranging from 110 to 140 feet. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. While the above measures are recommended to maintain traffic circulation and safety, additional mitigation recommendations were made in the Traffic Study, and the following will be explored at time of construction regarding feasibility and project timeline: a. River Road (CSAH 42) and Quaday Avenue - convert the westbound bypass lane to a dedicated left-turn lane configuration and preserve the ability to install a future traffic signal or roundabout if / when operations, safety, or development north of River Road (CSAH 42) indicate the need. b. Quam Avenue and 78th Street - restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane and provide an eastbound right- turn lane. c. Quam Avenue and 72nd Street - restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane. d. Quaday Avenue and Pinnacle Avenue / Site Access - restripe Quaday Avenue to provide southbound and northbound left-turn lanes. Finally, the Traffic Study offered additional safety and traffic suggestions that provide no additional operational benefits but do indicate best practices. These will be considered at time of development and include the following: a. Relocate or eliminate the site access to River Road (CSAH 42) to limit potential conflicts and align with access spacing guidelines and best practices; the operations analysis indicates there is not a significant operational need or benefit of this access, although there are existing access rights and benefits from a developer and site marketability perspective. i. If access to River Road (CSAH 42) is permitted, this access should be either a right-in / right-out or right-in only configuration and located about midway between Quaday Avenue and Quam Avenue; an eastbound right-turn lane should also be included for this access. b. Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 150 feet away from other driveways and public roadways. In particular, the westernmost driveways near Quaday Avenue should be removed to reduce potential conflicts; the western apartment access along 78th Street could be relocated across from one of the two commercial driveways. c. Review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. d. Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 38 e. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. f. Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. In particular, a trail along the east side of Quaday Avenue and west side of Quam Avenue within the project limits should be provided. Other multimodal facilities should be coordinated between the project team and area agencies. 21. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases starting with Phase 1 in the fall of 2026. Phase 1 would include construction of the RES100 subpart and adjacent roadways and is expected to be completed by the summer of 2027. Phase 2 would include construction of the MXD35 and adjacent roadways and is expected to begin in the summer of 2027. The construction timeline is subject to change and would ultimately be driven by market demand. At least some other projects are expected to develop in the Otsego area in the next five years and coincide with the development of the Project site. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. The City of Otsego is not aware of other developments planned or proposed in the vicinity of the Project in the foreseeable future. The City of Otsego will consider the timing and staging of specific development proposals within the context of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan and official controls at the time that such proposals are brought forward. It is currently uncertain what specific land use proposals will arise at what time. Over time, it is likely that much of Otsego may develop into a combination of residential, commercial, and public uses. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. Potential impacts that were considered as part of the cumulative potential effects evaluation include water resources, wetlands, public-infrastructure, loss of agricultural land, and transportation. The potential for cumulative effects varies with the type of resource affected and the geographic area of impact. Potential cumulative effects on public infrastructure relate to municipal water supply systems, sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment systems, stormwater management systems, and traffic and transportation systems. The City of Otsego has planned for continued growth and expanded infrastructure system capacity to address these effects and serve anticipated future projects. The City of Otsego will consider the timing and staging of other development proposals within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and related development regulation tools. Cumulative effects on public infrastructure are not expected to be significant. Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW | 39 Potential cumulative effects of known and anticipated future projects on natural resources depend on the type, density, and location of future developments. Effects on natural resources such as wetlands and wildlife habitat vary with project location and biological diversity. project effects on natural resources may combine with effects of nearby concurrent projects to result in subtle local cumulative effects, such as habitat fragmentation. Requirements for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control are expected to minimize cumulative effects of post-development runoff on downstream waters. Policies and regulations of the City of Otsego, and other government agencies require the stormwater mitigation measures discussed in this EAW. These mitigation measures will minimize potential cumulative effects on the environment. The Project would convert existing agricultural land to a development. Planned development in surrounding areas may also convert agricultural land to other land uses. The City of Otsego guides development through the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development official controls. The Project is consistent with the City’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Project area and adjacent properties for development. The City of Otsego through its 2023 Comprehensive Plan and official controls, regulates future development and can protect agricultural land from future development as appropriate. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to agricultural land are not anticipated. The Project will contribute to and be affected by cumulative effects related to climate change. In Minnesota, climate change has caused increased extreme heat and precipitation events, flooding, annual precipitation, and growing season days. Climate change impacts are incremental and cumulative in nature. Just as the project will be impacted by climate change, the project will also make an incremental contribution to climate change impacts through the emission of greenhouse gases. 22. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No other potential environmental effects are anticipated that are not addressed by Items 1 through 21. Appendix A Figures Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Wright County Location Map QUADAY AVENUE EAW Figure 1 • 08.11.2026 Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. USGS 7.5 MinuteTopo Map QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 2 • 08.11.2026 ST SS 859859 859 859 86 0 86 0 860 860 860 860 860 86 0 860 860861861 861861861861861861861861 861861861861 861861861 861861861861861861 861861 861 861 861 861861861861 861 861 862862862862862862862862 862862 862862 862862 862 862862 862862862862862862 86286286286286 2 862 862 862 862862862862862862 862862 862862 86 2 862862862862863 863863 863 863863 863 863863863863 863863863863863 863 863 863863 863863 863863863 863 863 863863863863863863 86 3 863 863863863863863863863863863 863863 863 86386386 3 863863863863864864 864864 864 864864864864 864864864864864 864864 864 864864 86486486 4864 864864 864864 864864 864864 864 864864864864864 864864864864 864864 86 4 86486486486486 4 864 864864864864864 864 864 864 86486486486486486486486486 4 864 864864864864 864 864 865865 86 5 865 865865 865 865865 865 865865865 865 865 865865 865 865 865 865 865 865865865 865 865 865865865 865 86586586586586 5 865865 86 5 865865 865865865 865865865865865865865865865 865865865 86586586 5 86 5 865865 865 865 865865865 865865 865 865865865865865865865865866 86686686686 6866866866 866 866 866866866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866866 866 866 866 866866 866866866 866866866 866866 866866866866 866866866 866 866 866866866866866 86 6 866 866 866 86 6 866866 866866866 866 866866866 866 86 6 866 866 866866866866866866866866866866866866866867867867 867867 867 867867 867867 867867867 867 867867867867867867867 867867867 867 867 867 86786 7 867 867 867867867 867 867 867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867867867 867 867867867 867 867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867867867868 868 868868 86886 8 86 8 868 868868 868 86 8 868868868868 868868868868868 868868 868868868868 868 868 868868868 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 868868868868868868868 868 868 868 868 868 868868868 868 868868868868 868868868 868 868868 868 868 868 868 868868 868868 868 86886886886886886886 8 86886 8868 868 868 868 868868 868 86886 8 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 869 869 869 869869869869869869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869869869869 869 869 869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869 869869 869 86986 9 869869869869869869869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869869869869 869 869869 86986986 9 869869 869869869 869869869869869869869 869 869 869 869869 869869869 869 86 9 869 869 869869 869869869869869869 87087087 0 870870870 870870870870870 870870 870870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870870870 87 0 87 0 870 870 870870870 870 870 870 870 870 87087 0 870870 870870870870870870870 870870 87087 0 870 870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870 870 870870 870870870 870 870 870 87087087 0 87 0 87087 0 870 87 0 87 0 870870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870870 870870 870870871 871 871871 871 871 871 871871 871871871 871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871 87187 1 871 87187187187 1871 871871 871 87187187 1 87 1871 871 871 871 871 871871 871 871871871 871 871871871871871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871871871871 871 871 871 871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871871 871871871 871 871871871871871871 871 871871 871871871 871871871871 87 1 87187187187187187187 1 872872 872 872 872872872 872872 87287 2 87 2 872 872872872 87287287287 2 872 872 872 87 2872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872872 872 872872872872872872872 872 87287287287287287 2 872872872 872 872872 872872872872 872872 872872872872872872872872872872 872872872 872872872 87287 2 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 87 2 872 872872872 872 872872872872872872 872 87287287287287 2 872 872 87287287 2 872 87287287 2 87287287287287287287287287 2 872872873873 873 873873 873 87387387 3873873873873873873873873873873 873 873873873873 873 873 873873873 87 3 873873873 873 873 87 3 873 87 3 873873 873 87 3 873873 873873 873 873 873873873873873873873873873873873873873 873 873 873 873 873 873873873873873 87387 3873873 873 873 873873873 873 87387387387 3 87 3 87 3 873873873873 873 873 873873 873 873 873 873873 874874874874874 874 874874 874 874874 87 4 874874874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874 874 874 874 87 4 874874874874 874874 87487487487487487487487487487 4 87 4 87487487 4 874874 874 874874874 874 874874 87 4 874 874874 874 874 87 4 874 87 4 87487 4874874874874 874 874 874 87 4874874 87 4 874 874874874 874874874 874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874 874874 874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874874874874 874874 874874 874 875875875875875 87587587587 5875 875875875 875 875875875 875 875875875875875875875 875 87587 5875875 875 875 875875875 875 875 87 5 87 5 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 87 5875875875875875875 875 875875 875 875875875875 875875875875 875875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 875 875875875875 875 875 875 875 87 5875 875 875 875 875875875875875875 875875875 875875 875875875875 87587587 6 876 876876876876 87 6876876 876 876 876 876 876876876 87 6 876876876 876 876876 87 6 876876 876876 876 87687687 687687687687687 6 87 6 87687687687 6 876 87 6 876 87 6876876876 876 87 6 87 6876 876 876876876876 87 6876876876 876876876876876876876876876876876876 876 876876 876 876876876876876 876 876 876876 876 876 87 6876876876876876876876 876876876 876 87687687 6 876 876 876876876 876 87 6 87 7 87 7 877877 877877877877 877 877877 87 7 877 877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877877877 877877877877877877877 877 87787 7 877877877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 87 7 87 7 877 87787 7 877 877 877 877 877 87787 7 87 7 877 87 7877877877877877877 87 7 877 877877 877 877 877 877877877877877 877 877 877 877 87 7 877877 877 877877 87 7 877 87 8 87 8 87887887887887887887 8 87887887887 8 878 878 878 878878878 878878878878878878878 87887887 8 878 878 878 878 878878 87 8 87 8 87887887887 8878878878 87 8 878878878 878878 878 87 8 878 878878878 878878878878 878 878878 878878878 87887887887887887887 8 878 87 9 87 9 879879879879879879879879879879879879879 87 9 879879 87 987987987987987 9 87 9 87987987 9 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879879 87 9 87 9 879879 87 9879879 879879 879 87 9879879879 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879 879879 879879879 879 879879 879 879879879 879879 879 879 879879 879879 879880880880880 88088088 0 880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 88088 0880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880 880 880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880880880 880880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 88088 0 880880 881881 881 88188 1 881881881 881881881881881881881881881 881 881 881 881 881 88 1 881881881881881881 88 1 881881 881881881 881 881 881 881 881 881881 881881881 881 881 88 1881881881881881881 881 881881881 881 881881881881 881 881881881881 88 1 881 881882882882882882 882882882 882882 882882882882 882 882 882882882882882 882882 882882882882882 882 882 882 88288288288288 2 882 882 882882882 882 882882 882 88 2 882882882882 882 882 88 2 882882 882882 882 882 882 882 882882 882882882 882 882 882882882 88288288 3883 883883883883883883883883883883 88 3 883 883 883 883 883883883883883883 883 883 883 883 88 3 88 388388 3 883 883 88 3 883883 883 883 883 883 883883 883 883 883883883883 883 88 3883883 883883883883883883883883883883 883883883883 884 884 884 884 884884884884 884884884884884 88 4 884884 884 88 4 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884884884 884 884 88 4884884884 884 884 884 884 884 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884 88 4 884 884884884884 884884 884 884884 885 885 885 885 885885885 885 885885885 885 885885 885 885885885885885885885885885885885885 885 885 885 885 885885 885 885 885885885 885 885 88 5 885 885886 886 886886886 886886886 886886 886 886 886886 886 886886886886886886886886886886886 886 886886 886886886 886 886 886886886886 886 886 88 6 886 886 887 887 887887887887887887887887887887 887 887 887887 887887887 88788788788788788 7887887887 887 887 887 887887 887887 887 887 887887887887887 887 887 88 7 887 887888 888888888 888888 888 888 88 8888888 888888888888888888888888888888888 888 888888 888 888888888 888888888 888 888 888 888 888 889889 889 889 889889889 88 9889889 889889889889889889889889889889 889 889 889 889889889 889889889 889 88 9 889 889889 889889 890 89089 0 890 89 0 890890 89 0 89089089089089 0890890890890 890 890890890 89 0 890 890 890 890890 890 890890 890 890 89 0 890 890 890 891891 891 89189 1 891 891 891891 891 89 1 891 89189189 1891891891891891891891891891 891 891891 891891 891 891891891 891 89 1 891 891891891 89189 2892 892 892 892 892 89 2 892 892892892 892892 89 2 892 89 2 89289289 2892892892892 892892892 89289 2892 89 2 892 892892 892892 892 892892 892 892 892 892892 892892892 892 893893 893 893893 893893 893 893893893893 89 3 89 3 89 3 89 3 893893893893 893893 893893 89389 3893893893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893894 894894894 894894894894894 894894894 89489 4 894894 894894894894 894894 894894894894894 894 894 894 894 894 894 894 89489 4 894 894 894 89489 4 89 4 894894 895 895895895 895 895895895895 89589589 5 89 5895895895895895895895 895 895 895 895895 895 89589 5 895 895 895 89589 5 89 5 895895896 896896 896 89689689689 6896896896 89 6896 896 896 896 896 896896 896 896896896 896 896 896896 89 6 896896 89789789789 7 89789789789 7897897897 89 7 89 7 897 897897897 897 897 897897 897 897897 897897897 89 7 897897 897 897 898898 898898898 898898898 89889889 8 89 8 898 898 898898898 898 898 898898 898 898 89889889889 8 898 898898 898 898 899899899899899899899899 899 899899899 89989989 9 89 9899899 899899899 899 899899 899 899 89 9 899900900900 90090090 0 90090090 0 90 0 900900 900900900900900 900 900900 900 900 90 0 900901901901 90190190 1 90190190 1 90 1 901901 901901901901901 901901 901901 901 90 1 901 902 902902 902 902 902 90290 290290290 2 902 90 2902 902902902 902 902 902902 902 90 2 902 903903903 903903903 903903 903903 90 3 903903 903 903 903 903903903903903903 903 903 90 3903 904904 904 904904 904 90 4904904 904 904 904 904904904904904904 90 4 904904904905 905 905 905 905 905 90 5905905 905 905 905 905905905905905905 90 5 90 5 906 906 906 906 906 906 90 6906906 906 906 906 906 906906 90 6 906906 90 6906907907 907 907 907907 90 7907907 90 7 907 907 907907907 90 7 907 90 7907907908908908 908908908 90 8908908 90 8 908 908 908908908 90 8 908908 908908909909 909 909909909 90 9 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909910 910 910910 91091 0 91 0910910 910 910910910 91 0 910 910 91091091 0 910 911 911 911 911 91191 1 911911911 911 91191191 1911911 911 91191191 1 911 912 912 912912 912912 912912912 912 912912912 91291 2 912 91 2912913 913 913 913 913913 913913913 913 913913913 91391 3 913913913 914 914 914 914914914 914 914 914914914914914 914914914915915915915915 915915915915 915 915915 915915915915916916916916916 916916916 916 916 916916916916916916917917917917917 917 917917917 91791791791791791 7 917918918918918918918 918 918 918 918918 918918918918918 919919919919 919 919 919 919919919919919919919920920920 920920920920 920 920 920 920920 92092092092 0 921921921921921 921 921921 921921 921 92192 1 92 1 922922 922922922922 922 922 92292292 2 922 922 92292 2 922 923 92 3 92392392392392392 3923 923 923923 923 923 923 92392 3 923 924 924924 92 4 924 924 924 92492 4924 92 4 924925 925 925 925 92 5 925 925925925 925 92 5925926 926 926 926 92 6 926 926 926926 92 6 92 6 926 92 7927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927927927927927927928928 928 92 8 928 928 928928928928929929929929929929 929 929 929929929929929929930930930930930 930 930 930930930931 931 931 931 931 931931931932932932932 932 932932932933 93393393393393 3 934 93493493 4 935935936 93 6 878 878 879 879 880 880 881 881 882 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896897898 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877878879880881882883884885 886 887 888 889 890 89 1 89 2 893 894 895 895895 896 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 859 859 860861862863864 865 866 86 7 868 868 868 868 868869869 869 869869869870870870870 870 870 871 871 871 871 872 872873873873874874 874 87487487487487587587587 5 875 876 87687 6 876 877877 IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I III I III I III I IIII I III I III I II I I II IIII I I IIIIIIIPID 118500271400 78TH STREET NE ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding PERMANENT ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 755125 PERMANENT ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 755127 STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A899925 STREET & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A899926Street & Utility EasementPer Doc. No. A899926QUADAY AVE NE78TH STREET NE PARIS AVENUE NE76TH COURT NE PARELL AVENUE NEPALMGRENPARK CIR. NEPARK AVENUE NEPARQUET AVE. NEPARRISH AVENUE NEPINNACLE AVENUE NE PRAIRIE CREEK CT.74TH ST NE PARRISH AVENUE NE74TH STREET NE QUADAY AVE NEDelineated Wetland 4Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022Delineated Wetland 1 Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company November2022 Delineated Wetland 2 Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022 Delineated Wetland 3Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices Company November2022 Silos G R A V E L B I T U M I N O U SOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE60410 TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH PARQUET AVENUE NEIOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVSTREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A89992520DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A960882 TEMP. DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A960882 (NO EXP. LISTED) GUYGUY ELECELECELECELEC CBL CBLELECELEC E E E E TNH CBL ELEC CBL CBL TNH CBL TNH CBL 4" BIRCH 4" BIRCH CS CBL CBL TB CBL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELEC UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG CBLGUY GUY ELEC CBL CBL CBL HH C CBL CBLCBL FOFOFOFOFOFOG OTVOTV OTVOTV GG UE UE OTV OTV G G UE UE UE UE UEUEXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XX XXX XX X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIAVENEOE OE OE OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEGGGGGGGUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEELECUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE ELEC ELEC UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GG G FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOTV OTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGG G GGGGGGGG G G G GGGGG GG GGGGGGGGGGGGXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XX XX X X X X XX X XXTRUNK HWY 101Delineated WetlandPer Kjolhaug Environmental Services CompanyNovember 2022 DR A I N A G E & U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T P E R D O C . N O . A 1 1 5 3 5 5 2 C. S . A . H . N O . 4 2 QUADAY AVE. RIGHT OF WAYREVOKED PER WRIGHT COUNTYRIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 9 QUADAY AVE NEI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQUAM AVE NEI100STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A899925Delineated Wetland Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember 2022 ELEC ELECELEC UEG SB-112ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.9 SB-105ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-102ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.1 SB-106ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.0 SB-103ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.3 SB-109ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.4 SB-113ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.6 SB-114ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 859.7 SB-115ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.8 SB-101ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.2 SB-104ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.3 SB-110ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 866.3 SB-111 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.4 SB-117ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 895.7 SB-118NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-120ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.95 SB-219ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.0 SB-217ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.7 SB-212ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 849.3 SB-213ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 843.0 SB-209ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.9 SB-207ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 855.4 SB-208ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 857.4 SB-205ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.4 SB-201ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 850.7 SB-202ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.8 SB-210 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 852.4 SB-216 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.5 SB-215ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 860.8 SB-218ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.6 SB-220ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 862.6 SB-204ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.4 SB-214ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.0 TNH TNH TNH SITE BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANTELEV.=877.60 (NGVD29) WATER ELEV.=864.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=864.0 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=862.2 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.6 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.4 NGVD292026-06-09 UNNAMED LAKE 2026-06-09 WATER ELEVATION = 864.0 FTOHWL = 864.3 FT (NGVD29) ACCORDING TO MNDNR OHWL OHWL OHWL 248.81303.63BOULDER RET. WALLTW=894.1BW=883.8 866.0 867.0 868.0869.0869.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 869.0 86 9 . 0 869.0 869.0 868.0868.0 868.0868.0867.0867.0 867.0866.0866.0 86 6 . 0 866 .0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 863.0863.0863.0863.0 863.0863.086 3 . 0 86 0 . 0 86 0 . 0860.0860.0 SB-206ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 854.6 15 15 25 25 25 25 25 101035 101010 20 20 30101030 30 39.9540.00WATER ELEV.=863.1 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.9 NGVD292026-06-09 G R A V E L G R A V E L SB-116ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-119NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-203ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.7 SB-211ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.6 PID 118500274202 ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST ST >>ST >>>>>>>>ST>>ST >>>> >> ST ST >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SS>>>>>>>>>SS>>>>>>>SS>>>>>>SS>>>>>>>> SS >>>>>>>>SS >>>>>>> SS SS SS >>>SS >>>SS >>>>>>>SS >>SS >>>SS>>>>>>SS >>>>>>>>SS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SS SS >>SS SS >>SS>SS SS >>>>>>SS >>>>78th Street NE Quaday Avenue NEHighway 101Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary MXD35 RES100 Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Existing Conditions Map QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 3 • 08.11.2026 NORTH 0 600 1200 ST SS 859859 859 859 86 0 86 0 860 860 860 860 860 86 0 860 860861861 861861861861861861861861 861861861861 861861861 861861861861861861 861861 861 861 861 861861861861 861 861 862862862862862862862862 862862 862862 862862 862 862862 862862862862862862 86286286286286 2 862 862 862 862862862862862862 862862 862862 86 2 862862862862863 863863 863 863863 863 863863863863 863863863863863 863 863 863863 863863 863863863 863 863 863863863863863863 86 3 863 863863863863863863863863863 863863 863 86386386 3 863863863863864864 864864 864 864864864864 864864864864864 864864 864 864864 86486486 4864 864864 864864 864864 864864 864 864864864864864 864864864864 864864 86 4 86486486486486 4 864 864864864864864 864 864 864 86486486486486486486486486 4 864 864864864864 864 864 865865 86 5 865 865865 865 865865 865 865865865 865 865 865865 865 865 865 865 865 865865865 865 865 865865865 865 86586586586586 5 865865 86 5 865865 865865865 865865865865865865865865865 865865865 86586586 5 86 5 865865 865 865 865865865 865865 865 865865865865865865865865866 86686686686 6866866866 866 866 866866866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866866 866 866 866 866866 866866866 866866866 866866 866866866866 866866866 866 866 866866866866866 86 6 866 866 866 86 6 866866 866866866 866 866866866 866 86 6 866 866 866866866866866866866866866866866866866867867867 867867 867 867867 867867 867867867 867 867867867867867867867 867867867 867 867 867 86786 7 867 867 867867867 867 867 867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867867867 867 867867867 867 867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867867867868 868 868868 86886 8 86 8 868 868868 868 86 8 868868868868 868868868868868 868868 868868868868 868 868 868868868 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 868868868868868868868 868 868 868 868 868 868868868 868 868868868868 868868868 868 868868 868 868 868 868 868868 868868 868 86886886886886886886 8 86886 8868 868 868 868 868868 868 86886 8 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 869 869 869 869869869869869869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869869869869 869 869 869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869 869869 869 86986 9 869869869869869869869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869869869869 869 869869 86986986 9 869869 869869869 869869869869869869869 869 869 869 869869 869869869 869 86 9 869 869 869869 869869869869869869 87087087 0 870870870 870870870870870 870870 870870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870870870 87 0 87 0 870 870 870870870 870 870 870 870 870 87087 0 870870 870870870870870870870 870870 87087 0 870 870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870 870 870870 870870870 870 870 870 87087087 0 87 0 87087 0 870 87 0 87 0 870870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870870 870870 870870871 871 871871 871 871 871 871871 871871871 871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871 87187 1 871 87187187187 1871 871871 871 87187187 1 87 1871 871 871 871 871 871871 871 871871871 871 871871871871871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871871871871 871 871 871 871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871871 871871871 871 871871871871871871 871 871871 871871871 871871871871 87 1 87187187187187187187 1 872872 872 872 872872872 872872 87287 2 87 2 872 872872872 87287287287 2 872 872 872 87 2872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872872 872 872872872872872872872 872 87287287287287287 2 872872872 872 872872 872872872872 872872 872872872872872872872872872872 872872872 872872872 87287 2 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 87 2 872 872872872 872 872872872872872872 872 87287287287287 2 872 872 87287287 2 872 87287287 2 87287287287287287287287287 2 872872873873 873 873873 873 87387387 3873873873873873873873873873873 873 873873873873 873 873 873873873 87 3 873873873 873 873 87 3 873 87 3 873873 873 87 3 873873 873873 873 873 873873873873873873873873873873873873873 873 873 873 873 873 873873873873873 87387 3873873 873 873 873873873 873 87387387387 3 87 3 87 3 873873873873 873 873 873873 873 873 873 873873 874874874874874 874 874874 874 874874 87 4 874874874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874 874 874 874 87 4 874874874874 874874 87487487487487487487487487487 4 87 4 87487487 4 874874 874 874874874 874 874874 87 4 874 874874 874 874 87 4 874 87 4 87487 4874874874874 874 874 874 87 4874874 87 4 874 874874874 874874874 874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874 874874 874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874874874874 874874 874874 874 875875875875875 87587587587 5875 875875875 875 875875875 875 875875875875875875875 875 87587 5875875 875 875 875875875 875 875 87 5 87 5 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 87 5875875875875875875 875 875875 875 875875875875 875875875875 875875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 875 875875875875 875 875 875 875 87 5875 875 875 875 875875875875875875 875875875 875875 875875875875 87587587 6 876 876876876876 87 6876876 876 876 876 876 876876876 87 6 876876876 876 876876 87 6 876876 876876 876 87687687 687687687687687 6 87 6 87687687687 6 876 87 6 876 87 6876876876 876 87 6 87 6876 876 876876876876 87 6876876876 876876876876876876876876876876876876 876 876876 876 876876876876876 876 876 876876 876 876 87 6876876876876876876876 876876876 876 87687687 6 876 876 876876876 876 87 6 87 7 87 7 877877 877877877877 877 877877 87 7 877 877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877877877 877877877877877877877 877 87787 7 877877877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 87 7 87 7 877 87787 7 877 877 877 877 877 87787 7 87 7 877 87 7877877877877877877 87 7 877 877877 877 877 877 877877877877877 877 877 877 877 87 7 877877 877 877877 87 7 877 87 8 87 8 87887887887887887887 8 87887887887 8 878 878 878 878878878 878878878878878878878 87887887 8 878 878 878 878 878878 87 8 87 8 87887887887 8878878878 87 8 878878878 878878 878 87 8 878 878878878 878878878878 878 878878 878878878 87887887887887887887 8 878 87 9 87 9 879879879879879879879879879879879879879 87 9 879879 87 987987987987987 9 87 9 87987987 9 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879879 87 9 87 9 879879 87 9879879 879879 879 87 9879879879 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879 879879 879879879 879 879879 879 879879879 879879 879 879 879879 879879 879880880880880 88088088 0 880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 88088 0880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880 880 880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880880880 880880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 88088 0 880880 881881 881 88188 1 881881881 881881881881881881881881881 881 881 881 881 881 88 1 881881881881881881 88 1 881881 881881881 881 881 881 881 881 881881 881881881 881 881 88 1881881881881881881 881 881881881 881 881881881881 881 881881881881 88 1 881 881882882882882882 882882882 882882 882882882882 882 882 882882882882882 882882 882882882882882 882 882 882 88288288288288 2 882 882 882882882 882 882882 882 88 2 882882882882 882 882 88 2 882882 882882 882 882 882 882 882882 882882882 882 882 882882882 88288288 3883 883883883883883883883883883883 88 3 883 883 883 883 883883883883883883 883 883 883 883 88 3 88 388388 3 883 883 88 3 883883 883 883 883 883 883883 883 883 883883883883 883 88 3883883 883883883883883883883883883883 883883883883 884 884 884 884 884884884884 884884884884884 88 4 884884 884 88 4 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884884884 884 884 88 4884884884 884 884 884 884 884 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884 88 4 884 884884884884 884884 884 884884 885 885 885 885 885885885 885 885885885 885 885885 885 885885885885885885885885885885885885 885 885 885 885 885885 885 885 885885885 885 885 88 5 885 885886 886 886886886 886886886 886886 886 886 886886 886 886886886886886886886886886886886 886 886886 886886886 886 886 886886886886 886 886 88 6 886 886 887 887 887887887887887887887887887887 887 887 887887 887887887 88788788788788788 7887887887 887 887 887 887887 887887 887 887 887887887887887 887 887 88 7 887 887888 888888888 888888 888 888 88 8888888 888888888888888888888888888888888 888 888888 888 888888888 888888888 888 888 888 888 888 889889 889 889 889889889 88 9889889 889889889889889889889889889889 889 889 889 889889889 889889889 889 88 9 889 889889 889889 890 89089 0 890 89 0 890890 89 0 89089089089089 0890890890890 890 890890890 89 0 890 890 890 890890 890 890890 890 890 89 0 890 890 890 891891 891 89189 1 891 891 891891 891 89 1 891 89189189 1891891891891891891891891891 891 891891 891891 891 891891891 891 89 1 891 891891891 89189 2892 892 892 892 892 89 2 892 892892892 892892 89 2 892 89 2 89289289 2892892892892 892892892 89289 2892 89 2 892 892892 892892 892 892892 892 892 892 892892 892892892 892 893893 893 893893 893893 893 893893893893 89 3 89 3 89 3 89 3 893893893893 893893 893893 89389 3893893893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893894 894894894 894894894894894 894894894 89489 4 894894 894894894894 894894 894894894894894 894 894 894 894 894 894 894 89489 4 894 894 894 89489 4 89 4 894894 895 895895895 895 895895895895 89589589 5 89 5895895895895895895895 895 895 895 895895 895 89589 5 895 895 895 89589 5 89 5 895895896 896896 896 89689689689 6896896896 89 6896 896 896 896 896 896896 896 896896896 896 896 896896 89 6 896896 89789789789 7 89789789789 7897897897 89 7 89 7 897 897897897 897 897 897897 897 897897 897897897 89 7 897897 897 897 898898 898898898 898898898 89889889 8 89 8 898 898 898898898 898 898 898898 898 898 89889889889 8 898 898898 898 898 899899899899899899899899 899 899899899 89989989 9 89 9899899 899899899 899 899899 899 899 89 9 899900900900 90090090 0 90090090 0 90 0 900900 900900900900900 900 900900 900 900 90 0 900901901901 90190190 1 90190190 1 90 1 901901 901901901901901 901901 901901 901 90 1 901 902 902902 902 902 902 90290 290290290 2 902 90 2902 902902902 902 902 902902 902 90 2 902 903903903 903903903 903903 903903 90 3 903903 903 903 903 903903903903903903 903 903 90 3903 904904 904 904904 904 90 4904904 904 904 904 904904904904904904 90 4 904904904905 905 905 905 905 905 90 5905905 905 905 905 905905905905905905 90 5 90 5 906 906 906 906 906 906 90 6906906 906 906 906 906 906906 90 6 906906 90 6906907907 907 907 907907 90 7907907 90 7 907 907 907907907 90 7 907 90 7907907908908908 908908908 90 8908908 90 8 908 908 908908908 90 8 908908 908908909909 909 909909909 90 9 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909910 910 910910 91091 0 91 0910910 910 910910910 91 0 910 910 91091091 0 910 911 911 911 911 91191 1 911911911 911 91191191 1911911 911 91191191 1 911 912 912 912912 912912 912912912 912 912912912 91291 2 912 91 2912913 913 913 913 913913 913913913 913 913913913 91391 3 913913913 914 914 914 914914914 914 914 914914914914914 914914914915915915915915 915915915915 915 915915 915915915915916916916916916 916916916 916 916 916916916916916916917917917917917 917 917917917 91791791791791791 7 917918918918918918918 918 918 918 918918 918918918918918 919919919919 919 919 919 919919919919919919919920920920 920920920920 920 920 920 920920 92092092092 0 921921921921921 921 921921 921921 921 92192 1 92 1 922922 922922922922 922 922 92292292 2 922 922 92292 2 922 923 92 3 92392392392392392 3923 923 923923 923 923 923 92392 3 923 924 924924 92 4 924 924 924 92492 4924 92 4 924925 925 925 925 92 5 925 925925925 925 92 5925926 926 926 926 92 6 926 926 926926 92 6 92 6 926 92 7927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927927927927927927928928 928 92 8 928 928 928928928928929929929929929929 929 929 929929929929929929930930930930930 930 930 930930930931 931 931 931 931 931931931932932932932 932 932932932933 93393393393393 3 934 93493493 4 935935936 93 6 878 878 879 879 880 880 881 881 882 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896897898 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877878879880881882883884885 886 887 888 889 890 89 1 89 2 893 894 895 895895 896 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 859 859 860861862863864 865 866 86 7 868 868 868 868 868869869 869 869869869870870870870 870 870 871 871 871 871 872 872873873873874874 874 87487487487487587587587 5 875 876 87687 6 876 877877 IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I III I III I III I IIII I III I III I II I I II IIII I I IIIIIIIPID 118500274203 PID 118500274202 PID 118500274104 PID 118500274103PID 11850027410078TH STREET NE ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding PERMANENT ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 755125 PERMANENT ROAD & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 755127 STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A899925 STREET & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A899926Street & Utility EasementPer Doc. No. A899926QUADAY AVE NE78TH STREET NE PARIS AVENUE NE76TH COURT NE PARELL AVENUE NEPALMGRENPARK CIR. NEPARK AVENUE NEPARQUET AVE. NEPARRISH AVENUE NEPINNACLE AVENUE NE PRAIRIE CREEK CT.74TH ST NE PARRISH AVENUE NE74TH STREET NE QUADAY AVE NEDelineated Wetland 4Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022Delineated Wetland 1 Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company November2022 Delineated Wetland 2 Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022 Delineated Wetland 3Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices Company November2022 GILBERT M. DARKENWALD REV TRGILBERT M. DARKENWALD REV TRGILBERT M. DARKENWALD REV TR GILBERT R. DARKENWALD PID 118325001010AKWANWI ELEANOH NDE AGE PID 118325001020JEFFREY ROBERT WHEELER& LUCIA MORAN WHEELER PID 118325001030CORBIN JOHN HORNER PID 118325001040CHERYL ANN STEEN& JOHN DAVID STEEN PID 118325001050WILLIAM HERMAN NELSON& BONNIE DIANNE NELSON PID 118325001060NICOLE HAMSA &TIMOTHY HAMSA PID 118325001070DERICK FONJONG DOH &CLAURIS CHOU KUM PID 118325001080CHRISTOPHER LORENZ &DANA LORENZ PID 118325004250CRAIG WILLIAM ZINTER PID 118297004010MICHAEL WOLLAK &MOLLY l WOLLAK PID 118354000020M/I HOMES OF MPLS/ST PAUL LLC PID 118354000020M/I HOMES OF MPLS/ST PAUL LLC PID 118297004020BOLAN & SARA GLEASON PID 118297004030ERIK HILDEBRAND &DANIELLE HILDEBRAND PID 118297004040EUGENE &CASSANDRA KAGAN PID 118297004050MARK S & JEANIE DINSMORE PID 118297004060JOHN TORGERSON &KAREN TORGERSON PID 118297004070ANOUSACK NORADETH PID 118297004080OELRICH LIVING TRUST PID 118297004090SAMUEL CARLTON &MEGAN CARLTON PID 118297004100BRIAN & PAULAWAMSLEY PID 118280002400JASON & LINDSAYBEBLER PID 118280002390JAMIE R &CALLIE M BROWN PID 118280002380DAVID B &JULIE A EMBRY PID 118280002370DANIEL T MCCLURG PID 118280002360MITCHELL E R WIRKA &KIM L WALLNER PID 118280002350JONATHON ALTENA &CHELSEY ALTENA PID 118280000030IDONA DARKENWALDPID 118280002270MICHAEL A &JULIA M STOCK PID 118280002260KEVIN M &BRITTANY D ESHELMAN PID 118280000010IDONA DARKENWALDPID 118280001180THOMAS &ELLEN WENDOLEK PID 118280001170TIMOTHY T &JENNIFER SHORE PID 118280001160JASON R DAHLKE &MARI K DAHLKE PID 118280001150QUIN &ANNIE BANCALARI PID 118280001140REICHERT LIVING TRUST PID 118280001130DEREK K &MICHELLE L DEROCHER PID 118280001120MICHAEL t &KELLI JO SMITH PID 118280001110CHRISTOPHER J DREVECKY &CHRISTINE E MASON G R A V E L CITY OF OTSEGONO OWNER LISTEDNO OWNER LISTEDPID 118325000010D.R. H O R T ON , I N C MI N NE S O T A OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE60410 TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH PARQUET AVENUE NEIOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVSTREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A89992520DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A960882 TEMP. DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. A960882 (NO EXP. LISTED) GUYGUY ELECELECELECELEC CBL CBLELECELEC E E E E TNH CBL ELEC CBL CBL TNH CBL TNH CBL 4" BIRCH 4" BIRCH CS CBL CBL TB CBL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELEC UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG CBLGUY GUY ELEC CBL CBL CBL HH C CBL CBLCBL FOFOFOFOFOFOG OTVOTV OTVOTV GG UE UE OTV OTV G G UE UE UE UE UEUEXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XX XXX XX X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIAVENEOE OE OE OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEGGGGGGGUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEELECUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE ELEC ELEC UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GG G FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOTV OTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGG G GGGGGGGG G G G GGGGG GG GGGGGGGGGGGGPID 118500263201ELK RIVER ROGERS POST *5518 PID 118500263200ELK RIVER ROGERS POST *5518 PID 1182400031003MnDOT PID 1182400031003MnDOT XXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XX XX X X X X XX X XXTRUNK HWY 101Delineated WetlandPer Kjolhaug Environmental Services CompanyNovember 2022 PID 1182400031003MnDOT PID 118233031003MnDOT DR A I N A G E & U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T P E R D O C . N O . A 1 1 5 3 5 5 2 C. S . A . H . N O . 4 2 QUADAY AVE. RIGHT OF WAYREVOKED PER WRIGHT COUNTYRIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 9 QUADAY AVE NEI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQUAM AVE NEI100STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. A899925PID 1182400031004CITY OF OTSEGO PID 1182400031002CITY OF OTSEGO Delineated Wetland Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember 2022 ELEC ELECELEC UEG SB-112ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.9 SB-105ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-102ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.1 SB-106ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.0 SB-103ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.3 SB-109ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.4 SB-113ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.6 SB-114ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 859.7 SB-115ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.8 SB-101ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.2 SB-104ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.3 SB-110ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 866.3 SB-111 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.4 SB-117ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 895.7 SB-118NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-120ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.95 SB-219ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.0 SB-217ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.7 SB-212ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 849.3 SB-213ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 843.0 SB-209ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.9 SB-207ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 855.4 SB-208ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 857.4 SB-205ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.4 SB-201ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 850.7 SB-202ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.8 SB-210 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 852.4 SB-216 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.5 SB-215ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 860.8 SB-218ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.6 SB-220ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 862.6 SB-204ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.4 SB-214ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.0 TNH TNH TNH SITE BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANTELEV.=877.60 (NGVD29) WATER ELEV.=864.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=864.0 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=862.2 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.6 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.4 NGVD292026-06-09 UNNAMED LAKE 2026-06-09 WATER ELEVATION = 864.0 FTOHWL = 864.3 FT (NGVD29) ACCORDING TO MNDNR OHWL OHWL OHWL 248.81303.63BOULDER RET. WALLTW=894.1BW=883.8 866.0 867.0 868.0869.0869.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 869.0 86 9 . 0 869.0 869.0 868.0868.0 868.0868.0867.0867.0 867.0866.0866.0 86 6 . 0 866 .0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 863.0863.0863.0863.0 863.0863.086 3 . 0 86 0 . 0 86 0 . 0860.0860.0 SB-206ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 854.6 15 15 25 25 25 25 25 101035 101010 20 20 30101030 30 39.9540.00WATER ELEV.=863.1 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.9 NGVD292026-06-09 G R A V E L G R A V E L SB-116ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-119NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-203ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.7 SB-211ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.6 ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>>>ST >>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST ST >>ST >>>>>>>>ST>>ST >>>> >> ST ST >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SS>>>>>>>>>SS>>>>>>>SS>>>>>>SS>>>>>>>> SS >>>>>>>>SS >>>>>>> SS SS SS >>>SS >>>SS >>>>>>>SS >>SS >>>SS>>>>>>SS >>>>>>>>SS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SS SS >>SS SS >>SS>SS SS >>>>>>SS >>>>78th Street NE Quaday Avenue NEHighway 101Wetland / Natural Environment Lake #86-6w BLOCK 5BLOCK 1BLOCK 3 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 3BLOCK 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BLOCK 4 BLOCK 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 20 21 22 23BLOCK 51 2 3 4 7 8 9 BLOCK 71 BLOCK 72345678910 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3BLOCK 8 BL O C K 6 BLOCK 6 OUTLOT A 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 BLOCK 3 OUTLOT B BLOCK 6 1 FUTUR E D E V E L O P M E N T NOT IN P R O J E C T BOUN D A R Y FUTUR E D E V E L O P M E N T NOT IN P R O J E C T BOUND A R Y OUTLOT C OUTLOT B OUTLOT B OUTLOT B OUTLOT DOUTLOT E 1 BLOCK 22 3 OUTLOT B 4 1 2 5 6 11 12 2 1 13 14 15 16 17 CUSTOM GRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLE FLOOR = 871.1 CUSTOMGRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLEFLOOR = 871.1 CUSTOMGRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLE FLOOR = 871.1 CUSTOMGRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLE FLOOR = 869.2 CUSTOMGRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLEFLOOR = 883.0 CUSTOMGRADEDPADLOWEST ALLOWABLEFLOOR = 883.0 17 234 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 OUTLOT F RET WALL RET WALL RET WALL Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Site Plan QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 4 • 08.11.2026 NORTH 0 600 1200 859859 859 859 86 0 86 0 860 860 860 860 860 86 0 860 860861861 861861861861861861861861 861861861861 861861861 861861861861861861 861861 861 861 861 861861861861 861 861 862862862862862862862862 862862 862862 862862 862 862862 862862862862862862 86286286286286 2 862 862 862 862862862862862862 862862 862862 86 2 862862862862863 863863 863 863863 863 863863863863 863863863863863 863 863 863863 863863 863863863 863 863 863863863863863863 86 3 863 863863863863863863863863863 863863 863 86386386 3 863863863863864864 864864 864 864864864864 864864864864864 864864 864 864864 86486486 4864 864864 864864 864864 864864 864 864864864864864 864864864864 864864 86 4 86486486486486 4 864 864864864864864 864 864 864 86486486486486486486486486 4 864 864864864864 864 864 865865 86 5 865 865865 865 865865 865 865865865 865 865 865865 865 865 865 865 865 865865865 865 865 865865865 865 86586586586586 5 865865 86 5 865865 865865865 865865865865865865865865865 865865865 86586586 5 86 5 865865 865 865 865865865 865865 865 865865865865865865865865866 86686686686 6866866866 866 866 866866866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866866 866 866 866 866866 866866866 866866866 866866 866866866866 866866866 866 866 866866866866866 86 6 866 866 866 86 6 866866 866866866 866 866866866 866 86 6 866 866 866866866866866866866866866866866866866867867867 867867 867 867867 867867 867867867 867 867867867867867867867 867867867 867 867 867 86786 7 867 867 867867867 867 867 867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867867867 867 867867867 867 867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867 867867867 867867867867867867868 868 868868 86886 8 86 8 868 868868 868 86 8 868868868868 868868868868868 868868 868868868868 868 868 868868868 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 868868868868868868868 868 868 868 868 868 868868868 868 868868868868 868868868 868 868868 868 868 868 868 868868 868868 868 86886886886886886886 8 86886 8868 868 868 868 868868 868 86886 8 868868 868 868 868 868868868868868 868 868 869 869 869 869869869869869869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869869869869 869 869 869 869 869869869 869 869 869869 869 869869 869 86986 9 869869869869869869869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869869 869 869 869869 869 869 869 869869869869 869 869869 86986986 9 869869 869869869 869869869869869869869 869 869 869 869869 869869869 869 86 9 869 869 869869 869869869869869869 87087087 0 870870870 870870870870870 870870 870870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870870870 87 0 870 870870870 87 0 87 0 870 870 870870870 870 870 870 870 870 87087 0 870870 870870870870870870870 870870 87087 0 870 870 87 0 870 870 870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870 870 870870 870870870 870 870 870 87087087 0 87 0 87087 0 870 87 0 87 0 870870 870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870 870 870870870870 870870 870870871 871 871871 871 871 871 871871 871871871 871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871 87187 1 871 87187187187 1871 871871 871 87187187 1 87 1871 871 871 871 871 871871 871 871871871 871 871871871871871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871871871 871 871871871871 871 871 871 871871 871 871 871871871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871871871 871871871 871 871871871871871871 871 871871 871871871 871871871871 87 1 87187187187187187187 1 872872 872 872 872872872 872872 87287 2 87 2 872 872872872 87287287287 2 872 872 872 87 2872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872872 872 872872872872872872872 872 87287287287287287 2 872872872 872 872872 872872872872 872872 872872872872872872872872872872 872872872 872872872 87287 2 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 87 2 872 872872872 872 872872872872872872 872 87287287287287 2 872 872 87287287 2 872 87287287 2 87287287287287287287287287 2 872872873873 873 873873 873 87387387 3873873873873873873873873873873 873 873873873873 873 873 873873873 87 3 873873873 873 873 87 3 873 87 3 873873 873 87 3 873873 873873 873 873 873873873873873873873873873873873873873 873 873 873 873 873 873873873873873 87387 3873873 873 873 873873873 873 87387387387 3 87 3 87 3 873873873873 873 873 873873 873 873 873 873873 874874874874874 874 874874 874 874874 87 4 874874874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874 874 874 874 87 4 874874874874 874874 87487487487487487487487487487 4 87 4 87487487 4 874874 874 874874874 874 874874 87 4 874 874874 874 874 87 4 874 87 4 87487 4874874874874 874 874 874 87 4874874 87 4 874 874874874 874874874 874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874 874874 874874 874874 874 874 874 874874874874874874874 874874 874874 874 875875875875875 87587587587 5875 875875875 875 875875875 875 875875875875875875875 875 87587 5875875 875 875 875875875 875 875 87 5 87 5 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 87 5 875 875 875 87 5875875875875875875 875 875875 875 875875875875 875875875875 875875 875 87 5 875 875 875 875 875 875 875 875875875875 875 875 875 875 87 5875 875 875 875 875875875875875875 875875875 875875 875875875875 87587587 6 876 876876876876 87 6876876 876 876 876 876 876876876 87 6 876876876 876 876876 87 6 876876 876876 876 87687687 687687687687687 6 87 6 87687687687 6 876 87 6 876 87 6876876876 876 87 6 87 6876 876 876876876876 87 6876876876 876876876876876876876876876876876876 876 876876 876 876876876876876 876 876 876876 876 876 87 6876876876876876876876 876876876 876 87687687 6 876 876 876876876 876 87 6 87 7 87 7 877877 877877877877 877 877877 87 7 877 877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877 877877877 877877877877877877877 877 87787 7 877877877 877877 877 877 877 877 877 877 87 7 87 7 877 87787 7 877 877 877 877 877 87787 7 87 7 877 87 7877877877877877877 87 7 877 877877 877 877 877 877877877877877 877 877 877 877 87 7 877877 877 877877 87 7 877 87 8 87 8 87887887887887887887 8 87887887887 8 878 878 878 878878878 878878878878878878878 87887887 8 878 878 878 878 878878 87 8 87 8 87887887887 8878878878 87 8 878878878 878878 878 87 8 878 878878878 878878878878 878 878878 878878878 87887887887887887887 8 878 87 9 87 9 879879879879879879879879879879879879879 87 9 879879 87 987987987987987 9 87 9 87987987 9 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879879 87 9 87 9 879879 87 9879879 879879 879 87 9879879879 879 879879879879 879 879 879 879 879879 879879879 879 879879 879 879879879 879879 879 879 879879 879879 879880880880880 88088088 0 880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 88088 0880880880880880880880880880880 880 88 0880880880 880 880880880880 880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 880 880 880 880 880880 880880880880880 880880 880 880 880 880880 880880880 88088 0 880880 881881 881 88188 1 881881881 881881881881881881881881881 881 881 881 881 881 88 1 881881881881881881 88 1 881881 881881881 881 881 881 881 881 881881 881881881 881 881 88 1881881881881881881 881 881881881 881 881881881881 881 881881881881 88 1 881 881882882882882882 882882882 882882 882882882882 882 882 882882882882882 882882 882882882882882 882 882 882 88288288288288 2 882 882 882882882 882 882882 882 88 2 882882882882 882 882 88 2 882882 882882 882 882 882 882 882882 882882882 882 882 882882882 88288288 3883 883883883883883883883883883883 88 3 883 883 883 883 883883883883883883 883 883 883 883 88 3 88 388388 3 883 883 88 3 883883 883 883 883 883 883883 883 883 883883883883 883 88 3883883 883883883883883883883883883883 883883883883 884 884 884 884 884884884884 884884884884884 88 4 884884 884 88 4 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884884884 884 884 88 4884884884 884 884 884 884 884 884884884 884 884 884884 884 884 88 4 884 884884884884 884884 884 884884 885 885 885 885 885885885 885 885885885 885 885885 885 885885885885885885885885885885885885 885 885 885 885 885885 885 885 885885885 885 885 88 5 885 885886 886 886886886 886886886 886886 886 886 886886 886 886886886886886886886886886886886 886 886886 886886886 886 886 886886886886 886 886 88 6 886 886 887 887 887887887887887887887887887887 887 887 887887 887887887 88788788788788788 7887887887 887 887 887 887887 887887 887 887 887887887887887 887 887 88 7 887 887888 888888888 888888 888 888 88 8888888 888888888888888888888888888888888 888 888888 888 888888888 888888888 888 888 888 888 888 889889 889 889 889889889 88 9889889 889889889889889889889889889889 889 889 889 889889889 889889889 889 88 9 889 889889 889889 890 89089 0 890 89 0 890890 89 0 89089089089089 0890890890890 890 890890890 89 0 890 890 890 890890 890 890890 890 890 89 0 890 890 890 891891 891 89189 1 891 891 891891 891 89 1 891 89189189 1891891891891891891891891891 891 891891 891891 891 891891891 891 89 1 891 891891891 89189 2892 892 892 892 892 89 2 892 892892892 892892 89 2 892 89 2 89289289 2892892892892 892892892 89289 2892 89 2 892 892892 892892 892 892892 892 892 892 892892 892892892 892 893893 893 893893 893893 893 893893893893 89 3 89 3 89 3 89 3 893893893893 893893 893893 89389 3893893893 893 893 893 893 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893 893 89389 3 893 893894 894894894 894894894894894 894894894 89489 4 894894 894894894894 894894 894894894894894 894 894 894 894 894 894 894 89489 4 894 894 894 89489 4 89 4 894894 895 895895895 895 895895895895 89589589 5 89 5895895895895895895895 895 895 895 895895 895 89589 5 895 895 895 89589 5 89 5 895895896 896896 896 89689689689 6896896896 89 6896 896 896 896 896 896896 896 896896896 896 896 896896 89 6 896896 89789789789 7 89789789789 7897897897 89 7 89 7 897 897897897 897 897 897897 897 897897 897897897 89 7 897897 897 897 898898 898898898 898898898 89889889 8 89 8 898 898 898898898 898 898 898898 898 898 89889889889 8 898 898898 898 898 899899899899899899899899 899 899899899 89989989 9 89 9899899 899899899 899 899899 899 899 89 9 899900900900 90090090 0 90090090 0 90 0 900900 900900900900900 900 900900 900 900 90 0 900901901901 90190190 1 90190190 1 90 1 901901 901901901901901 901901 901901 901 90 1 901 902 902902 902 902 902 90290 290290290 2 902 90 2902 902902902 902 902 902902 902 90 2 902 903903903 903903903 903903 903903 90 3 903903 903 903 903 903903903903903903 903 903 90 3903 904904 904 904904 904 90 4904904 904 904 904 904904904904904904 90 4 904904904905 905 905 905 905 905 90 5905905 905 905 905 905905905905905905 90 5 90 5 906 906 906 906 906 906 90 6906906 906 906 906 906 906906 90 6 906906 90 6906907907 907 907 907907 90 7907907 90 7 907 907 907907907 90 7 907 90 7907907908908908 908908908 90 8908908 90 8 908 908 908908908 90 8 908908 908908909909 909 909909909 90 9 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909909 90 9 909 909 909 909910 910 910910 91091 0 91 0910910 910 910910910 91 0 910 910 91091091 0 910 911 911 911 911 91191 1 911911911 911 91191191 1911911 911 91191191 1 911 912 912 912912 912912 912912912 912 912912912 91291 2 912 91 2912913 913 913 913 913913 913913913 913 913913913 91391 3 913913913 914 914 914 914914914 914 914 914914914914914 914914914915915915915915 915915915915 915 915915 915915915915916916916916916 916916916 916 916 916916916916916916917917917917917 917 917917917 91791791791791791 7 917918918918918918918 918 918 918 918918 918918918918918 919919919919 919 919 919 919919919919919919919920920920 920920920920 920 920 920 920920 92092092092 0 921921921921921 921 921921 921921 921 92192 1 92 1 922922 922922922922 922 922 92292292 2 922 922 92292 2 922 923 92 3 92392392392392392 3923 923 923923 923 923 923 92392 3 923 924 924924 92 4 924 924 924 92492 4924 92 4 924925 925 925 925 92 5 925 925925925 925 92 5925926 926 926 926 92 6 926 926 926926 92 6 92 6 926 92 7927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927927927927927927928928 928 92 8 928 928 928928928928929929929929929929 929 929 929929929929929929930930930930930 930 930 930930930931 931 931 931 931 931931931932932932932 932 932932932933 93393393393393 3 934 93493493 4 935935936 93 6 878 878 879 879 880 880 881 881 882 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896897898 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877878879880881882883884885 886 887 888 889 890 89 1 89 2 893 894 895 895895 896 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 859 859 860861862863864 865 866 86 7 868 868 868 868 868869869 869 869869869870870870870 870 870 871 871 871 871 872 872873873873874874 874 87487487487487587587587 5 875 876 87687 6 876 877877 IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I III I III I III I IIII I III I III I II I I II IIII I I IIIIIII78TH STREET NE ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding QUADAY AVE NE78TH STREET NE PARIS AVENUE NE76TH COURT NE PARELL AVENUE NEPALMGRENPARK CIR. NEPARK AVENUE NEPARQUET AVE. NEPARRISH AVENUE NEPINNACLE AVENUE NE PRAIRIE CREEK CT.74TH ST NE PARRISH AVENUE NE74TH STREET NE QUADAY AVE NEDelineated Wetland 4Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022Delineated Wetland 1 Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company November2022 Delineated Wetland 2 Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember2022 Delineated Wetland 3Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices Company November2022 G R A V E L OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOETNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH TNHTNH TNH TNH TNH PARQUET AVENUE NEIOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVGUYGUY ELECELECELECELEC CBL CBLELECELEC E E E E TNH CBL ELEC CBL CBL TNH CBL TNH CBL 4" BIRCH 4" BIRCH CS CBL CBL TB CBL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELEC UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG CBLGUY GUY ELEC CBL CBL CBL HH C CBL CBLCBL FOFOFOFOFOFOG OTVOTV OTVOTV GG UE UE OTV OTV G G UE UE UE UE UEUEXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XX XXX XX X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIAVENEOE OE OE OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEGGGGGGGUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEELECUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE ELEC ELEC UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GG G FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOTV OTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTV OTVOTVOTVOTVOTVOTVGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGG G GGGGGGGG G G G GGGGG GG GGGGGGGGGGGGXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XX XX X X X X XX X XXTRUNK HWY 101Delineated WetlandPer Kjolhaug Environmental Services CompanyNovember 2022 C. S . A . H . N O . 4 2 QUADAY AVE. RIGHT OF WAYREVOKED PER WRIGHT COUNTYRIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 9 QUADAY AVE NEI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQUAM AVE NEI100 Delineated Wetland Per Kjolhaug EnvironmentalServices CompanyNovember 2022 ELEC ELECELEC UEG SB-112ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.9 SB-105ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-102ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.1 SB-106ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.0 SB-103ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.3 SB-109ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.4 SB-113ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.6 SB-114ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 859.7 SB-115ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.8 SB-101ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.2 SB-104ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.3 SB-110ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 866.3 SB-111 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.4 SB-117ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 895.7 SB-118NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-120ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.95 SB-219ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.0 SB-217ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.7 SB-212ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 849.3 SB-213ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 843.0 SB-209ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.9 SB-207ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 855.4 SB-208ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 857.4 SB-205ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.4 SB-201ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 850.7 SB-202ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 853.8 SB-210 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 852.4 SB-216 ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 861.5 SB-215ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 860.8 SB-218ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 863.6 SB-220ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 862.6 SB-204ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 864.4 SB-214ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.0 TNH TNH TNH SITE BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANTELEV.=877.60 (NGVD29) WATER ELEV.=864.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=864.0 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.8 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=862.2 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.5 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.6 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=861.4 NGVD292026-06-09 UNNAMED LAKE 2026-06-09 WATER ELEVATION = 864.0 FTOHWL = 864.3 FT (NGVD29) ACCORDING TO MNDNR OHWL OHWL OHWL BOULDER RET. WALLTW=894.1BW=883.8 866.0 867.0 868.0869.0869.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 870.0 870.0870.0 869.0 86 9 . 0 869.0 869.0 868.0868.0 868.0868.0867.0867.0 867.0866.0866.0 86 6 . 0 866 .0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 865.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0 864.0864.0 863.0863.0863.0863.0 863.0863.086 3 . 0 86 0 . 0 86 0 . 0860.0860.0 SB-206ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 854.6 WATER ELEV.=863.1 NGVD292026-06-09 WATER ELEV.=863.9 NGVD292026-06-09 G R A V E L G R A V E L SB-116ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 865.1 SB-119NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED SB-203ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.7 SB-211ADJ. GROUND WATER ELEV.= 851.6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>78th Street NE Quaday Avenue NEHighway 101Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary Shoreland Overlay District Outer Boundary Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Existing Cover Types QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 5 • 08.11.2026 NORTH 0 600 1200 LEGEND WETLANDS AND SHALLOW LAKES WOODED / FOREST BRUSH / GRASSLAND CROPLAND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. USDA Soils Map QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 6 • 08.11.2026 Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. USDA Soils Map Legend QUADAY AVENUE EAW • Otsego, MN Figure 6.1 • 08.11.2026 Appendix B Wetland Report & NOD Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location DY Holdings - Quaday Ave NE (KES 2022-170)Otsego, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Pa rce ls Source: ESRI Streets Basemap !! ! ! ! ! ! !! 8 7 0 872 868 8 7 4 876 8 6 6 8788808828848868888908928 6 4 8948628968 6 0 858898900902904906908 910912914916918920922924926928930932934936938870884 870 8728 8 2 8 6 8 874890868858 882868864878878 8588708 6 4 864876 874 870 8 6 4 8 8 0 8 6 2 8 7 4876872 878 868872 860872880 870870 8728708668648 8 2 862 868868 870 88 2 866866866874 872870 8 7 4 8 7 4 872866876 864 8688988668 7 8882 8628668 6 4 8 7 2 874 874872872882876878 8668 7 8 8 7 0 8748648648 8 6 872 8 7 48688828648 8 0 8808768 7 8 8 6 4 8 8 8 8928828 8 0 898860868896 896 8 6 6 884 876864868868 890864 86688886487 6 874 8 7 8 8828 7 8 87 0868 892882872 872 878 878868862 876 8 8 4 864 874870 882 86287886487288288 0 8 9 4 938880878 862866 876870 8668 8 6 86687087287 0 880 8748 6 4 878 884872 880860884878 858 878 884 8 9 4872882882864 874 868870 8648 6 8868 876882 872872866 8 8 6 876 866864872872 8 6 8 8 7 6 878 878864868868 8 8 0 866886 872892 8 6 2 Figure 2a - Existing Conditions (2021 FSA Photo) West DY Holdings - Quayday Ave NE (KES 2022-170)Otsego, Minnesota Note: B oundaries indicate don this figure are approximate and do not constitute a n official survey product.¯ 0 500 Feet Legend !Sample Point Culvert Public Ditch Wetland poly Offsite Wetland Site Boundary Wright County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 WL2 WL3 WL 1A WL 1B WL 1C WL 1D WL 1E WL1F SP-A SP-3 SP-2 SP1-2 WL 1H WL1G Ditch D1~1600 LFexcavated in2004/2005 SP1-1 WL ID Ac W L ID AcWL122.74 WL1C 0.26WL20.67 WL1D 0.43WL30.38 WL1E 0.60WL40.45 WL1F 0.02WL50.20 WL1G 0.01WL1A0.07 WL1h 0.03WL1B0.37 Di tch D1 1600 LF !! ! ! ! !872870868866880882864884862 874878876886860888858890892856 854 8528 5 0 896894 8 9 8 858 888858864860 8808748768548 7 4882 878884852864 8848 6 8 884852 860870 872858858880876858880858 880872876 868868884858862894866862886886 8668768548628 5 4 882876882 880860882872888872 870870862 866858 878866 870886886 866874870888858868860 866884876866864860 8548668 9 2 894886878 856878862880874874 872878 8628908748828 6 6 8 5 8 878872876 852856 868878894878872 890 8648868608708 6 4 8668 5 6858 872882884860866 866 862874884862 858868 872880864 878874 888 880 876864862860868888856Figure 2b - Existing Conditions (2021 FSA Photo) East DY Holdings - Quayday Ave NE (KES 2022-170)Otsego, Minnesota Note: B oundaries indicate don this figure are approximate and do not constitute a n official survey product.¯ 0 500 Feet Legend !Sam ple Point Public Ditch Culvert Wetland poly Site Boundary Wright County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons WL3 WL4 WL5 SP-3 SP-4 SP-5 WL ID Ac W L ID AcWL122.74 WL1C 0.26WL20.67 WL1D 0.43WL30.38 WL1E 0.60WL40.45 WL1F 0.02WL50.20 WL1G 0.01WL1A0.07 WL1h 0.03WL1B0.37 Di tch D1 1600 LF Appendix C Natural Heritage and IPaC Review Letters Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN Quaday Avenue EAW MCE-2026-00451 Page 1 of 3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 July 8, 2026 Zeke Peters Landform RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Quaday Avenue EAW, T121N R23W Section 26-27; Wright County Dear Zeke Peters, For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE- 2026-00451 in the email subject line. As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project: State-listed Species • The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15. • State-listed mussels have been documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the proposed project. Mussels are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation. As such, effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be implemented and maintained near the river throughout the duration of the project and incorporated into any stormwater management plan. • Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of state-listed species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. • Please report incidental sightings of state-listed species via the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form. Quaday Avenue EAW MCE-2026-00451 Page 2 of 3 Federally Protected Species • To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Environmental Review and Permitting • The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance. Sufficient information should be provided so the DNR can determine whether a permit to take will be needed for any of the above protected species. • Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one year of initiating project activities. Resubmit by selecting Clone Project as Draft on the project page in MCE. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us and for your interest in the conservation of Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Molly Barrett Natural Heritage Review Specialist molly.barrett@state.mn.us Cc: Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3) Quaday Avenue EAW MCE-2026-00451 Page 3 of 3 For more project details, see the MCE-generated Final Project Report, available on the MCE project page. IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Wright County, Minnesota Local office Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office  (952) 858-0793 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 1/9 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Birds Insects Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. 1 2 NAME STATUS Whooping Crane Grus americana No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 EXPN NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Wherever found There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Proposed Threatened Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Proposed Threatened 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 2/9 You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species. Bald & Golden Eagles There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area. Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska, please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity. The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Review the FAQs The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources. BREEDING SEASON Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental- take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard- conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory- birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 2 1 NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 3/9 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Bald & Golden Eagles FAQs What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply). Proper interpretation and use of your eagle report On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort line or no data line (red horizontal) means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide you in knowing when to implement avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities or get the appropriate permits should presence be confirmed. How do I know if eagles are breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If an eagle on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 4/9 The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. Migratory birds Measures for Proactively Minimizing Migratory Bird Impacts Your IPaC Migratory Bird list showcases birds of concern, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), in your project location. This is not a comprehensive list of all birds found in your project area. However, you can help proactively minimize significant impacts to all birds at your project location by implementing the measures in the Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds document, and any other project-specific avoidance and minimization measures suggested at the link Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds for the birds of concern on your list below. Ensure Your Migratory Bird List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Review the FAQs The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources. BREEDING SEASON The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental- take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory- birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Aug 10 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 5/9 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745 Breeds May 1 to Jul 20 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8329 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 20 Henslow's Sparrow Centronyx henslowii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941 Breeds May 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 6/9 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Canada Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden-winged Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Grasshopper Sparrow BCC - BCR Henslow's Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Semipalmated Sandpiper BCC - BCR Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Migratory Bird FAQs Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Avoidance & Minimization Measures for Birds describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year- round. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is one of the most effective ways to minimize impacts. To see when birds are most likely to occur and breed in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and those species marked as “Vulnerable”. See the FAQ “What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?” for more information on the levels of concern covered in the IPaC migratory bird species list. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) with which your project intersects. These species have been identified as warranting special attention because they are BCC species in that area, an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, and to verify survey effort when no results present, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. Why are subspecies showing up on my list? 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 7/9 Subspecies profiles are included on the list of species present in your project area because observations in the AKN for the species are being detected. If the species are present, that means that the subspecies may also be present. If a subspecies shows up on your list, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if that subspecies may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go to the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially BCC species. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts, please see the FAQ “Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds”. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Proper interpretation and use of your migratory bird report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list does not represent all birds present in your project area. It is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about avoidance and minimization measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds". Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 8/9 Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no fish hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Wetland information is not available at this time This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 6/3/26, 3:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/SQAPPMY4BJB6JCSJ52HZZRFTLI/resources 9/9 Appendix D GHG Emissions Calculations Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report Date Prepared:8/10/2026 x Background Information Quaday Avenue EAW Subp. 19, Residential Development Subp. 32, Mixed residential and industrial-commerical projects Wright 10/20/2026 2027 50 Grid Average Portion of Building Electricity Consumption to be Generated On-Site via Renewables or Supplied through the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)0% Portion of Building Natural Gas Consumption to be Supplied from Renewable Sources 0% Yes x Summary Results **Results may be incomplete due to missing user inputs** Project Lifetime 51 Unit tons Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or are not applicable. Total Manure management NA NA 8.97 49.70 Material inputs Enteric fermentation Treatment of wastewater on-site On-road vehicles Treatment of waste on-site NA NA 457.34 2,534.78 0.15 7.77 NA NA 23,503.03 NA NA 72Total Project Acreage Residential Building Area (sq ft) Commercial Building Area (sq ft) Industrial Building Area (sq ft) Institutional Building Area (sq ft) Other Building Area (sq ft) 475000 60000 0 34000 0 CO2e Emissions Construction Operation Cumulative Annualized NA HFC leakage Land use change (operations) Employee commuting Construction equipment Land use change (construction) Construction waste Treatment of waste off-site 460.84 NA NA 4,427.60 225,807.43 Project Name Project Category (primary) Project Category (secondary) Location (County) Construction Start Date Operational Year Operational Lifetime (Years) Electricity Provider Paving and Landscaping Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Architectural Coatings Construction Stage Building Construction Project? Duration (Days) 72 43 108 1,066 79 79 Building energy consumption Coal production Natural gas and oil products Industrial processes Phase 70,628.03 NA NA 61.80 NA 2,461.26 NA NA 1,384.86 NA NA NA NA NA 3,152.05 NA 125,524.44 Transportation of material inputs The results shown below were generated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator. The emissions quantified account for the full greenhouse gas impact of a potential project throughout the construction and operational phases of the project. This includes emissions from project activities that occur on-site as well as emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the project. The results are based on user inputs and assumptions; actual project emissions may vary. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 tons CO₂eCumulative Lifetime Emissions Employee commuting Construction equipment Land use change (construction) Building energy consumption HFC leakage On-road vehicles Treatment of waste on-site Treatment of waste off-site Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 1 of 6 x User Inputs Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or activity is not applicable. Material Inputs Quantity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Employee Commuting 13.2 Construction Equipment Approach:Equipment Use Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Architectural Coatings Paving and Landscaping Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 6 0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete/Industrial Saws 8 0 0 0 0 0 Cranes 0 0 0 7 0 0 Excavators 24 0 16 0 0 0 Forklifts 0 0 0 24 0 0 Generator Sets 0 0 0 8 0 0 Graders 0 0 8 0 0 0 Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 16 Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 16 Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 16 Rubber Tired Dozers 16 24 8 0 0 0 Scrapers 0 0 16 0 0 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 32 16 21 0 0 Welders 0 0 0 8 0 0 Gallons Fuel Type Total Consumption Diesel NA Electricity NA Biodiesel 100 NA Biodiesel 20 NA Renewable Diesel NA Units Gallons kWh Gallons Gallons Domestic Unknown Steel Wood Products Unknown 10 40 Tons Paving and Landscaping Grading Building Construction Architectural Coatings Daily Average Number of Employees Commuting 5 10 Demolition Site Preparation 10 Tons Tons Tons Domestic Diesel Diesel Diesel Number of Hours per Day by Construction Stage Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons 15 Equipment Type Geographical Sourcing Unknown Average One-Way Commute Length (miles) Diesel Diesel Diesel 82% 11% 0% 2% 2% 3% Percent of Employees Single Occupancy Vehicle Carpool Motorcycle Bus Transit Rail Bike/Walk Transportation ModeConstruction Stage Unknown Unknown Unknown Material Type Aluminum Asphalt Brick Concrete Glass Insulation (residential) Insulation (commercial) Unit Unknown Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 2 of 6 Land Use Change Wetlands: peatland, non forested Wetlands: peatland, forested Wetlands: mineral soil, non forested Wetlands: mineral soil, forested Forest Rivers and streams Brush and grassland Cropland Livestock rangeland/pastureland Lawn/landscaping Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, paved Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, vegetated Green Infrastructure: Constructed green roofs Green Infrastructure: Constructed permeable pavements Impervious surface Stormwater pond (wet sedimentation basin) Number Number of mature trees removed 200 Number of new trees planted 750 Construction Waste Material Type Quantity (tons) Aluminum NA Asphalt NA Brick NA Concrete NA Glass NA Insulation NA Steel NA Wood Products NA Mixed Waste NA Building Energy Consumption Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Emissions from Coal Production Mixed Coal Anthracite Coal Bituminous Coal Subbituminous Coal Lignite Coal Coal Coke 26.20 25.60 NA 0.00 0.00 NA NA 0.00 NA Acres Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Operation 0.00 21.20 NA Energy Intensity Fuel Type Fuel Consumption (units/year)Unit Coal Type 0.00 3.40 24,460.01 Energy Intensity (Btu/sq ft/year) Natural Gas 0.00 Approach: Building Type Electricity 61.40 0.00 NA Trees 0.00 7.50 5.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 38.50 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 Land Use Type NA NA NA NA NA NA 41.30 NA 32.10 NA 0.00 11.80 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 233.51 1,661.56 656,392.90 Gallons Electricity Natural Gas Propane Kerosene or Fuel Oil 48,219.03 0.00 3,619.38 46,860.06 Incremental Production (tons/year) 35,534.88 0.00 NA kWh NA Cubic feet NA Gallons NA 0.00 Propane 18,096.91 30,766.13 229,952.20 3,659.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,191.66 Kerosene or Fuel Oil Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 3 of 6 Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil Products Natural Gas Assumptions NA NA Industrial Processes Product Type Cement Lime Limestone Use Magnesium Iron and Steel Ammonia Aluminum Nitric Acid HFC Leakage Building Type HFC Residential R-454B Commercial R-454B Industrial R-454B R-404A R-454B On-Road Vehicles Treatment of Waste On-Site Treatment of Wastewater On-Site Treatment of Waste Off-Site Quantity Number of single family households 500 lb/household/day Number of employees (commercial)50 lb/employee/day Number of employees (industrial)0 lb/employee/day Number of employees (institutional)0 lb/employee/day Visitors per year (public venues)0 lb/visitor Emission Factor (kgCO2e/ton) Gallons/year Natural Gas Renewable Natural Gas Propane Renewable Diesel Fuel Type Incremental Throughput NA NA Gallons/year Gallons/year Gasoline Cubic Feet/year Cubic Feet/year Gallons/year Gallons/year Gallons/yearNA NA 31-55 100% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Walk-in refrigerators and freezers Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Institutional 100% NA NA 100% 100% Percent of Building Area Utilized NA NA NA NA NA NA Equipment Type NA NA Quantity (tons/year) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 56-75 Activity NA NA NA Product Type 100% 7.00 10.53 Waste Generation Rate Unit 0 Population Served by Treatment Plant Waste Treatment Practice Quantity of Waste Treated (tons/year) Production (MT/year) Wastewater Treatment System Type NA Landfilled8.93 Combusted 0%3.55 1.72 Unit Speed Bin (miles/hr) Fleet Average 0-30 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Kerosene Kerosene Jet Fuel Biodiesel 100 Biodiesel 20 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 1 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 4 Residual Fuel Oil No. 5 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 Leakage and Venting Emissions (kgCO2e/MMBtu) Percent Reduction in Leakage and Venting Emissions NA NA Gallons/year Gallons/year Gallons/year Additional VMT (miles/year) 7987249 0 Percent of Waste 0% 0% Recycled Waste Treatment Practice NA NA Composted Gallons/year Gallons/year Gallons/year Gallons/year 0 Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 4 of 6 Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management Anaerobic digester Anaerobic lagoon - liquid Cattle deep litter Composting Daily spread Deep pit Dry lot Liquid/ slurry Pasture, range, paddock Poultry with litter Poultry without litter Solid storage Bulls NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Beef cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Beef heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Heifer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Feedlot beef NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Beef calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dairy heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dairy cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dairy calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Swine, <55 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Swine 55-330 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Swine 330+ lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Poultry, layers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Poultry, pullets NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Poultry, chickens NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Poultry, broilers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Turkeys NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0%Percent of manure applied or sold for application to agricultural soils (pasture or cropland) as fertilizer Percentage of Manure Management System Livestock Type Population Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 5 of 6 x Notes Mitigation Measures and Quantified Reductions Adaptation Strategies Land use change (operations) On-road vehicles Treatment of waste on-site Treatment of wastewater on-site Treatment of waste off-site Building energy consumption Coal production Natural gas and oil products Industrial processes HFC leakage Enteric fermentation Manure management Construction waste General Notes Transportation of material inputs Employee commuting Construction equipment Land use change (construction) Material inputs Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 6 of 6 Appendix E Traffic Impact Study Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN DRAFT REPORT | www.transportationcollaborative.com | To: Casey Darkenwald Darkenwald Corporation From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC Date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study INTRODUCTION TC2 has completed a traffic study for the proposed mixed-use development in the City of Otsego. The subject site, shown in Figure 1, is generally southwest of the Hwy 101 and River Road (CR 42) interchange. The main objectives of the study are to quantify current area operations, identify transportation impacts associated with proposed development, and recommend improvements, if necessary, to ensure safe and efficient operations for all users. This study supports the transportation section of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) being completed for the development. The following study assumptions, methodology, and findings are offered for consideration. Figure 1 Project Location Hwy 101 Quaday Ave Subject Site 70th St (CR 38) Parell Ave 78th St Quam Ave 72nd St Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current operations and help determine impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions included collecting traffic volumes, observing roadway characteristics, analyzing intersection capacity, and reviewing crash history, which are described in the following sections. Traffic Volumes The following intersections were included as part of the study process. • Quaday Avenue and River Road (CR 42)* • Quaday Avenue and Pinnacle Avenue • Quaday Avenue and 78th Street * • Quaday Avenue and Parson Avenue / Quaker Avenue • Quaday Avenue and 70th Street (CR 38) * • River Road and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Avenue ** • 70th Street (CR 38) and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Avenue ** • 78th Street and Parell Avenue • 78th Street and Park Avenue • 78th Street and Parrish Avenue * Indicates 13 hours of data (6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) ** Data was provided from the MnDOT Intersection counts were collected on Thursday, June 4, 2026, at most study intersections. The counts were collected from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., which coincides with the peak activity of the adjacent roadways. Note that 13-hour counts (i.e., 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) were collected at key intersections to help identify the potential future need for a traffic control change; existing data at the Hwy 101 intersections with River Road (CR 42) and 70th Street (CR 38) from March 13, 2025 was provided by MnDOT. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data collected. Roadway Characteristics Observations were conducted within the study area to identify various roadway characteristics such as roadway geometry, functional classification, multimodal facilities, speed limits, and traffic controls. The following information provides a general overview of key roadways within the study area. • River Road (CR 42) – a two-lane Minor Arterial that expands to four-lanes near Hwy 101. There is a multiuse trail along the south side of the roadway and the speed limit is 50 miles per hour (mph). • 70th Street (CR 38) – a two-lane Minor Arterial that expands to four-lanes near Hwy 101. There is a multiuse trail along the north side of the roadway, except for the segment between Quaday Avenue and Quaker Avenue. The speed limit is 55 mph. • Quaday Avenue – a two-lane Minor Collector with periodic turn lanes. There is multiuse trail along the west side of the roadway north of 78th Street and south of Quaker Avenue; there is also multiuse trail along the east side of the roadway south of 78th Street. The speed limit is 40 mph. • 78th Street – a two-lane Minor Collector with a multiuse trail along the north side of the roadway. The speed limit is 40 mph. • Quam Avenue – a two-lane local roadway with no multimodal facilities. The speed limit is 55 mph. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 3 All other study area roadways are two-lane local facilities with varying multimodal facilities and 30-mph speed limits. The Hwy 101 intersections with River Road (CR 42) and 70th Street (CR 38), as well as the 70th Street (CR 38) and Quaday Avenue intersection are signalized. The Quaday Avenue and 78th Street intersection has all-way stop-control, while all other study intersections have two-way stop-control. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and traffic volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Intersection Capacity Intersection capacity was evaluated using Synchro / SimTraffic Software, which incorporates methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. The software is used to develop calibrated models that simulate observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as intersection Level of Service (LOS) and queues. These models incorporate collected traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist volumes, traffic controls, and driver behavior factors. Existing signal timing obtained from MnDOT was provided. Level of Service (LOS) quantifies how an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F, which corresponds to the average delay per vehicle values shown. An overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Level of Service Average Delay / Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A < 10 seconds < 10 seconds B 10 to 15 seconds 10 to 20 seconds C 15 to 25 seconds 20 to 35 seconds D 25 to 35 seconds 35 to 55 seconds E 35 to 50 seconds 55 to 80 seconds F > 50 seconds > 80 seconds For two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with two-way stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service, which takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support the volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis, shown in Table 1, indicates that all study intersections and approaches currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, queues at unsignalized intersections are generally about 50 feet or less, while at signalized intersections queues are about 150 feet or less. Thus, no significant intersection capacity issues are present within the study area. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study Existing Conditions 7 (7)2 (8)1 (4)184 (145)4 (12)105 (311)1 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 8 ( 9 ) 19 ( 1 7 ) 0 ( 1 ) 16 ( 1 7 )5 (6)40 (74)5 (23)1 (3)118 (126)6 (21)211 (216)45 (112)168 (412)64 (211)71 (65)120 (87)Quam AveHwy 101Quaker Ave70th St (CR 38) 78th St River Rd (CR 42)Legend AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated Weekday ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic Signal XXX(XXX)X,XXX N 1 (1)176 (278)401 (245)102 (130)144 (107)77 (69)26 (45)216 (420)132 (64) 19 (26)432 (403)2 (1)0 (0)1 (0)2 (2)35 (38)0 (0)144 (119)38 (107)280 (442)0 (1) 208 ( 1 5 0 ) 123 ( 1 5 3 )8 (24)14 (12)47 (100)114 (145)96 (74)177 ( 4 9 9 ) 22 ( 1 5 )Pinnacl e AveParrish Ave 2 (6)87 (72)11 (9) 12 (43)36 (114)32 (74)18 (9)7 (1)52 (52)3 (9)2 (2)42 (28)4 (4)177 (148) 10 (28)71 (225)6 (6)28 (23)1 (0)204 (171) 6 (40)79 (249)2 (4)25 (19)135 (101)94 (89)15 (50)50 (48)70 (239)37 (80)Park Av e7,600 3,850 1,625 6,2004,95051,85060,700Quaday A vePa l m g ren A veParell AveFigure 2 Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 5 Table 1 Existing Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic Control Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Quaday Ave and River Rd (CR 42) TWSC A / A (5) A / A (8) Quaday Ave and Pinnacle Ave TWSC A / A (5) A / A (5) Quaday Ave and 78th St AWSC A (5) A (5) Quaday Ave and Parson Ave / Quaker Ave TWSC A / A (4) A / A (4) Quaday Ave and 70th St (CR 38) SIGNAL A (9) A (8) River Rd (CR 42) and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Ave SIGNAL A (9) A (8) 70th St (CR 38) and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Ave SIGNAL A (9) A (8) 78th St and Parell Ave TWSC A / A (5) A / A (6) 78th St and Park Ave TWSC A / A (5) A / A (6) 78th St and Parrish Ave TWSC A / A (5) A / A (5) TWSC – Two-Way Stop Control AWSC – All-Way Stop Control (TWSC - overall intersection level of service is shown followed by the worst-approach level of service and delay) Crash History A review of historical crash data was completed at the study intersections to identify any trends or hotspots. Five (5) years of crash history was reviewed within the study area, which included data from January 2021 through December 2025. The crash data was obtained using MnDOT’s MnCMAT2 crash mapping tool. Intersection crash data is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Crash Rate Summary Study Intersection Total Crashes Crash Rates Severity Rates Actual Ave. Critical Index Actual Ave. Critical Index Quaday Ave and River Rd (2) 2 0.128 0.151 0.29 0.000 0.415 0.00 Quaday Ave and Pinnacle Ave (2) 0 0.000 0.151 0.00 0.000 0.415 0.00 Quaday Ave and 78th St (3) 1 0.129 0.289 0.15 12.879 0.633 1.20 Quaday Ave and Parson / Quaker (2) 1 0.249 0.151 0.32 0.000 0.415 0.00 Quaday Ave and 70th St (1) 4 0.241 0.499 0.25 6.015 0.945 0.86 River Rd and Hwy 101 / Quam Ave (1) 10 0.656 0.499 0.66 0.000 0.945 0.00 70th St and Hwy 101 / Quam Ave (1) 16 0.780 0.499 0.84 0.000 0.945 0.00 78th St and Parell Ave (2) 1 0.177 0.151 0.27 0.000 0.415 0.00 78th St and Park Ave (2) 1 0.177 0.151 0.27 0.000 0.415 0.00 78th St and Parrish Ave (2) 0 0.000 0.151 0.00 0.000 0.415 0.00 (1) Signal (2) Side-Street Stop (3) All-Way Stop Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 6 During the analysis period, there were a total of 36 reported crashes at the study intersections. Most occurred along Hwy 101 / Quam Avenue at the River Road (CR 42) or 70th Street (CR 38) intersections. Of these crashes, the predominant crash types were rear-end or angle / left-turn. There were three (3) pedestrian / bicyclist-related crashes, two (2) of which occurred at the Hwy 101 / Quam Avenue and 70th Street (CR 38) intersection and one (1) at the 78th Avenue and Parell Avenue intersection. There were two (2) serious injury crashes, one (1) at the Quaday Avenue and 78th Street intersection, which was a medical emergency and not related to the infrastructure and one (1) at the 70th Street (CR 38) and Quaday Avenue intersection; no fatal accidents were reported within the study area. Intersection crash and severity rates were reviewed to understand crash history at the study intersections and compared to locations with similar characteristics. Intersections with a critical index over one (1.0) are considered to have a statistically significant number of crashes or fatal / severe crashes above normal. The crash analysis identified that the only location with a critical index over one (1.0) is the Quaday Avenue and 78th Street intersection, which as noted early, is related to the medical emergency and not an infrastructure issue. Thus, there are no existing crash issues from a frequency or severity perspective. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development, shown in Figure 3, is southwest of the Hwy 101 and River Road (CR 42) interchange. The overall site is approximately 100 acres, of which about 70 acres are developable, and includes a mix of residential and commercial retail uses. Construction was assumed to be completed by the year 2030. For purposes of this study, the following land uses were assumed to be included as part of the proposed development. • 498 Residential Units (390 Apartments, 84 Single-Family Homes, 24 Townhomes) • 49,100 SF Retail (44,000 SF Grocery Store, 4,100 SF General Retail) • 8,800 SF Convenience Store / Gas Station (20-Fueling Stations) As part of the project, 78th Street would be extended through the project site and connect with Quam Avenue. In addition, a new east-west roadway connection between Quaday Avenue and Quam Avenue is planned, which is herein referred to at 76th Street. Discussion regarding travel pattern changes associated with these new roadways is provided later in this report. The commercial retail portion of the development has access planned along Quaday (across from Pinnacle Avenue), three (3) locations along the 78th Street extension, and one (1) to River Road (CR 42). However, the River Road (CR 42) access is within an existing turn lane and does not align with Wright County access spacing guidelines or good planning practices. Therefore, for purposes of this study, the River Road (CR 42) development access was assumed to be closed. Further discussion of this access is provided later in the report. The apartments portion of the development has access planned along Quaday Avenue (across from 77th Lane), three (3) locations along the 78th Street extension, and two (2) locations along the 76th Street. The other residential portions of the development are located west of Quaday Avenue and have several access locations given this part of the development is connecting to existing development areas. Most of the new residential units will be accessed via the 78th Street and Park Avenue intersection. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 7 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan TRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 conditions, which represents the expected full-build out of the proposed development. The forecasts include information regarding area infrastructure changes with respect to travel patterns, general background growth, and trip generation from the proposed development. Forecasts were developed for both year 2030 no build and build conditions, with the build condition including the proposed development. Note that the no build condition included the infrastructure changes to better understand the traffic impacts associated with these new roadways. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 8 Infrastructure Changes As noted earlier, 78th Street would be extended through the project site and connect with Quam Avenue and a new east-west roadway connection between Quaday Avenue and Quam Avenue (i.e., 76th Street) is planned. To account for potential travel pattern changes associated with these new roadway connections, existing traffic volumes were reviewed and rerouted based on the anticipated future travel patterns. Based on this review, the 78th Street extension to Quam Avenue is expected to reroute approximately 1,000 to 1,500 vehicles per day primarily away from Quaday Avenue. The new 76th Street connection does not provide the same level of connectivity as 78th Street and therefore, minimal existing traffic would be expected to utilize the new 76th Street; this roadway will primarily serve the development. Background Growth To account for general background growth in the study area, an annual growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to the existing rerouted traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is based on a combination of historical ADT volumes published by MnDOT and data from Otsego Comprehensive Plan and the Wright County Long Range Transportation Plan. This rate accounts for growth outside of the immediate study area. Trip Generation The proposed development trip generation estimate, shown in Table 3, was developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition and includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. For purposes of this study, the following assumptions were leveraged: • Per ITE Code 821, “a supermarket is often the major tenant of a general retail / shopping plaza, which also typically contains retail merchandising, offices, movie theaters, restaurants, banks, health clubs, and / or recreational facilities”; note that the shopping plaza trip generation rate is consistent with estimates using individual retail uses (i.e., restaurant, grocery, strip retail) and was therefore used to simplify the overall trip generation estimate. • A 15% multi-use / modal reduction was applied to account for interactions between the residential and commercial uses, as well as trips by alternatives modes (i.e., walk, bike, roll). • A 25% pass-by / diverted-link reduction was applied to the convenience store / gas station to account for trips already traveling along River Road (CR 42) or Quam Avenue; note that the average pass- by rate for a convenience store is closer to 50%, but it was assumed that a portion of these trips would be from Hwy 101 users and therefore represent new trips to the study area. • To provide a more conservative analysis, no pass-by reductions were applied to the other retail portions of the proposed development. Based on the trip generation estimate, the proposed development will generate approximately 728 a.m. peak hour (331 in / 397 out), 919 p.m. peak hour (482 in / 437 out), and 9,954 daily (4,977 in / 4,977 out) site trips. When accounting for trips already traveling along adjacent roadways that will use the proposed development (i.e., pass-by / diverted-link trips), the net new system trips from the proposed development is approximately 608 a.m. peak hour (271 in / 337 out), 819 p.m. peak hour (432 in / 387 out), and 8,954 daily (4,477 in / 4,477 out) trips. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 9 Table 3 Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary Land Use (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Residential - Apartments (221) 390 units 34 114 95 53 1,740 Residential - Single-Family (210) 84 units 16 43 48 30 764 Residential - Townhomes (215) 24 units 3 8 7 5 158 Commercial – Shopping Plaza (821) 49,100 SF 104 70 206 215 4,980 Gasoline / Service Station (945) 20 FP 232 232 211 211 4,068 Subtotal 389 467 567 514 11,710 Multi-use / Modal Reduction (15%) (-58) (-70) (-85) (-77) (-1,756) Total Proposed Development Site Trips 331 397 482 437 9,954 Pass-by / Diverted-Link Reduction (25%) (-60) (-60) (-50) (-50) (-1,000) Net New System Proposed Development Trips 271 337 432 387 8,954 Trip Distribution Trips generated by the proposed development were distributed throughout the study area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns, the proposed site layout, and engineering judgement. The overall site generated trips, not including the pass-by reductions, are also shown in Figure 4. The resultant year 2030 no build and year 2030 build condition traffic forecasts are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively. Note that the no build condition accounts for the new roadway connections and associated travel pattern changes, as well as the background growth rate. The build condition represents the no build condition, with the proposed development traffic added. YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS To understand how intersection capacity is expected to change as the area develops, including the proposed development, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was conducted for year 2030 no build and build conditions. This analysis again leveraged Synchro / SimTraffic Software. Results of the future intersection capacity analysis are summarized in Table 4 by time and condition. Results of the year 2030 capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections and approaches will continue to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both no build and build conditions. However, the northbound left-turn movement from Quaday Avenue to River Road (CR 42) will begin to become more challenging under build conditions, particularly during the p.m. peak hour; 95th percentile queues for this movement are expected to extend approximately 125 feet (i.e., 5 to 6 vehicles). Note that all other delays are expected to increase by approximately one (1) to four (4) seconds, except for the eastbound 78th Street approach at Quam Avenue. The eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS C with peak queues ranging from 110 to 140 feet. Potential mitigation to address these items is discussed later in this report. Note that no other significant capacity issues were identified as a result of the proposed development. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study Site Generated Trips 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 )0 (0)25 (37)0 (0)0 (0)30 (33)0 (0)13 (20)53 (77)20 (20)83 (119)59 (67)70 (76)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)119 (130)10 (11)58 (85)0 (0)0 (0) 25 (37)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)30 (33)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 70 ( 7 6 ) 13 ( 2 0 )20 (20)70 (77)50 (72)50 (72)0 (0)33 ( 4 7 ) 33 ( 4 8 ) +750 +250 +500 +2,000+500+2,975+2,9757.5% 5% 2.5% 30% 30% 20% 5% 0 (0)16 (24)0 (0) 0 (0)20 (23)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)25 (40)15 (32)15 (10)3 (2)0 (0)43 (30)0 (0)15 (21)1 (3) 0 (0)17 (21)16 (46)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)58 (51) 0 (0)33 (67)0 (0)0 (0)22 (18)26 (24)10 (9)5 (9)20 (27)9 (12)13 (26)13 (36)40 (50)LegendAM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeADT Site TripsStop SignTraffic SignalDirectional Distribution XXX(XXX)+XXX N 3 (2)0 (0)2 (1) 5 (10)0 (0)4 (5)0 (2)26 (36)2 (5)2 (4)29 (36)7 (15)5 (11)3 (5)23 (32)2 (5)27 (28)8 (14)72 (7 7) 100 (1 1 1) 2 0 ( 2 7 ) 7 6 ( 1 1 3 ) 1 8 ( 2 0 ) 5 3 ( 7 0 ) 18 (20)29 (30)5 (15)53 (70)20 (27)100 (111)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 72 (75)0 (0)15 (16)0 (0)57 (68)10 (17)0 (0)51 (96)85 (100)Figure 4 Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study Year 2030 No Build Conditions 1 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 9 ( 1 0 ) 21 ( 1 8 ) 0 ( 1 ) 17 ( 1 8 )5 (6)38 (65)5 (25)1 (3)90 (99)6 (23)228 (234)49 (121)182 (446)47 (148)77 (70)92 (68)1 (1)185 (296)402 (233)110 (141)188 (148)89 (80)34 (65)228 (438)143 (69) 20 (28)468 (437)2 (1)0 (0)1 (0)2 (2)38 (41)0 (0)118 (91)35 (100)303 (478)0 (1) 187 ( 1 3 6 ) 133 ( 1 6 6 )9 (26)53 (40)45 (92)129 (173)104 (80)175 ( 4 7 6 ) 40 ( 8 1 ) 8,225 4,175 1,775 6,7005,35056,12565,7252 (6)95 (78)12 (10) 13 (47)39 (123)35 (80)19 (10)8 (1)56 (56)3 (10)2 (2)45 (30)0 (0)27 (97)0 (0) 4 (4)192 (160) 11 (30)77 (244)10 (6)0 (0)30 (25)1 (0)221 (185) 6 (43)86 (270)2 (4)27 (21)108 (82)76 (66)64 (58)11 (38)54 (52)0 (0)54 (178)40 (87)0 (0)38 (2 7) 38 (3 8) 2 8 0 ( 3 3 9 ) 2 2 ( 8 1 ) 2 4 ( 3 9 ) 5 ( 1 6 )Quam AveHwy 101Quaker Ave78th St River Rd (CR 42)Pinnacl e AveParrish Ave Park Av ePa l m g ren A veParell AveQuaday A veFigure 5 Legend AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated Weekday ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic Signal XXX(XXX)X,XXX N 8 (8)2 (9)1 (4)161 (130)4 (13)92 (256)70th St (CR 38) Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study Year 2030 Build Conditions 1 ( 2 ) 1 ( 0 ) 9 ( 1 0 ) 21 ( 1 8 ) 0 ( 1 ) 17 ( 1 8 )5 (6)63 (102)5 (25)1 (3)120 (132)6 (23)211 (234)102 (198)172 (436)130 (267)136 (137)162 (144)1 (1)185 (296)402 (233)110 (141)293 (268)99 (91)92 (150)228 (438)143 (69) 46 (65)468 (437)2 (1)0 (0)1 (0)2 (2)68 (74)0 (0)118 (91)35 (100)303 (478)0 (1) 242 ( 2 0 2 ) 131 ( 1 7 6 )29 (46)123 (117)80 (149)179 (245)104 (80)193 ( 5 0 8 ) 73 ( 1 2 9 ) 9,000 4,425 2,300 8,7005,85059,10068,7002 (6)111 (102)12 (10) 13 (47)59 (147)35 (80)19 (10)8 (1)56 (56)3 (10)2 (2)45 (30)25 (40)42 (129)15 (12)3 (2)0 (0)43 (30)4 (4)207 (181)1 (3) 11 (30)94 (265)16 (46)10 (6)0 (0)30 (25)1 (0)279 (236) 6 (43)119 (337)2 (4)27 (21)130 (100)102 (89)74 (68)16 (47)74 (79)9 (12)67 (204)53 (123)40 (50)3 (2)0 (0)2 (1) 5 (10)0 (0)4 (5)0 (2)91 (126)2 (5)2 (4)133 (182)7 (15)5 (11)3 (5)88 (122)2 (5)131 (174)8 (14)110 (1 0 4) 138 (1 4 9) 2 8 5 ( 3 5 6 ) 9 8 ( 1 9 4 ) 4 2 ( 5 9 ) 5 8 ( 8 6 ) 18 (20)29 (30)5 (15)82 (125)20 (27)403 (478)8 (8)0 (0)2 (9) 72 (75)0 (0)15 (16)1 (4)218 (198)10 (17)4 (13)143 (352)85 (100)Quam AveHwy 101Quaker Ave78th St River Rd (CR 42)Pinnacl e AveParrish Ave Park Av ePa l m g ren A veParell AveQuaday A veFigure 6 Legend AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated Weekday ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic Signal XXX(XXX)X,XXX N 70th St (CR 38) Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 13 Table 4 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Summary Intersection Level of Service (Delay in Seconds) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No Build Build No Build Build Quaday Ave and River Rd (CR 42) A / A (5) A / A (7) A / A (8) A / C (16) Quaday Ave and Pinnacle Ave / Site Access A / A (5) A / A (8) A / A (5) A / A (8) Quaday Ave and 78th St A (6) A (7) A (6) A (7) Quaday Ave and 77th Ln / Site Access -- A / A (5) -- A / A (5) Quaday Ave and 76th St / Site Access -- A / A (4) -- A / A (4) Quaday Ave and Parson Ave / Quaker Ave A / A (4) A / A (4) A / A (4) A / A (5) Quaday Ave and 70th St (CR 38) A (9) B (10) A (8) B (10) River Rd (CR 42) and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Ave A (9) B (11) A (8) A (9) 70th St (CR 38) and Hwy 101 West Ramps / Quam Ave B (10) B (11) A (9) B (10) 78th St and Parell Ave A / A (6) A / A (6) A / A (6) A / A (6) 78th St and Park Ave / Site Access A / A (5) A / A (5) A / A (6) A / A (6) 78th St and Parrish Ave A / A (5) A / A (6) A / A (6) A / A (7) Quam Ave and 78th St A / A (6) A / B (10) A / A (6) A / C (15) Quam Ave and 76th St / Site Access -- A / A (6) -- A / A (6) (TWSC - overall intersection level of service is shown followed by the worst-approach level of service and delay) Potential Mitigation Based on the results of the operations analysis, while also considering overall safety and context, the following mitigation is offered for further discussion between the project team and area agencies. • River Road (CR 42) and Quaday Avenue o Convert the westbound bypass lane to a dedicated left-turn lane configuration; the left-turn lane should be a minimum of 150 feet in length. o Preserve the ability to install a future traffic signal or roundabout if / when operations, safety, or development north of River Road (CR 42) indicate the need; a preliminary review of signal warrant criteria indicates that the year 2030 build traffic forecasts meet the criteria to warrant signalization of this intersection. • Quam Avenue and 78th Street o Restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane; these turn lanes should be a minimum of 150 feet in length, but could be extended to 300 feet to match the configuration of the Quam Avenue and 72nd Street intersection. o Provide an eastbound right-turn lane that is a minimum of 100 feet in length. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 14 • Quam Avenue and 72nd Street o Restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane; these turn lanes should be a minimum of 150 feet in length, but could be extended to 300 feet to match the configuration of the Quam Avenue and 72nd Street intersection. • Quaday Avenue and Pinnacle Avenue / Site Access o Restripe Quaday Avenue to provide southbound and northbound left-turn lanes; these turn lanes should be a minimum of 100 feet in length. SITE PLAN REVIEW / OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Based on a review of the proposed site plan, the overall capacity analysis, and transportation planning best practices, the following potential considerations were identified. These items are not needed from a capacity perspective, but could help improve safety, reduce conflicts / queues, and / or overall site efficiency and are offered for further discussion with the project team. • Relocate or eliminate the site access to River Road (CR 42) to limit potential conflicts and align with access spacing guidelines and best practices; the operations analysis indicates there is not a significant operational need or benefit of this access, although there are existing access rights and benefits from a developer and site marketability perspective. o If access to River Road (CR 42) is permitted, this access should be either a right-in / right-out or right-in only configuration and located about midway between Quaday Avenue and Quam Avenue; an eastbound right-turn lane should also be included for this access. • Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 150 feet away from other driveways and public roadways. In particular, the westernmost driveways near Quaday Avenue should be removed to reduce potential conflicts; the western apartment access along 78th Street could be relocated across from one of the two commercial driveways. • Review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. • Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. • Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. • Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. In particular, a trail along the east side of Quaday Avenue and west side of Quam Avenue within the project limits should be provided. Other multimodal facilities should be coordinated between the project team and area agencies. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 15 SUMMARY The following study conclusions are offered for consideration. 1) All study intersections and approaches currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and there are no significant intersection capacity issues in the study area. 2) There are no existing crash issues from a frequency or severity perspective. 3) Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 conditions, which represents the expected full-build out of the proposed development. Forecasts were developed for both year 2030 no build and build conditions, with the build condition including the proposed development. Details include: a. The 78th Street extension to Quam Avenue is expected to reroute approximately 1,000 to 1,500 vehicles per day primarily away from Quaday Avenue; the new 76th Street connection does not provide the same level of connectivity as 78th Street and therefore, minimal existing traffic would be expected to utilize the new 76th Street. b. An annual growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to the existing rerouted traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background traffic forecasts. c. The proposed development will generate approximately 728 a.m. peak hour (331 in / 397 out), 919 p.m. peak hour (482 in / 437 out), and 9,954 daily (4,977 in / 4,977 out) site trips. d. When accounting for trips already traveling along adjacent roadways that will use the proposed development (i.e., pass-by / diverted-link trips), the net new system trips from the proposed development is approximately 608 a.m. peak hour (271 in / 337 out), 819 p.m. peak hour (432 in / 387 out), and 8,954 daily (4,477 in / 4,477 out) trips. 4) Results of the year 2030 capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections and approaches will continue to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both no build and build conditions. However, the following items were identified for discussion. a. The northbound left-turn movement from Quaday Avenue to River Road (CR 42) will begin to become more challenging under build conditions, particularly during the p.m. peak hour; 95th percentile queues for this movement are expected to extend approximately 125 feet. b. All other intersection delays are expected to increase by approximately one (1) to four (4) seconds, except for the eastbound 78th Street approach at Quam Avenue; the eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS C with peak queues ranging from 110 to 140 feet. 5) Based on the results of the operations analysis, while also considering overall safety and context, the following mitigation is offered: a. River Road (CR 42) and Quaday Avenue - convert the westbound bypass lane to a dedicated left-turn lane configuration and preserve the ability to install a future traffic signal or roundabout if / when operations, safety, or development north of River Road (CR 42) indicate the need. b. Quam Avenue and 78th Street - restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane and provide an eastbound right-turn lane. Otsego Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study August 10, 2026 Page 16 c. Quam Avenue and 72nd Street - restripe Quam Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane. d. Quaday Avenue and Pinnacle Avenue / Site Access - restripe Quaday Avenue to provide southbound and northbound left-turn lanes. 6) Other site plan considerations, include: a. Relocate or eliminate the site access to River Road (CR 42) to limit potential conflicts and align with access spacing guidelines and best practices; the operations analysis indicates there is not a significant operational need or benefit of this access, although there are existing access rights and benefits from a developer and site marketability perspective. o If access to River Road (CR 42) is permitted, this access should be either a right-in / right- out or right-in only configuration and located about midway between Quaday Avenue and Quam Avenue; an eastbound right-turn lane should also be included for this access. b. Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 150 feet away from other driveways and public roadways. In particular, the westernmost driveways near Quaday Avenue should be removed to reduce potential conflicts; the western apartment access along 78th Street could be relocated across from one of the two commercial driveways. c. Review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. d. Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. e. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. f. Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. In particular, a trail along the east side of Quaday Avenue and west side of Quam Avenue within the project limits should be provided. Other multimodal facilities should be coordinated between the project team and area agencies. Appendix F Archaeological Study Report Quaday Avenue Mixed Use EAW Otsego, MN Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Jack Peterburs Abraham Ledezma Craig Picka July 31, 2026 Prepared by: Jack Peterburs Abraham Ledezma Craig Picka Principal Investigator: Abraham Ledezma In Situ Project: 2026-129 Prepared for: Landform Professional Services, LLC NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION: Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; Section 9(a) of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (54 U.S.C. § 100707); Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MS 138.31- 138.42); Minnesota Historic Sites Act (MS 138.661-138.669); and Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act (MS 307.08). July 31, 2026 7630 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 658-8891 www.insitucrm.com Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project , Wright County, Minnesota Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota i ABSTRACT Landform Professional Services, LLC commissioned In Situ Archaeological Consulting, LLC (In Situ) to provide archaeological services in support of the Otsego Residential Project (Project). This report presents the results of the Phase I archaeological survey conducted by In Situ for the Project. The Project consists of a proposed construction of a mixed-use development within the city limits of Otsego, Minnesota. The proposed Project area is approximately 137.8 acres in size, however, only 100 acres of the area will be subject to development and an assessment of archaeological potential by In Situ found that approximately 79 acres of the Project area contain a higher potential for cultural resources. Therefore, this survey was focused on the approximate 79 acres of high cultural resource potential (Survey Area) within the Project area. The Project is located in Sections 26 and 27 of Township (T) 121 North (N), Range (R) 23 West (W), in Wright County, Minnesota. The Project area is located on privately-owned land within the city limits of Otsego, Minnesota. The Project is located on five parcels (Parcels 118280000010, 118280000030, 118500262201, 118500271400, and 118500274202) within an area consisting of agricultural fields, mixed grasses, wetlands, wooded vegetation, and urban infrastructure (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.). The Phase I survey included a background literature review within and surrounding the proposed Project area along with an archaeological field survey of the proposed Project. At the present time, the Project is not subject to Section 106 review, as the Project will not require federal assistance or authorization. However, this cultural resource assessment is being completed as part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Project. During the field survey, a total of 79 acres of the 100-acre development area within the 137.7-acre Project area were subject to a targeted Phase I archaeological survey for the Project. A portion of one archaeological site (21WRbn) that overlaps with a portion of the Project Area was revisited. During the archaeological investigation for the proposed Project, no archaeological resources 50 years old or older were observed or recovered within the Project area. The resource may exist within the mapped alpha site boundary but not within the current Project area. Based on the research completed and the results of the archaeological survey, the resource associated with the alpha site does not occur within the Project area and the portion of site 21WRbn that overlaps with the Project area is not part of the overall alpha site. Since the resource associated with the alpha site recording is not within the Project area, the alpha site will not be affected by the Project, and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. No Phase I archaeological survey took place within the remaining 58.7 acres of the development area within Project area, as there is a low potential for the undertaking to impact cultural resources in these areas. It is the professional recommendation of In Situ that the undertaking is not expected to affect historic properties within these areas of low archaeological potential. Therefore, In Situ recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected within the Project area and no further archaeological work is recommended for the Project. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... I INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...................................... 2 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 2 CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................................... 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGY................................................................................................................................................... 3 SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 CULTURAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 5 MINNESOTA ARCHAEOLOGICAL REGION .................................................................................................. 5 PRE-CONTACT (PRE–AD 1630) ................................................................................................................. 5 Paleoindian (11,500–7,500 BC) ............................................................................................................ 5 Archaic Period (10,500–500 BC) .......................................................................................................... 6 Woodland Period (500 BC–AD 700) ..................................................................................................... 8 Late Prehistoric (AD 1000–1650) ....................................................................................................... 11 Mississippian Period (AD 1000–1650)................................................................................................ 12 Historically Documented Native American Tribes .............................................................................. 12 POST-CONTACT (POST-AD 1630)............................................................................................................ 14 Contact Period (AD 1630–1837) ......................................................................................................... 14 POST-CONTACT (POST- AD 1837) ........................................................................................................... 15 Railroad Development ......................................................................................................................... 16 Wright County ...................................................................................................................................... 16 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 17 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 17 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 17 Visual Inspection ................................................................................................................................. 18 Pedestrian Survey ................................................................................................................................ 18 Shovel Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 19 SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 19 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS AND CURATION ..................................................................................................... 20 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 21 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 21 Previous Inventories/Surveys ............................................................................................................... 22 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .......................................................................................... 23 Previously Recorded Architectural Resources .................................................................................... 23 Additional Records Review .................................................................................................................. 24 Archaeological Potential ..................................................................................................................... 24 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................................... 25 Shovel Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 26 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 26 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 26 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 28 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota iii REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................. 29 FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 36 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1: Summary of Soil Series within the Survey Area. ........................................................................... 3 Table 2: Resources Consulted During the Literature and Records Review. ............................................... 21 Table 3: Previous Cultural Resource Inventories/Surveys within the Study Area. .................................... 22 Table 4: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area. .............................................. 23 Table 5: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within the Study Area. ........................................ 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project location on the USGS 1980 Elk River, MN 7.5-minute series topographic map. 2: Project location on an aerial map. 3: Topographic map with previous cultural resources surveys and previously recorded sites. 4: Aerial map with previous cultural resources surveys and previously recorded sites. 5A: Project location on the 1855 BLM GLO Plat map. 5B: Project location on the 1874 Andreas Atlas. 5C: Project location on the 1966 Trygg map. 5D: Project location on historical 1916 plat map. 5E: Project location on historical 1953 aerial imagery. 6: Project plans showing a schematic of the proposed Project footprint. 7: Political map showing the mapbook layout for a fieldwork map of the Project indicating the results of testing and photo orientations. 8: Mapbook of the Project indicating the results of testing and photo orientations. 9-51: Overview photographs of the Survey Area. 52A-D: Typical conditions within the Project area. 53: A typical shovel test excavated within the Project area. 54: A typical hydric shovel test excavated within the Project area. 55-59: Site 21WRbn maps and photographs. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 1 INTRODUCTION Landform Professional Services, LLC commissioned In Situ Archaeological Consulting, LLC (In Situ) to provide archaeological services in support of the Otsego Residential Project (Project). This report presents the results of the Phase I archaeological survey conducted by In Situ for the Project. The Project consists of a proposed construction of a mixed-use development within the city limits of Otsego, Minnesota. The proposed Project area is approximately 137.8 acres in size, however, only 100 acres of the area will be subject to development and an assessment of archaeological potential by In Situ found that approximately 79 acres of the Project area contain a higher potential for cultural resources. Therefore, this survey was focused on the approximate 79 acres of high cultural resource potential (Survey Area) within the Project area. The Project is located in Sections 26 and 27 of Township (T) 121 North (N), Range (R) 23 West (W), in Wright County, Minnesota (Figure 1). The Project area is located on privately-owned land within the city limits of Otsego, Minnesota. The Project is located on five parcels (Parcels 118280000010, 118280000030, 118500262201, 118500271400, and 118500274202) within an area consisting of agricultural fields, mixed grasses, wetlands, wooded vegetation, and urban infrastructure (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) (Figure 2). The Phase I survey included a background literature review within and surrounding the proposed Project area along with a targeted archaeological field survey of the proposed Project. At the present time, the Project is not subject to Section 106 review, as the Project will not require federal assistance or authorization. However, this cultural resource assessment is being completed as part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Project. The literature review was conducted on June 9 and 10, 2026, and the Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on June 15-19 and June 26, 2026. Abraham Ledezma served as Principal Investigator for the archaeological survey. Mr. Ledezma meets the requirements for the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology. Mr. Ledezma has over 20 years of experience and received an M.S. in Applied Anthropology from Missouri State University in 2012 and a B.A. in Anthropology, with an emphasis in Archaeology from Minnesota State University Moorhead in 2008. Fieldwork was completed by an In Situ field crew consisting of Benjamin Schweer (Field Director), Fionna Miller (Crew Chief), Emily Davenport (Field Technician), Erik Zielinski (Field Technician), and Nicholas Zinser (Field Technician). Literature review data was compiled by Jack Peterburs, and report figures were completed by Santos Ledezma. All field notes and photographs are maintained on file at In Situ’s office located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT At the time of survey, the topography of the Project area consisted of relatively flat to sloping terrain. Vegetation consisted of planted soybeans, harvested soybean debris, short, manicured grasses, mixed grasses and wooded vegetation. Impacts include natural erosion, agricultural practices, and urban infrastructure (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.). ECOLOGICAL SETTING The Project area is located within the North Central Hardwood Forests (51) Level III ecoregion, and more specifically, the Anoka Sand Plain and Mississippi Valley Outwash (51h) and Big Woods (51i) Level IV ecoregions. The Anoka Sand Plain and Mississippi Valley Outwash ecoregion is defined as a “Undulating sandy plain with wetlands, some lakes, small grains, row crops, woodlands, and suburban development” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007). The Big Woods ecoregion is described as “Rolling plain with some lakes, mostly row crops with pasture and suburban development; formerly extensive hardwood forest” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007). Prehistoric and historic vegetation within the region known as the Floodplain Forest within the Big Woods subsection, consisted of silver maple, elm, cottonwood, and willow. Currently, agriculture is the dominant land use within the region (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1988; 2026). Hundreds of wildlife species are residents or seasonal visitors to the region along with hundreds of native fish species which live in the surrounding rivers and tributaries. Some of the fauna that would have been common and available for historic and prehistoric human use in the Minnesota region include white-tail deer, black bear, elk, opossum, raccoon, cottontail rabbit, squirrel, gray fox, bobcat, mountain lion, wolf, mink, otter, beaver, muskrat, and woodchuck (Gibbon 2012). CLIMATE The climate of Minnesota is a continental-type climate that is marked by seasonal variations. The average annual temperatures in Minnesota range from 36 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) in the extreme north to 49°F in the southeastern corner. The average winter temperature is 17 ºF and the average summer temperature is 70ºF (National Climatic Data Center 2017). Wright County winters are cold, and summers are warm. Most of the precipitation occurs between April and September when 72 percent of the annual precipitation is received. The average annual precipitation is about 29.02 inches in the county. Snow covers the county throughout late fall through early spring. The average snowfall in the county is 45.7 inches. The average winter temperature in the county is 15ºF and the average summer temperature is 70ºF (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2004). PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY The physiography of the Project area is located within the Owatonna Moraine Area. This area is “a series of moraines that formed along the eastern edge of the Des Moines lobe… The eastern edge terminates abruptly beside the featureless Rochester till plain. The western edge grades into the Blue Earth till plain (Wright 1972). The highest elevation in Wright County is about 1,100 ft. above sea level, with the lowest elevation at about 843 ft. above sea level (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1968). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 3 In Wright County, all streams, including the North and South Forks of the Crow River, empty into the Mississippi River (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1968). There is an unnamed permanent waterbody within the Project area. The closest named waterbody is the Mississippi River, which is located approximately 0.21 miles east of the Project area. GEOLOGY The geology of the Project area is characterized by Upper Cambrian, undivided, dating to the Late Cambrian. Upper Cambrian, undivided are comprised of “Jordan Sandstone; dolomite, glauconite, and silty glauconite rocks of the St. Lawerence and Franconia Formation; Ironton and Galesville Sandstones; sandy and shaly rocks of the Eau Claire Formation; and the Mt. Simon Sandstone” (Morey and Meints 2000). SOILS The Project area is located within the Hayden-Lester-peat and Estherville-Hubbard-Wadena soil associations. Hayden-Lester-peat soils are described as “Deep, medium textured and moderately fine textured soils on strongly rolling and hilly uplands” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1968). Estherville-Hubbard-Wadena soils are described as “Shallow and moderately deep, moderately coarse textured and medium textured soils on nearly level and undulating outwash plains and terraces” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1968). There are 14 specific soils series present in the Project area, with the most prevalent soil series (22.9%) consisting of Hubbard-Mosford complex, Mississippi River Vally (D62A) (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2026; UC Davis 2026). The soil profiles and descriptions for the soil series within the Project area revealed that there are no known buried soils (UC Davis 2026). Within areas with minimal to no deposition, archaeological materials ranging from as early as the Paleoindian Period to present are typically located at the ground surface or are shallowly buried (Hudak et al. 2002; Johnson 1993; Michlovic 2025; Running 1995). Table 1 summarizes the soils within the Project area. Table 1: Summary of Soil Series within the Survey Area. Soil Series Parent Material Drainage Slope Landform Extent of Area Buried Soils 258C: Sandberg loamy sand Sandy and gravelly outwash Excessively drained 2-12% Stream terraces, hillslopes 1.9% N 258E: Sandberg loamy sand Sandy and gravelly outwash Excessively drained 6-30% Stream terraces, hillslopes 10.7% N 260: Duelm loamy sand Sandy outwash Moderately well drained 0-2% Flats 11.9% N 261: Isan-Isan, frequently ponded, complex Sandy alluvium Isan: Poorly drained Isan, frequently ponded: Very poorly drained 0-2% Isan: Flats, stream terraces Isan, frequently ponded: Depressions, stream terraces 12.4% N 441: Almora loam Outwash Well drained 0-2% Outwash plains 4.0% N Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 4 Table 1: Summary of Soil Series within the Survey Area. Soil Series Parent Material Drainage Slope Landform Extent of Area Buried Soils 543: Markey muck, occasionally ponded Herbaceous organic material over sandy outwash Very poorly drained 0-1% Depressions 6.6% N 1260E: Stonelake- Nebish complex Stonelake: Outwash Nebish: Till Stonelake: Excessively drained Nebish: Well drained 12- 25% Hills on moraines 1.2% N 1377B: Dorset- Two Inlets complex Outwash Dorset: Well drained Two Inlets: Excessively drained 2-6% Hills on outwash plains, hills on stream terraces 4.0% N 1378: Fordum loam, occasionally flooded Alluvium Poorly drained 0-2% Alluvial flats on flood plains 6.2% N D62A: Hubbard- Mosford complex, Mississippi River Valley Sandy alluvium Excessively drained 0-3% Stream terraces 22.9% N D67A: Hubbard loamy sand Sandy outwash Excessively drained 0-2% Flats, stream terraces 1.1% N D67B: Hubbard loamy sand Sandy outwash Excessively drained 1-6% Hillslopes, stream terraces 5.0% N D67C: Hubbard loamy sand Sandy outwash Excessively drained 2-12% Stream terraces, hillslopes 5.4% N W: Water N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.7% N/A Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 5 CULTURAL CONTEXT The purpose of a Phase I archaeological survey is to identify and locate cultural resources within and near the proposed undertaking and assess if the undertaking will have any potential impact on significant cultural resources. A component of this is to complete a cultural context in relation to the Project area and surrounding region. For the purposes of a Phase I archaeological survey, the following narrative presents a regionalized, condensed, and generalized pre-contact, contact, and post-contact cultural overviews based on multiple resources specific to Minnesota and the region to provide a context of potential archaeological and cultural resources that may be encountered within the Project area. MINNESOTA ARCHAEOLOGICAL REGION The Project location is situated within Archaeological Region 4 – Central Lakes Deciduous (Anfinson 1990; Gibbon 2012; Gibbon et al. 2002; Hobbs 2019). The Central Lakes Deciduous region encompasses Anoka, Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Hennepin, Isanti, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Ramsey, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Wadena, Washington, and Wright counties with portions of Becker, Dakota, Douglas, Hubbard, Kandiyohi, Kanabec, Meeker, Otter Tail, Pine, Pope, and Swift counties. This region could also be extended eastward into central Wisconsin. The topography of the Central Deciduous Lakes region is characterized by a patchwork of moraines, till plains, and outwash plains. The Mississippi River flows through the central and eastern area of the region with the Lower St. Croix River on the eastern border (Anfinson 1990; Gibbon 2012; Gibbon et al. 2002; Hobbs 2019). During the contact period (1630-1837), the southern and western areas of the Central Lakes Deciduous region were dominated by Big Woods flora (elm, maple, and basswood) with large inclusions of prairie and oak forests. Oak forests likely dominated the region during the Late Holocene with the eastern area of the region still being dominated by oak forests until approximately the 1850s. The northern area of the region was a mix of deciduous and coniferous forests. Deer was the dominant fauna throughout the region with small numbers of bison and elk in the southern and western areas of the region and beaver, black bear, and moose in the northern and eastern areas of the region (Anfinson 1990; Gibbon 2012; Gibbon et al. 2002; Hobbs 2019). PRE-CONTACT (PRE–AD 1630) Paleoindian (11,500–7,500 BC) The Paleoindian Period in North America dates between approximately 11,500–7,500 BC. This is the period in which the first human populations came to North America and the last retreat of the Wisconsin glacial period. The defining characteristics of the Paleoindians were: • the extensive use of exotic cherts, • specialized lithic technologies, • small and extremely mobile societies, and • primary subsistence on large game mammals (J. Morrow 1996; Schermer et al. 1995). During this period, the environment in Minnesota continually changed from an “open boreal coniferous forest dominated by grasses and scattered conifer trees” (Gibbon 2012:38) to open prairie in the southwest, deciduous forest in center-southeast, and coniferous forest in the north. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 6 Early Paleoindian (11,500–10,500 BC) During the Early Paleoindian Period, the main characteristic that distinguishes the Early Paleoindian period from the Late Paleoindian period are the use of fluted lanceolate points and subsistence on large-extinct animals including mammoths, mastodons, and giant bison varieties (Gibbon 2012; J. Morrow 1996; Schermer et al. 1995). As of 2012, only about seventy-three points, and possibly a scraper and drill have been identified within Minnesota (Gibbon 2012). The lithic technology of the Early Paleoindian is characterized by fluted lanceolate points. The fluted styles found in Minnesota include Clovis, Gainey, Folsom, and Holcombe Points (T. Morrow 2016). Fluting is the removal of a flake from the base of the projectile. The earliest known point type in North America is the Clovis, which dates in Minnesota from circa 9,350 to 8,650 BC (T. Morrow 2016). Clovis points are broad, thin, well-made lanceolate points with concave bases and basal flutes that extend one-half to one-fifth the length of the point. Folsom is the second oldest recorded lithic technology and overlaps with Clovis, dating in Minnesota from circa 8,800 to 8,200 BC (J. Morrow 1996; T. Morrow 2016; Schermer et al. 1995). Folsom points are “thin, finely made, medium sized lanceolate points with a flattened to bi-concave cross section, parallel to convex sides, and broad flutes that cover at least 60 percent of each face” (T. Morrow 2016:128). Gainey points are fluted points that have a “lanceolate outline, deep and rounded basal concavities, and well-defined primary flutes” (T. Morrow 2016:124). Holcombe points are “small, thin lanceolate points with shallow concavities with broadly convex sides and high midpoint above the center” (T. Morrow 2016:132). Late Paleoindian (10,500–7,500 BC) The Late Paleoindian Period is characterized by the disappearance of fluted lanceolate styles and replaced with non-fluted lanceolate point types. Stemmed points, some heavy stone tools, and the use of Hixton quartzite from western Wisconsin are also characteristics of the Late Paleoindian Period in Minnesota (Gibbon 2012). The majority of Late Paleoindian artifacts have been found as surface finds in plowed fields, which have been removed from their original context. This makes any inferences between the associations between the artifacts of this period difficult. The point types found in Minnesota from this period are Agate Basin, Alberta, Angostura, Browns Valley, Eden, Frederick, Hell Gap, Midland, Plainview, and Scottsbluff. These artifacts tend to be well made with high-quality craftsmanship (Gibbon 2012; T. Morrow 2016). Archaic Period (10,500–500 BC) The Archaic Period within Minnesota dates between 10,500–500 BC. Within Minnesota, that Early Archaic Period coexisted with the Late Paleoindian Period with little definable timeframe. The Archaic Period in Minnesota is characterized by the: • expansion of a subsistence strategy that relied on a variety of modern game fauna (deer, moose, bison, rabbits, beavers, birds and fish) and wild flora resources, • absence of pottery manufacturing, • appearance of a variety of notched and stemmed projectile points, • emergence of pecked and groundstone tools, and • appearance of native copper artifacts, and some exotic materials such as marine shell (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012; Stoltman 1997). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 7 During this period, the climate was continuously changing toward a warm and dry climate, a change known as the Altithermal. The dry and hot weather continued for approximately 1,000 years before changing to a cooler, wetter climate that led to a more modern ecology by 3,000 BC (Florin et al. 2016). Deciduous forests dominated the southern area of Minnesota while pine forests replaced the boreal spruce forests in the north. By 8,000 BC, the tallgrass prairie had spread from west to east across the state, pushing the forests east and then receding back to its present position (Gibbon 2012). Early Eastern Archaic (10,500-7,500 BC) The Early Eastern Archaic Period was contemporaneous with the Late Paleoindian Period. The Early Eastern Archaic describes the Archaic Complexes that derived from the eastern woodlands instead of the western prairie. The Early Eastern Archaic dates between 10,500–7,500 BC (Gibbon 2012). This was a transitional period for cultures, with less reliance upon large game mammals to more reliance upon foraging subsistence (T. Morrow 1996; Schermer et al. 1995). The Early Eastern Archaic points are notched or stemmed styles such as Dalton, Hi -Lo, Quad, Thebes, St. Charles, Graham Cave Side Notched, and Kirk Corners Notched points (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). These points are often associated with sparse scatters of non-diagnostic artifacts like scrapers, blades, and point blanks. As with the Paleoindian Period, it is likely that organic artifacts like wooden artifacts, cords/textiles, and bone tools have not lasted until modern times (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Middle Archaic (7,500–3,000 BC) The Middle Archaic Period dates approximately between 7,500–3,000 BC. The driest and warmest post-glacial period, the Altithermal, occurred during this period. Due to large climatic changes during this period, many sites may have either been buried or eroded away (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon et al. 2002). The lithic technology of the Middle Archaic is characterized by a wide range of medium-sized stemmed and notched projectile point types. The projectile points of the Middle Archaic tend to be smaller and poorly made compared to Early Archaic and Late Paleoindian points. This may have been due to an emphasis on using and possibly heat-treating poor quality local lithic resource material rather than the use of higher quality, exotic lithic materials (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon et al. 2002; Picka 2012). Middle Archaic points are smaller than Paleoindian points, with side notches and beveled, re- sharpened edges. These edges seem to be used for both penetration and cutting. The points were used as projectile points for atlatl darts, which first appeared during the Archaic Period. The site types from this period in Minnesota include base camps, short-term camps, kill sites, lithic scatters, burials, lithic quarries, and workshops (Gibbon 2012). The points of the Middle Archaic are divided into two broad categories, the Plains and the Eastern Woodlands. Projectile point types found in the Eastern Woodlands include LeCroy Bifurcated Stemmed, Fox Valley Truncated Barb, Osceola, Raddatz Side Notched, Eva I, Morrow Mountain I and II, Matanzas Side Notched, Etley, Benton Stemmed, and Elk River Stemmed. The point types found in the Plains are Simonsen, Graham Cave Side Notched, Oxbow, McKean, and Table Rock Stemmed. During this period, ground stone tool technology appears such as grooved stone axes, Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 8 boatstones, bannerstones, and gorgets (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012; T. Morrow 1996; Schermer et al. 1995). Late Archaic (3,000–500 BC) The Late Archaic Period in Minnesota, dating between 3,000–500 BC, is characterized by the appearance of different sets of diagnostic points styles; presence of raw exotic materials (e.g., native copper and marine shell); appearance of “unusual” artifacts including birdstones, gorgets, and Turkey Tail bifaces; presence of communal burials sites; lack of ceramics; and an increasingly modern Late Holocene environment (Gibbon 2012:78). During the Late Archaic, intergroup interactions increased due to an increase in population growth. This increase in population and group interactions created similar subsistence strategies over large areas, which in turn increased each group’s territory size, and increased the number of local, distinctive artifact styles. Trade networks were also developed and established between different communities. The Altithermal ended during this period, causing increased resource stability in areas that were previously inhabitable by humans. A more sedentary lifeway was practiced, as is evidenced by the construction of large communal cemeteries, an increase in wild rice harvesting, and the use of gardens in which sunflowers, amaranth, and squash were cultivated (Gibbon 2012; Schermer et al. 1995). The point types from the Late Archaic are divided into five regional areas: Upper Mississippi River Valley, Northeast, Central Mississippi River Valley, Northern Plains, and Southeast. The Upper Mississippi River Valley consists of the Large Side Notched Cluster (Godar, Madison Side Notched, Osceola, and Raddatz Side Notched), Durst Cluster (Durst Stemmed) Late Archaic Stemmed Cluster (Karnak Stemmed), Turkey Tail Cluster (Turkey Tail), Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster (Delhi and Buck Creek Barbed), Early Woodland Straight Stemmed Cluster (Fox Valley Stemmed, Kramer, Robbins), and Motley Expanding Stem Cluster (Motley, Atalissa, and Tipton). The Northeast consists of the Matanza Cluster (Matanzas Side Notched and Brewerton Eared Notched). The Central Mississippi River Valley consists of the Table Rock Cluster (Table Rock Stemmed) Etley Cluster (Etley), Nebo Hill Cluster (Nebo Hill Lanceolate and Sedalia Lanceolate), and Wadlow Cluster (Wadlow). The Northern Plains consists of the McKean Cluster (McKean, Duncan, and Hanna), and the Oxbow Cluster (Oxbow). The Southeast consists of the Eva Cluster (Eva II), Benton Cluster (Benton Stemmed and Elk River Stemmed), Ledbetter Cluster (Ledbetter stemmed), and Dickson Contracting Stemmed Cluster (Gary and Little Bear Creek) (Gibbon 2012; T. Morrow 2016). Woodland Period (500 BC–AD 700) The timeframe for the Woodland Period in Minnesota varies. In southeastern Minnesota, this period dates between 500 BC–AD 700. In central and northern Minnesota, the Woodland Period dates between 1,000 BC–AD 1750. During this period, the environment stabilized and allowed for the development of greater regional variations (Gibbon 2012). The two main characteristics of the Woodland Period in Minnesota are the appearances of pottery and earthen burial mounds (Johnson 1988). The appearance of these two cultural developments may suggest an increase in social complexity. Hunting and gathering continues within the Woodland Period with the “intensification of food resource activities initiated in the Late Archaic Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 9 Period” (Gibbon 2012:93). However, there is also an increasing reliance on domesticated plants and wild rice, which indicates an increase in population growth and sedentism (Johnson 1988; Radford et al. 2015). This document will concentrate on the Initial and Terminal–Woodland Periods in southeastern Minnesota. Initial Woodland in Southeastern Minnesota (500 BC–AD 500) The Initial Woodland Period in southeastern Minnesota describes the Woodland Period (500 BC- AD 500) in the area east and south of St. Cloud, Minnesota. It is divided by Gibbon (2012) into Early Woodland, Havana-Related Middle Woodland, and Late Middle Woodland (Gibbon 2012). Early Woodland (500–200 BC) The most identifiable diagnostic artifact from the Early Woodland Period in southeastern Minnesota is the appearance of the La Molle Thick pottery and Black Sand series of pottery. La Moille Thick pottery has walls ranging between 1-1.5 centimeters thick and has a cordmarked surface with “distinct vertical to oblique cordmarking on the exterior surface and horizontal to oblique cordmarking on the interior surface” (Anfinson 1979; Gibbon 2012). La Molle Thick could be associated with a variety of straight-stemmed points, most commonly the Kramer points. Black Sand series of pottery are decorated with incised lines (Black Sand Incised), or with finger or fingernail impressions (Sisters Creek Punctate), although the latter is less common. Waubesa Stemmed points are associated with finger/fingernail impressed pottery. Other point types associated with the Early Woodland of southeastern Minnesota are Adena, Robbins, and Dickson (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012; T. Morrow 2016). Havana-Related Middle Woodland (200 BC–AD 200) The Havana-Related Middle Woodland Period dates from 200 BC–AD 200 and consists of three Phases: Howard Lake, Sorg and Malmo. The Howard Lake Phase is not well understood nor well investigated. This phase is the northernmost regional variant of the Havana Hopewell from Central Illinois River valley and the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. The Hopewell Interaction Sphere was the propagation of ideas about social organization and relationships, technology, and economic activities from the Hopewellian culture centers in Illinois and Ohio (Perry 1996; Schermer et al. 1995). The Howard Lake Phase is centered on many major rivers, lakes, and wetlands of southeastern Minnesota. The greatest site concentration of this phase is within southern Anoka County, where there are large mound concentrations with some small habitation sites. The Sorg Phase is concentrated around Spring Lake, south of St. Paul, Minnesota. The Malmo Phase is the most common phase of the Havana-Related Middle Woodland Period. Sites from this phase are found across much of central and eastern Minnesota (Arzigian 2008; Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). The ceramics of the Havana-Related Middle Woodland are wide-mouthed jars with thick vessel walls (6–12 mm), straight rims, slightly constricted necks, fairly rounded shoulders, and subconoidal bases. They are grit-tempered and are decorated with punctuates, bosses, incised lines, slashes, cordwrapped-stick impressions, and dentate stamping. The point types associated with this period are the Hopewell luster, which includes Snyders, Manker, and Gibson points (Arzigian 2008; Gibbon 2012). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 10 Havana burials within the south of Minnesota were typically grouped from two, three, or 15 conical burial mounds. The mounds varied in size, with the larger mounds measuring 30 feet in height. Mounds over five ft. high almost always contained diagnostic Havana-Hopewell burial items including copper earspools, pan pipes, celts, perforated bear canines, platform pipes, pearl beads, and elongated, nonutilitarian bifaces (Arzigian 2008; Gibbon 2012). Late Middle Woodland (AD 200–500) The Late Middle Woodland Period dates from AD 200–500. The change from the Havana-Related Middle Woodland Period to the Late Middle Woodland Period appeared to be a gradual process among the local populations. The archaeological record of this period in southeastern Minnesota is largely unknown. Gibbon (2012) assumes Allamakee and Millville cultural phases of northeastern Iowa and southwestern Wisconsin extended into southeastern Minnesota. This period is characterized by the replacement of the widespread use of Havanna ceramics with more spatially restricted imitations, less elaborate cultural practices, and the significant change in ceramic technology (Arzigian 2008; Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Burial practices are still dominated by the use of burial mounds, however, these practices become more simplified with grave goods becoming rarer and with no associated diagnostics. The most notable ceramic type is the Linn wares. The Linn wares of this region are thin-walled diagnostic ceramics that retain some Havana-related decoration (dentates, cordmarking). Ceramic technology also changes with vessels having more globular shapes, complex rims, thinner walls, and much finer tempers. The lithic assemblages consist of side-notched Steuben points and smaller Ansell points (Arzigian 2008; Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Terminal Woodland in Southeastern Minnesota (AD 500–1200) The Terminal Woodland Period in southeastern Minnesota dates from AD 500–1200, just before the first European contact. This period is characterized by changes in ceramic and lithic technologies. One of the most notable changes is the development of the bow and arrow, effigy mounds, elaborate mortuary rituals, increase in long-distance trade networks, acquisition of exotic materials, elaborate smoking-pipe tradition, and the development of socially ranked societies. The human population also increased with a gradually greater dependence on domesticated plants and a more sedentary lifeway. However, not much is known since the archaeological record within the region and period is lacking. Archaeologists have to rely on information from sites in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa. The Woodland Period ends with the introduction of corn farming and the appearance of the Mississippian and Plains Village Cultures (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012; Johnson 1988). Initial Late Woodland (AD 500–700) The Initial Late Woodland Period dates between AD 500–700 and is a transitional period between the Late Middle Woodland Period and the Mature Late Woodland Period. This period includes two closely related archaeological phases known as the Mill phase in southwestern Wisconsin and Lane Farm phase in northeastern Iowa. The characteristic of both phases is the presence of Lane Farm Cord-Impressed ceramic wares. These wares have a somewhat rounded base, constricted neck, are relatively thin, and have a fine, grit temper. They typically have cord-impress decoration on the exterior rim, and rocker stamping over some of the body below the rim. The projectile points associated with this period are small corner-notched points, which are the first arrow points in the Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 11 region. These may have included the Stueben Stemmed, Maker Corner Notched, Scallorn, Klunk Side-Notched, and Koster Corner-Notched types. Other traits of the period are the appearance of small conical mounds and some elongated linear mounds with limited burial goods (Arzigian 2008; Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Mature Late Woodland (AD 700 – 1000) During the Mature Late Woodland Period, mound construction became more widespread and complex known as the Effigy Mound Complex. In southeast Minnesota, the Effigy Mound Culture appeared between AD 700–1000. This culture is characterized by the creation of groups of linear mound complexes, effigy mounds, and conical mounds. The effigy mounds resemble several animals including bears, deer, panthers, turtles, and birds. The mounds rarely exceed two to three feet in height and are about 500 feet or more in length. The mounds are typically located on ridgetops or elevated areas bordering major lakes and rivers. Altogether, there are about 13 to 15 sites in Minnesota that contain effigy mounds or possible effigy mounds (Arzigian 2008; Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Besides the mounds, the most common diagnostic trait of this period are the Madison Ware ceramics. The general characteristics of the vessels are globular shaped, thin walls, fine grit temper, cordmarking on the exterior surface, a constricting neck, and an out-flaring rim. They are typically decorated with cord impressions with geometrical patterns on the exterior rim surface. Angelo Punctate is another ceramic style found in the latter part of this period. They are thin walled and cordmarked, often decorated with punctuates and fine incised lines. The points from this period are small stemmed, side-notched, and unnotched triangular arrow points. This includes Scallorn, Koster Corner Notched, Klunk Side Notched, and Madison point types (Florin et al. 2016; Gibbon 2012). Final Late Woodland (AD 1000–1200) The Final Late Woodland Period in Minnesota dates between AD 1000–1200. This period marks profound changes in the archaeological record in southeastern Minnesota and the Upper Mississippi Valley south of the Twin Cities. These changes include a significant reduction in “pure” Late Woodland sites, effigy mounds are no longer being constructed (approximately by AD 1050), stockade sites with Mississippian traits become common in southeastern Wisconsin, northeastern Iowa, and possibly in the Red Wing locality of Minnesota, and large portions of the driftless areas are abandoned. Corn horticulture is found with the Grant series of ceramic wares in western Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, northern Iowa, and northern Illinois. Grant Ware are grit-tempered, cord-roughened globular jars with prominent castellation, collars, squared orifices, or other special rim treatments that raise the rim height. The most common projectile points from this period include the Madison Triangular, Cahokia, Reed, Harrel, and Des Moines types of the Cahokia Side Notched cluster (Gibbon 2012). Late Prehistoric (AD 1000–1650) The Late Prehistoric Period dates between AD 1000–1650 and is characterized by the use of earthlodge dwellings, crop surplus, improved storage techniques, and the development of complex social organization within villages. Corn became a staple in the native diets along with bison meat. There is also the increased appearance of bison bone tools within the archaeological record of this Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 12 period. This is most likely due to less time in the ground with which the bone can deteriorate (Radford et al. 2015; Schermer et al. 1995). Mississippian Period (AD 1000–1650) The Mississippian Period dates from AD 1000–1650. The Mississippian Culture was agriculturally intense, depending heavily on maize, beans, sunflowers, and tobacco. There were two major Mississippian centers in Minnesota. One center was located at the junction of the Cannon and Mississippi rivers, just north of Red Wing, Minnesota and the other along the central and upper Minnesota River. These centers seem to have evolved from the great Middle Mississippian center at Cahokia, Illinois. These cultural centers developed different adaptations associated with their environment. The Red Wing locality was adapted to forests and tall grass prairies in the east and the Minnesota River locality was adapted to the timbered river bottoms and grassland in the west. There are four main Phases from this period in Minnesota: Silvernale, Great Oasis, Cambria, and Big Stone (Gibbon 2012; Johnson 1988). Villages in this period were large, possibly housing between 600 and 800 people. Some of these villages had palisades and were frequently located on easily defendable flat river terraces. Deep storage pits were dug throughout the villages. Gardens were planted in the river bottoms while hunting and fishing remained important, with some Mississippian sites depending on bison as a food staple. A large number of burial mound complexes are associated with this culture (Johnson 1988). Oneota Complex (AD 1225–1650) The Oneota is the archaeological typology name given to several post-Woodland groups living on the Prairie Peninsula that dates to circa AD 1000-1650. This cultural complex appears in Minnesota from AD 1225–1650. This culture complex is most commonly identified by shared a ceramic style, which is a shell-tempered globular jar that has a constricted mouth and round bottom. The shoulder is often decorated with incised, geometric patterns. A common decoration motif on Oneota ceramics are chevrons and other variations. Other artifacts that were common, but not unique to the people associated with the Oneota Complex are bison scapula hoes, deer mandible sickle; small, unnotched triangular projectile points; end scrappers; sandstone abraders; mauls; catlinite disc and elbow pipes; and village areas with numerous storage pits. These groups lived in a variety of house shapes including oval, square, and long rectangle. There are two Oneota Phases in Minnesota: Blue Earth Phase and Orr Phase (Fishel 1996; Gibbon 2012). Historically Documented Native American Tribes Disclaimer: The following discussion is written from a Euro-American perspective and may reflect inherent cultural and historical biases. Please note that the list of Native American tribes presented in this archaeological report is likely incomplete and may not represent the full diversity of peoples who inhabited what is now southern Minnesota prior to the Contact Period (Post-AD 1630). The individual tribes mentioned in this section are those for whom the most substantial documentation exists following initial contact with Europeans or individuals of European descent. Dakota “Dakota” is a self-designated name meaning “ally.” The Dakota consists of 13 subdivisions of Siouan-speaking people (Dakota-Lakota-Nakota) that were all part of the Oceti Sakowin, or Seven Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 13 Council Fires. This council of political divisions included the Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonai, and Teton tribes. The Dakota people originally inhabited much of the northwestern Upper Midwest, including present-day Minnesota, eastern South Dakota, western Wisconsin, and northern Iowa. The Dakota’s first contact with Europeans was with French traders and Jesuit missionaries in the 1650s. The Dakota were originally a migrational people relying on a hunting and gathering subsistence strategy. They hunted bison, deer, and waterfowl and fished using spears and nets. They also foraged for wild flora resources including fruit, acorns, nuts, wild rice, and maple sap. During the 19th century, the Dakota practiced horticulture but planted at irregular intervals. They planted corn, squash, beans, and tobacco. Their crop yields were small and would only last a few weeks (DeMallie 2001; Malinowski et al. 1998; Pritzker 2000). When the Dakota occupied the Wisconsin-Minnesota area, they formed small (occasionally palisaded) villages near lakes and rice swamps, living in large heavily timbered bark houses with pitched roofs. During winter, some groups would live in conical houses covered in skins, and the Sisseton group sometimes used tipis after moving to the prairies (Pritzker 2000). The descendants of the Dakota people have continued to maintain tribal identity throughout the northern Great Plains. Modern Dakota-Lakota-Nakota communities include: the Fort Peck Reservation in Roosevelt, Sheridan, Valley Counties, Montana; the Devils Lake (formerly Fort Totten) Reservation in Benson, Eddy, Nelson, and Ramsey Counties, North Dakota; the Lake Traverse Reservation in Richland and Sargent counties, North Dakota and Cadington, Day, Grant, Marshall, and Roberts Counties, South Dakota; the Santee Sioux Reservation in Knox County, Nebraska; the Flandreau Santee Sioux Reservation in Mood County, South Dakota; the Lower Sioux Community, Redwood County, Minnesota; the Prairie Island Community, Goodhue County, Minnesota; the Upper Sioux Community in Yellow Medicine County, Minnesota; the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in Scott County, Minnesota; and several communities in Saskatchewan, Canada (Pritzker 2000). Ioway The Ioway are a Siouan-speaking tribe that originally resided in the Missouri and Mississippi River Valleys in what is now Iowa and southern Minnesota. The Ioway, along with the Oto, Winnebago, and Missouria were once part of a larger tribe with ancestral roots in Oneota culture that lived north of the Great Lakes (Pritzker 2000). The first recorded contact with the Ioway was in AD 1676 by Father Louis Andre in Green Bay, Wisconsin (Anderson 1973a). The early Ioway were a semi-sedentary horticultural tribe that moved their villages frequently within the region of Iowa and southern Minnesota. By 1700, the Ioway lived near the Red Pipestone Quarry in southwestern Minnesota and used the catlinite from the quarry to make pipes and other carvings. Some bands established villages near the Platte River in Missouri in the early 1800s, which is where they were when encountered by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (Waldman 2006). Traditional Ioway semi-permanent villages were located on terraces above river flood plains and were comprised of different types of dwellings including earth lodges and wattle- and-daub houses. During travel for hunting trips, skin tipis and bark-covered pole-frame lodges were used (Pritzker 2000). The annual bison hunt took place from May to August in order to stockpile meat for winter. During the fall and winter, they supplemented their diet with smaller hunting parties for bison, elk, and deer and grew beans, corn, squash, pumpkins, and other native crops (Anderson 1973a; Anderson 1973b; Malinowski et al. 1998; Wedel 2001). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 14 The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma are both federally recognized tribal entities, with the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma also being a member of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (Pritzker 2000). Reservation land for the Ioway people was established in 1836 and is located in Brown and Doniphan Counties, Kansas and Richardson County, Missouri. Additionally, there are individually owned lands in Lincoln, Payne, and Logan Counties, Oklahoma (Pritzker 2000). POST-CONTACT (POST-AD 1630) Contact Period (AD 1630–1837) Disclaimer: The following discussion is written with a lens of Euro-American bias. Before the native population made contact with early French Explorers, European trade goods started to appear within Minnesota. Glass beads, iron knives, brass kettles, finger rings, and gun parts appear within the archaeological record, which were from early French traders. The local native tribes were also indirectly affect by Europeans by the spread of foreign disease, which decimated their populations. At one point or another, parts of Minnesota were claimed by the French, Spanish, British, and United States. Minnesota was first claimed by the French as part of New France (Blegen 1969; Folwell 1956). The first recorded exploration in Minnesota was by French explorers Daniel Graysolon, Sieur du Lhut, Father Loius Hennepin, and Pierre Charles le Sueur. Sieur du Lhut was sent out from Quebec and Montreal to open trade with the Dakota in 1679, and for the next 11 years explored the triangle between the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers. Father Louis Hennepin along with Michel Accault, and Antonie Aguell were also sent out to explore in the Upper Mississippi River Valley circa AD 1679, where they discovered and named St. Anthony Falls. In 1731, Canadian-born French explorer Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de La Verendrye set out from to explores lands west of Lake Superior. In August of 1731, he sailed into Grand Portage and passed over the Canada - United States Boarder Lakes to establish a trade post at Lake of the Woods. At this post, trade could be conducted with the local tribes. At the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War), the 1763 Treaty of Paris gave all the land east of the Mississippi, which had been held by the Kingdom of France, to the Kingdom of Great Britain; this land would then be ceded to the United States of America in the 1783 Treaty of Paris after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. In 1797, Pembina in North Dakota was established by Charles Baptiste Chaboillez of the North West Company. Also, the Hudson Bay and American Fur Companies were also positioned at Pembina as the fur trade increased and expanded. There were a few native tribes within the southeastern area of Minnesota including the Ioway and the Dakota (Blegen 1963; Folwell 1956; Merry 1996; Radford et al. 2015; Schermer et al. 1995; Schwieder 2000). Approximately half of what would become Minnesota was purchased by the United States from France as part of the Louisiana purchase in 1803. In 1805, Zebulon Pike was ordered to ascend the Mississippi River to its source, find suitable locations for military forts, and make notes of the Native American tribes living in the area (Blegen 1963; Folwell 1956). In 1805, Pike negotiated the purchase of land at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, “bdote” or “mdote” in the Dakota language meaning junction/confluence of two rivers. This area became the setting for Fort Snelling (Blegen 1963; Durand 1994; Folwell 1956; Westerman and White 2012). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 15 At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, President Thomas Jefferson believed that Native American tribes could be moved out of the newly purchased territory to free up land for settlers. Some tribes agreed, while others refused. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed in Congress. This act allowed the United States Government to move Native tribes from the east to lands west of the Mississippi River. The removal policy brought about the “reservation” system, with tribes being confined to specific tracts of land (Kansas Historical Society 2023). POST-CONTACT (POST- AD 1837) Disclaimer: The following discussion is written with a lens of Euro-American bias. The area that currently includes all of Minnesota and western Wisconsin was considered “Indian Territory” and settlements were not allowed. Although the French, British, and Americans established trading posts in Minnesota, the first official white settlements were established after 1837. This was due to the signing of two treaties, one with the Ojibwe and one with the Dakota. The 1837 treaties had the Ojibwe and Dakota ceding all their lands east of the Mississippi, which included the Golden Triangle, the land between Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. The treaties were ratified by Congress in 1838, and the land was open to American settlement. In 1849, Minnesota officially became a territory and on May 11, 1858, was admitted as the 32nd state into the United States. In 1862, Congress passed the Homestead Act which allowed up to 160 acres of land to be claimed provided that the person was head-of-household or person over 21 years of age, was a United States citizen or filed a declaration to become a citizen, and stayed on the land and worked the land for five years in addition to paying any administration fees (Blegen 1963; Folwell 1956). In 1851, the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and the Treaty of Mendota ceded Dakota land west of the Mississippi River to the United States government and established the Upper and Lower Sioux Agencies along both banks of the Minnesota River as well as the agreement of the signing tribes to relocate to the reservations and receive annuities. A subsequent treaty, in 1858, further ceded the portion of both reservations north of the Minnesota River (Newcombe 1976; Thompson 1912). The terms of the 1851 and 1858 treaties not being met by the government, the encroachment of white settlers, starvation, and refusal of traders to sell goods on credit led to the Dakota War of 1862 in southwestern Minnesota. The six-week war was sparked on August 17, 1862, when four young Dakota men killed five settlers in Acton Township, Meeker County which then escalated the following the morning of August 18, 1862, with the attack on the Lower Sioux Agency and ended after the Dakota defeat at the Battle of Wood Lake on September 23, 1862, and the release of captives at Camp Release on September 26, 1862 (Blegen 1963; Folwell 1956; Nichols 1974). The aftermath of the Dakota War of 1862 was the sentencing of 303 Dakota men to death and the forced march of approximately 1,600 Dakota, primarily women and children, from the Lower Sioux Agency to a concentration camp near Fort Snelling. The forced march to Fort Snelling, which became known as the “Dakota Trail of Tears,” was marked by violence toward the Dakota from communities that were located along the route and the spread of disease within the concentration camp. The condemned men were marched to Mankato to be publicly executed, however President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all but 39 men; one man received a reprieve before the execution date. These men were executed by hanging on December 26, 1862, in what is the largest one-day mass execution in United States History and the men whose sentences were commuted were interred for four years at Camp McClellan in Iowa (Blegen 1963; Carlson 2004; Folwell 1956; Lass 1963; Nichols 1974; Phillips 2023). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 16 Further consequences of the Dakota War of 1862 were the United States passing laws that nullified all treaties with the Dakota and removed the Dakota, as well as the Ho-Chunk (Winnebago), from Minnesota. At the time of the Dakota War of 1862, the Ho-Chunk, originally from Wisconsin, were living within a reservation on the Blue Earth River after having been living on a number of different reservations since the end of Black Hawk War in 1832. The 1863 laws also made it illegal for Dakota people to reside in Minnesota (Blegen 1963; Folwell 1956; Lass 1963; Nichols 1974; Pritzker 2000.) Railroad Development In the mid-1800s, the construction of railroads was started throughout the United States beginning with the first railroad built near Baltimore, Maryland in 1831 (Schwieder 2000). The railroad system in Minnesota began in 1862, with the construction of the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, connecting St. Paul and St. Anthony. This resulted in the construction and expansion of major railway lines to the southwest and west, including the Chicago; St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha Railway; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway; and the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. The railroad helped to create the current settlement pattern and economic developments in Minnesota. They are an efficient, inexpensive way to transport goods and people. Also, for the first time, people could travel at any time of the year (Quivik and Martin 1988; Schwieder 2000). Wright County Wright County was organized in 1855. The first county seat was the city of Monticello, but it later moved to the city of Buffalo. As early as 1797, the first Europeans to have visited the area that is now Wright County were fur traders. One of the first trading posts established in the county was built by Samuel E. Carrick in either 1850 or 1851. Official settlement did not start until after 1851, once treaties with the Native Americans were signed. The treaties had the Native Americans relinquish their claims to the land, which included the area that became Wright County. The first European pioneers settled in the thick forests of elm, basswood, oak, and other hardwood forests in the county. There were also some tracts of land with open prairie. The first permanent settlement was Monticello, which is located in a prairie opening and along the Mississippi River. One of the first railroads to be built in Wright County was the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, which reached Delano and crossed the county to Wilmar, MN in 1868. By 1900, the population of Wright County was 29,157 residents (Curtiss-Wedge 1915; U.S Department of Agriculture 1968; Upham 1920). Agriculture has been the main industry in the county. Many of the first European settlers farmed only what they needed at first. Commercial farming was not a profitable enterprise until farmers gained easier access to markets when the railroad was built in 1868. Wheat was the dominant cash crop in the early part of the county history along with corn and other small grain crops. However, by 1900, dairy farming became the dominant industry, but farmers still grew small grain crops. In 1900, there were 3,992 farms with an average size of 96.2 acres. By 1964, there were 2,795 farms with an average size of 139.7 acres. In 2022, there were 1,310 farms with an average size of 172 acres per farm. Currently, the main cash crops of Wright County are soybeans, corn, and hay/haylage. Dairy farming is still an important enterprise in the county (Curtiss-Wedge 1915; U.S Department of Agriculture 1968; U.S. Department of Agriculture 2022; Upham 1920). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 17 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The targeted Phase I archaeological survey was conducted in accordance with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2005) and the State Archaeologist’s Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2011). For this Project, the fieldwork and reporting followed these standards and guidelines, and the work completed was done in a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties within the Project area. LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of a Phase I archaeological survey is to identify and locate cultural resources within and near the proposed undertaking and assess if the undertaking will have any potential impact on significant resources. A component of this is to complete a literature review of the Project area and surrounding area to identify known cultural resources and the research helps to provide information on archaeological potential and cultural resources that may be encountered within a project area. A literature search was conducted for a 1-mile radius around the Project area (Study Area). The task was completed using site data files and previous inventory files maintained at the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and Minnesota SHPO. In addition, background research was completed by reviewing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) data, historic maps, cemetery/burial records, atlases, current and historic aerial photographs, LiDAR imagery, soil maps, topographic and geomorphic data, and other sources that might provide information for the locations of historic-era sites, areas of prior disturbance, etc. PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY General terrain, geomorphological setting, and topographic factors were considered in order to assess the absence or likelihood of any cultural resources within the Project area. Areas considered to have a low potential for containing archaeological sites consisted of previously disturbed areas, areas with a slope greater than 20 degrees, areas of poorly drained soils, and low lying-wet areas which were not considered for a Phase I archaeological survey. If areas were considered to have potential for an archaeological site, the following factors were considered: located within undisturbed land, located on a topographically significant landscape feature, proximity to a suitable former or existing water source, and/or proximity to a previously recorded archaeological site or historic structure. In addition, the gathered background research data was used with current field conditions to assess the potential within the Project area for intact archaeological sites. The targeted Phase I archaeological survey for this Project followed the guidelines of the SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2005) and the State Archaeologist’s Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2011). Prior to the Phase I field survey for the Project, In Situ completed an archaeological potential assessment of the Project area. For the archaeological potential assessment, there are portions of the Project area that are within areas of higher cultural resource potential and were flagged to complete a targeted archaeological survey. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 18 For the assessment of archaeological resource potential within the proposed Project area, factors consisting of the general terrain, water resources, geomorphological setting, and topographic factors are considered in order to assess the absence or likelihood of any cultural resources within the Project area. Areas identified as areas with apparent/significant disturbance, areas with excessive slope, areas of poorly drained soils, and low lying-wet areas are considered to have a low potential for containing archaeological sites. However, for an area to be considered to have potential for an archaeological site, the following factors are considered: - Located within undisturbed land (excluding plowed agricultural fields); - Located on a topographically significant landscape feature with well-drained soils; - Proximity of a suitable former or existing water source (within 200 m of named waterbody and perennial streams); - Proximity of a previously recorded archaeological site (within 100 m). Using these parameters, In Situ identified if there are any areas of archaeological potential within the Project area. The archaeological potential generated by In Situ revealed approximately 79 acres of archaeological potential within the Project area. The crew was supervised by a qualified archaeologist who meets the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology (48 FR 44739; National Park Service 1983). A sub-meter GPS unit utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) data as well as field maps were used to collect geospatial data and to ensure field personal maintain an accurate survey grid. This ensured that the crew did not extend the survey outside the Project survey area. All field notes, maps, and photos will be maintained at the In Situ office. The survey conducted within the Project area used the following methods of sampling and testing to identify and evaluate cultural resources. Visual Inspection Locations where cultural resources were not expected, such as areas with significant and apparent disturbance (road and utility right of ways, development, etc.), areas with excessive slope, and low/wet areas were walked over and visually inspected. This method was used to verify the absence or likelihood of any cultural resources within these areas. This method was also utilized to document the general terrain and the surrounding area. In addition, visual inspection took place in areas where there was poor ground surface visibility where shovel testing could not take place. A visual inspection walkover survey took place in areas where a systematic survey, such as pedestrian survey or shovel testing, could not be completed. Where possible to safely do so, areas that were subject to visual inspection walkover used a transect interval of 15 meters (m). Visual inspection is not considered a systematic sample survey strategy and is not as thorough and/or accurate, as it is used when systematic and acceptable survey strategies cannot be completed due to project restrictions, poor field conditions, and/or when there are areas of low cultural resource potential such as sloped, wetland, and disturbed areas are present. Pedestrian Survey This method was used to complete a walkover survey of landforms with a ground surface visibility greater (GSV) than 25% (e.g., plowed field). The pedestrian survey transect interval was 15 m. Transect interval spacing was reduced to 5 m to delineate the site area when any artifacts were discovered. The systematic pedestrian survey was limited only to areas with ample ground surface Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 19 visibility. Pedestrian survey differs from visual inspection as it is a systematic sample survey method that is only used when ground surface visibility is ample enough for a more accurate and acceptable archaeological survey. Shovel Testing This method was used to sample subsurface contexts in areas with slopes less than 20 degrees and ground visibility of less than 30%. A typical shovel test was 40 cm in circular diameter. The shovel tests were excavated on a grid at 15 m intervals, with additional radial shovel tests conducted at 5 m intervals when any artifacts were discovered. All shovel tests were documented using a sub- meter GPS unit. Excavated soil was screened through 0.25-inch mesh. Shovel tests were excavated no deeper than 1 m or at least 20 cm into pre-Holocene soils, where possible. Data gathered from the shovel tests included stratigraphy, soil texture, Munsell color, and the presence or absence of cultural materials. All excavated soils were immediately backfilled upon completion. The shovel test units are classified as negative, positive, sloped, wet, and disturbed. “Negative” shovel tests have intact soils that contained no cultural material. “Positive” shovel tests have intact soils that contained cultural material. “Sloped” shovel tests were located on > 20 degree slopes. “Wet” shovel tests have undisturbed soils and contain a shallow water table and/or hydric soils. “Disturbed” shovel tests have evidence of previous ground disturbance due to land development. SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA The purpose of the archaeological survey was to identify and record previously undocumented cultural resources located within the Project area. Sites were evaluated for their significance as defined by criteria established in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4 (National Park Service 1997 [1990]), which states: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A site may meet one or more of the eligibility criteria listed above, but if the site is considered to not retain sufficient integrity, then it may be recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. In addition, In Situ followed the U.S. National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin on Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties for the eligibility assessment of archaeological sites (National Park Service 2000). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 20 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS AND CURATION If any artifacts 50 years or older were recovered, they were processed in accordance with the SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2005) and the State Archaeologist’s Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota (Anfinson 2011). Artifacts that were collected are to be returned to the landowner. Should the landowner decline the possession of the artifacts and agree to a deed of gift, or if the artifacts were recovered and collected from public lands, they will be stored at a repository that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Curation (55 FR 37630; National Park Service 1990), which for this Project will be the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS). However, no artifacts were recovered during the Phase I survey for the Project. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 21 RESULTS BACKGROUND RESEARCH A literature and records search was conducted within the Study Area around the proposed Project area on June 9 and 10, 2026. In conducting the literature review, the following resources detailed in Table 2 were consulted. These are resources that may provide information on the locations of potential cultural resources and other contextual information regarding the proposed Project area (Figures 3-5E). Table 2: Resources Consulted During the Literature and Records Review. Resource Notable Observations within the Study Area Within Project Area Table/ Figure Date Reviewed SHPO Files Seven previously recorded cultural resource inventories/surveys; five previously recorded archaeological sites; nine previously recorded architectural resources Three previously recorded cultural resource inventories/surveys; one previously recorded archaeological site Tables 3, 4, and 5; Figures 3 and 4 MnSHIP: June 9, 2026; In Person: June 10, 2026 OSA Files OSA Portal: June 9, 2026; In Person: June 9, 2026 NRHP Files None N/A N/A June 9, 2026 1855 BLM GLO Historic Plat Map (BLM 1855) Mississippi River, waterbodies, and wetlands None Figure 5A June 9, 2026 1874 Andreas Atlas (Andreas 1874) Mississippi River, waterbodies, residences, roads, forest Forest Figure 5B June 9, 2026 1916 State of Minnesota Plat Book (W.W. Hixson & Co. 1916) Mississippi River, waterbodies, residences, roads, parcel boundaries O. Chouinard Parcel (W NW Sec. 26, T121N, R23W) F. Robischaud Parcel (N SE and SE NE Sec. 27, T121N, R23W) Figure 5D June 9, 2026 1953 Historic Aerial Imagery (MHAPO 2015) Mississippi River, rural development, waterbodies, wetlands Rural development, waterbodies, and wetlands Figure 5E June 9, 2026 1966 Trygg Historical Map (Trygg 1966) Mississippi River, prairie, and marsh None Figure 5C June 9, 2026 1980 Elk River, MN 7.5- minute USGS Topographic Map (USGS 1980) Mississippi River, Rice Lake, peri-urban infrastructure, wetlands Peri-urban infrastructure and wetlands Figure 1 and 3 June 9, 2026 Current (2026) Aerial Imagery (Esri 2026) Mississippi River, Rice Lake, urban infrastructure, wetlands Urban infrastructure and wetlands Figures 2 and 4 June 9, 2026 The records search at SHPO and OSA revealed seven previous cultural resource inventories/surveys, five previously recorded archaeological sites, and nine previously recorded architectural resources within the Study Area. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 22 Previous Inventories/Surveys The records search revealed seven previous cultural resource inventories/surveys that were completed within the Study Area between 1989 and 2025 (Table 3). The previous inventories/surveys were completed in support of transportation, pipeline, development, and utility projects. Three of the previous inventories/surveys (THY-1990-01, MULT-2004-03, and WR- 2024-03) overlap with or are located adjacent to the Project, and all of the surveys/inventories were negative for cultural materials within the Project area. Previous cultural resources investigations indicate that the Project vicinity consists of glacial moraines, sandy outwash plains, river terraces, wetlands, and agricultural land associated with the Mississippi River Valley. Native soils are generally composed of well -drained loams and sandy loams on stable uplands and terraces, with poorly drained soils occurring within wetlands and low- lying areas (Peterson et al. 1990; Breakey and Dobbs 1995; Lyon 2004; Kiesow 2024; Sutherland and Mieras 2025). These investigations indicate that intact archaeological deposits are most likely to occur on stable, well-drained landforms, including river terraces, upland rises, and elevated areas adjacent to rivers, wetlands, and former drainage channels, while archaeological potential is generally lower within floodplains, wetlands, and areas that have been extensively disturbed by agriculture, transportation improvements, utility installation, gravel extraction, and commercial development (Peterson et al. 1990; Breakey and Dobbs 1995; Lyon 2004; Kiesow 2024; Sutherland and Mieras 2025). Although several prehistoric and historic resources have been identified in the surrounding area, previous surveys have shown that the presence of intact native soils and stable landforms is a better indicator of archaeological potential than proximity to the Mississippi River alone (Breakey and Dobbs 1995; Lyon 2004; Gronhovd and Tumberg 2006; Kiesow 2024; Sutherland and Mieras 2025). Table 3: Previous Cultural Resource Inventories/Surveys within the Study Area. Report Number Title Authors Year MULT-2004-03 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Trunk Highway 101 Intersection Improvement Project Wright and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota Mollie M. Lyon 2004 MULT-2016-14 Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys of Three River Crossings (the Mississippi, Vermillion, and Cannon Rivers_ for the Proposed Northern Natural Gas Northern Lights Pipeline Project, Minnesota Amanda Gronhovd, Timothy T. Tumberg 2006 THY-1990-01 The Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Study Annual Report Leslie D. Peterson, Thor A Olmanson, and Wanda Watson Radford 1989 WR-1995-02 A Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Zone E-F Project, St. Michael Loop, Wright County, Minnesota Kim C. Breakey, Clark A. Dobbs 1995 WR-2014-03 Phase I Archaeological Survey to Evaluate the Location of a Proposed Kwik Trip Store at the Intersection of Highways 37 and 101 in Otsego, Minnesota Randy Dickson 2014 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 23 Table 3: Previous Cultural Resource Inventories/Surveys within the Study Area. Report Number Title Authors Year WR-2024-03 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey for Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association CWP 2022-2025 Amendment 29, Project #11-3001, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Danielle Kiesow 2024 WR-2025-03 Phase I Investigation of the MNB67701 St. Michael BL Hydro Mods Install_01052475 Project Wright County Fred Sutherland, Kevin Mieras 2025 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites The data gathered revealed five previously recorded archaeological sites within the Study Area (Table 4). Of the previously recorded archaeological sites, there is one site that has previously been determined not eligible for the NRHP and four sites that are unevaluated for the NRHP. One of these sites (21WRbn) overlaps with a portion of the proposed Project area. Based on the context of the Project location, archaeological site types that may occur include precontact short-term camps or villages, lithic scatters, and post-contact Euro-American settlements/residences. Table 4: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area. Site Legal Description Cultural Affiliation Site Type NRHP Eligibility Within Project Area 21SH0065 SW SE Section 14, T32N, R26W Post-Contact Farmstead/Artifact Scatter Unevaluated No 21SHs S T32N R26W Sec 14 Post-Contact Homestead Not Eligible No 21WRbn T121N R23W Sec 26 Post-Contact Ghost Town Unevaluated Yes 21WRbo T121N R23W Sec 36 Post-Contact Ghost Town Unevaluated No 21WRbp T121N R23W Sec 36 Post-Contact Ghost Town Unevaluated No Previously Recorded Architectural Resources The data gathered revealed nine previously recorded architectural resources within the Study Area (Table 5). Of the previously recorded resources, there is one NRHP listed resource, seven resources that have previously been determined not eligible for the NRHP, and two resources that are unevaluated for the NRHP. None of the previously recorded architectural resources are located within the proposed Project area. Table 5: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within the Study Area. Inventory Number (NRHP #) Site Name/Type Address NRHP Eligibility SH-ERC-00024 (66000406) Oliver H. Kelley Farmstead (National Historic Landmark) W. of U.S. Hwy. 10 / U.S. Hwy. 52 / U.S. Hwy. 169 Listed SH-ERC-00217 House - 16330 US Highway 10 NW 16330 US Highway 10 NW, Elk River, MN Unevaluated WR-OTS-00002 Le Febvre Round Barn off Co. Hwy. 130 Unevaluated Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 24 Table 5: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within the Study Area. Inventory Number (NRHP #) Site Name/Type Address NRHP Eligibility XX-ROD-00034 Former Trunk Highway 3: Anoka to St. Cloud Segment TH 47 in Anoka to TH 23 in St. Cloud Not Eligible XX-ROD-00035 Trunk Highway 10: Anoka to St. Cloud TH 47 in Anoka to TH 23 in St. Cloud Not Eligible XX-ROD-00037 Trunk Highway 10: Anoka to Little Falls Segment TH 47 in Anoka to Hilton Rd in Little Falls Not Eligible XX-ROD-00038 Trunk Highway 10: Elk River to Anoka Segment Main St NW in Elk River to Main St W in Anoka Not Eligible XX-ROD-00040 Trunk Highway 10 TH 10 Not Eligible XX-ROD-00044 Current TH 169 From Blue Earth Co to Lake Co Not Eligible XX-ROD-00128 Trunk Highway 101 unknown Not Eligible Additional Records Review After reviewing all referenced sources and records, it was found that the majority of land within the Study Area was subject to agricultural practices and then urban development. Currently the Project area consists of agricultural fields, wetlands, and urban development. Historic maps did not indicate any potential cultural sites within the Project area. The Project area exhibits evidence of agricultural practices since at least 1916. The Project area itself has been subject to disturbance associated with agricultural practices. Archaeological Potential The Project area is located within an area consisting of agricultural fields, mixed grasses, wetlands, wooded vegetation, and urban infrastructure (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.). The Project area is located on a landform with topographically significant landscape features as there are areas of higher topographic elevation within the Project area and are somewhat near natural water sources. Sources of fresh water and landforms such as river terraces have high potential for archaeological sites (Hobbs 2019; Hudak et al. 2002). Long-term occupations sites are more likely to occur along permanent water sources, as more resources are readily available (Anderson and Smith 2003; Hobbs 2019; Hudak et al. 2002). The soils within the Project area are very poorly drained to excessively drained, supporting that some of the landforms of the Project area are potentially suitable for long term occupation, as these areas may not be subject to frequent flooding. One previously recorded archaeological site (21WRbn) overlaps with a portion of the Project area. For the assessment of archaeological resource potential within the proposed Project area, factors consisting of the general terrain, water resources, geomorphological setting, and topographic factors are considered in order to assess the absence or likelihood of any cultural resources within the Project area. Areas identified as areas with apparent/significant disturbance, areas with excessive slope, areas of poorly drained soils, and low lying-wet areas are considered to have a low potential for containing archaeological sites. In their archaeological potential assessment, In Situ identified areas ranging from a low potential to a high potential for cultural resources. This archaeological potential generated by In Situ revealed approximately 79 acres of archaeological potential within the areas that will be subject to Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 25 development within the Project area. These approximate 79 acres of the Project area contain a high potential for cultural resources as they are on suitable landforms with suitable soils and a higher elevation overlooking a permanent waterbody and the Mississippi floodplain. No Phase I archaeological survey took place within the remaining 58.7 acres of the development area within Project area, as there is a low potential for the undertaking to impact cultural resources in these areas. It is the professional recommendation of In Situ that the undertaking is not expected to affect historic properties within these areas of low archaeological potential. When referencing MnModel, which is a tool developed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation that can help identify areas of cultural resource potential that may require cultural resource surveys and assessments, portions of the Project area are located within an area of high potential/well surveyed, meaning that there is enough data to determine a high resource potential. A few small areas are located in areas of high potential/poorly surveyed, meaning there may be high potential for cultural resources, but the area has not been sufficiently surveyed. Most of the remaining locations within the Project area are located in areas of low potential/well surveyed, meaning the areas have been sufficiently surveyed to determine that there is a low potential for cultural resources. Finally, several small areas have unknown potential/poorly surveyed, meaning there is not enough data to determine site potential. MnModel also provides data to assess the landscape suitability for site preservation for the Project area. The majority of the Project area has the potential for surface site preservation while a small portion does not. The majority of the Project area has low potential for shallow (0-1 m) site preservation while a small portion has a high potential for shallow site preservation. The majority of the Project area has no potential for buried (1-2 m) site preservation while a small portion has a low potential for buried site preservation. The entirety of the Project area has no potential for deeply buried (2-5 m) site preservation (Hobbs 2019; Hudak et al. 2002). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS The targeted Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on June 15-19 and June 26, 2026, for the proposed Project (Figures 6-8). The archaeological survey for the Project consisted of a field survey of approximately 79 acres that contained high cultural resource potential within 100-acre area that will be subject to development within the 137.7-acre Project area. The weather at the time of survey was clear to overcast and warm. At the time of the survey, the topography of the Project area consisted of relatively flat to sloping terrain. Vegetation consisted of planted soybeans, harvested soybean debris, short, manicured grasses, mixed grasses and wooded vegetation. The Survey Area of the Project is located within an area consisting of agricultural fields, mixed grasses, wetlands, wooded vegetation, and urban infrastructure (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) (Figures 9- 51). Ground surface visibility (GSV) within the Project area was poor to good (0-70%) throughout the survey area. Pedestrian survey methodologies were used within areas of higher GSV (greater than 25%). Shovel testing was conducted in areas that had poor (less than 25%) ground surface visibility and that were not in areas that were subject to visual inspection. Visual inspection was conducted within areas of slope, wetlands, and previous disturbances. Existing disturbance within the Survey Area included urban development (buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) and agriculture. Approximately 79 acres were subject to survey during the archaeological field assessment for the Project. Of the 79 acres that were surveyed: Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 26 • 63.3 acres were within agricultural fields with adequate to good (25-70%) GSV and were subject to pedestrian survey (Figure 52A); • 0.1 acre was within wet/inundated conditions and was visually inspected (Figure 52B); • 4 acres were within disturbed (road right of way and ditch) context and was visually inspected (Figure 52C); • 5.9 acres were within sloped conditions and were visually inspected (Figure 52D); • 5.7 acres were within areas with poor (less than 25%) GSV and were subject to shovel testing. No Phase I archaeological survey took place within the remaining 58.7 acres of the Project area, as there is a low potential for the undertaking to impact cultural resources in these areas. It is the professional recommendation of In Situ that the undertaking is not expected to affect historic properties within these areas of low archaeological potential. No new cultural resources 50 years or older were observed or recorded during the archaeological survey of the proposed Project. Shovel Testing For this Project, a total of 104 shovel test units were conducted during the targeted Phase I survey. All of the shovel tests were negative for cultural resources, and one shovel test had a high-water table at the time of survey. The Project area is in an upland setting with minimal to no depositional processes evident. A typical shovel test soil profile consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) loamy sand over a grayish brown (10YR5/2) sand over a pale brown (10YR6/2) sand over a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) sandy clay loam, as demonstrated in Figure 53. A typical hydric shovel test soil profile consisted of a black (10YR2/1) sandy loam over a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) sand over a grayish green (Gley 1 4/5G) sand over a black (10YR4/6) sandy silt loam before reaching the high-water table, as demonstrated in Figure 54. Within upland areas, and/or areas with minimal to no deposition, cultural material, ranging from as early as the Paleoindian Period to present, are typically located at the ground surface or are shallowly buried (Hudak et al. 2002; Johnson 1993; Michlovic 2025; Running 1995). The soil profiles for the soil series within the Project Area revealed that there are no buried soils (UC Davis 2026). Where possible, shovel tests extended at least 20 cm into pre-Holocene soils (typically the C soil horizon) or until around 1 m in depth. Therefore, based on these factors and the soils observed within the Project Area, the Principal Investigator concluded that the shovel testing depths were sufficient for the identification of cultural resources during the Phase I shovel testing, as there is a low potential for deeper archaeological deposits. CULTURAL RESOURCES One previously recorded archaeological alpha site was revisited, and no newly recorded cultural resources were observed or recorded during the cultural resource survey of the proposed Project. The previously recorded archaeological alpha site is discussed in detail below. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources 21WRbn (Northwood) Site Type: Ghost Town (Alpha Site) Association: Post-Contact Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 27 NRHP Recommendation: Unevaluated Project Management Recommendation: No Further Work Section 26, T121N, R23W, Wright County, Minnesota USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle: 1980 Elk River, MN A portion of the proposed Project area is within the mapped extents of previously recorded archaeological alpha site 21WRbn. Site 21WRbn (Northwood) is an archaeological alpha site consisting of a reported ghost town located within the vicinity of Otsego, Minnesota. An alpha site is an unverified archaeological site that has not been field verified or evaluated by an archaeologist and therefore is unevaluated for the NRHP. This alpha site was mapped as an entire PLSS section; therefore, the exact location of the site is not known. The original recording of 21WRbn was generated based on a reference to historic documentation (OSA 2026); however, the type of documentation is not specified. The site does not appear on the BLM GLO map, the 1874 Andreas Atlas of Minnesota, the 1916 plat map of the area, historic aerial imagery, or the 1966 Trygg map (Andreas 1874; BLM GLO 1855; MHAPO 2015; Tryg 1966; W.W. Hixson 1916). A portion of the mapped alpha site was revisited by In Situ archaeologists on June 15, 2026 (Figures 55-59). No archaeological resources 50 years old or older were observed or recovered within the portion of the site that overlaps with the Project area. The resource may exist within the mapped alpha site boundary but not within the current Project area. Based on the research completed and the results of the archaeological survey, the resource associated with the alpha site does not occur within the Project area and the portion of site 21WRbn that overlaps with the Project area is not part of the overall alpha site. Since the resource associated with the alpha site recording is not within the Project area, the alpha site will not be affected by the Project, and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. Since the full site extents for this site were not revisited during this investigation, the remaining areas of the alpha site were not fully assessed and therefore the NRHP status of the alpha site remains unchanged. Therefore, In Situ recommends a no further archaeological work is recommended for this resource for this Project. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 28 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on June 15-19 and June 26, 2026, for the proposed Project. The Phase I survey included a background literature review within and surrounding the proposed Project area along with a targeted archaeological field survey of the proposed Project. The proposed Project area is approximately 137.8 acres in size, however, only 100 acres of the area will be subject to development and an assessment of archaeological potential by In Situ found that approximately 79 acres of the Project area contain a high potential for cultural resources . Therefore, this survey was focused on the approximate 79-acre Survey Area within the Project area. During the field survey, a total of 79 acres of the 100-acre development area within the 137.7-acre Project area were subject to a targeted Phase I archaeological survey for the Project. A portion of one archaeological site (21WRbn) that overlaps with a portion of the Project Area was revisited. During the archaeological investigation for the proposed Project, no archaeological resources 50 years old or older were observed or recovered within the Project area. The resource may exist within the mapped alpha site boundary but not within the current Project area. Based on the research completed and the results of the archaeological survey, the resource associated with the alpha site does not occur within the Project area and the portion of site 21WRbn that overlaps with the Project area is not part of the overall alpha site. Since the resource associated with the alpha site recording is not within the Project area, the alpha site will not be affected by the Project, and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. No Phase I archaeological survey took place within the remaining 58.7 acres of the development area within Project area, as there is a low potential for the undertaking to impact cultural resources in these areas. It is the professional recommendation of In Situ that the undertaking is not expected to affect historic properties within these areas of low archaeological potential. Therefore, In Situ recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected within the Project area and no further archaeological work is recommended for the Project. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 29 REFERENCES CITED Anderson, David G. and Steven D. Smith 2003 Archaeology, History, and Predictive Modeling: Research at Fort Polk, 1972-2002. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Anderson, Duane 1973a Ioway Ethnohistory: A Review, Part I. The Annals of Iowa. 41(8):1228–1241. 1973b Ioway Ethnohistory: A Review, Part II. The Annals of Iowa. 42(1):41–59. Andreas, Alfred Theodore 1874 An Illustrated Atlas of the State of Minnesota. [map]. Minnesota Historical Society. Electronic resource, https://collection.mndigital.org/catalog/mhs:1192, accessed June 9, 2026. Anfinson, Scott 1979 A Handbook of Minnesota Prehistoric Ceramics. Occasional Publications in Minnesota Anthropology No. 5. Minnesota Archaeological Society. St. Paul, Minnesota. 1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp. 135–166. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology No. 4, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 2005 SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2011 State Archaeologist’s Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, St. Paul, Minnesota. Arzigian, Constance 2008 Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form of the Woodland Tradition. Electronic document, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/culturalresources/docs/crunit/woodlandfulldoc.pdf, accessed April 29, 2017. Blegen, Theodore C. 1963 Minnesota: A History of the State. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Breakey, Kathleen and Clark A. Dobbs 1995 A Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Zone E–F Project, St. Michael Loop, Wright County, Minnesota. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigation No. 347. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. Carlson, Sarah-Eva Ellen 2004 They Tell Their Story: The Dakota Internment at Camp McClellan in Davenport, 1862– 1866. The Annals of Iowa 63(3):251–278. State Historical Society of Iowa, Des Moines. Curtiss-Wedge, Franklyn 1915 A History of Wright County, Minnesota. H.C. Cooper, Jr. & Co. Chicago. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 30 DeMallie, Raymond J. 2001 Sioux until 1850. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains, vol. 13, pt. 2, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 718–760. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Durand, Paul C. 1994 Where the Waters Gather and the Rivers Meet: (o’-ki-zu Wa-kpa’) (to Meet, to Unite): An Atlas of the Eastern Sioux. Edited by Robin Siev Durand. Paul C. Durand, Prior Lake, Minnesota. Esri 2026 World Imagery Basemap. [map]. ArcGIS Online. Electronic resource, https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9, accessed June 9, 2026. Fishel, Rich 1996 Oneota. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu/oneota, accessed September 14, 2016. Florin, Frank, James Linbeck, and Kent Bakken 2016 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluation of Site 21CR161 and 21CR162 for TH 101 Up the Bluff CSAH 61 to TH 14, Carver County, MN. Manuscript of file, Office of the State Archaeologist, St. Paul, Minnesota. Folwell. William 1956 A History of Minnesota, vol. I. The Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Gibbon, Guy 2012 Archaeology of Minnesota: The Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Gibbon, Guy E., Craig M. Johnson, and Elizabeth Hobbs 2002 Chapter 3: Minnesota’s Environmental and Native American Culture History. Mn/Model. Electronic document, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel/ P3FinalReport/chapter3.html#ch33, accessed April 29, 2017. Gronhovd, Amanda, and Timothy A. Tumberg 2006 Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys of Three River Crossings (the Mississippi, Vermillion, and Cannon Rivers) for the Proposed Northern Natural Gas Northern Lights Pipeline Project, Minnesota. 10,000 Lakes Archaeology, LLC, South St. Paul, Minnesota. Hobbs, Elizabeth 2019 MnModel Phase 4: Project Summary and Statewide Results. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Electronic document, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel/phase4-report/predictivemodelsmmp4.pdf, accessed January 25, 2025. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 31 Hudak, Joseph G., Elizabeth Hobbs, Allyson Brooks, Carol Ann Sersland, and Crystal Phillips, editors 2002 MnModel Final Report Phases 1-3, 2002: A Predictive Model of Precontact Archaeological Site Location for the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Electronic document, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel/P3FinalReport/final_report.html, accessed September 6, 2022. Johnson, Donald L. 1993 Biomechanical Processes and the Gaia Paradigm in a Unified Pedo-Geomorphic and Pedo-Archaeologic Framework. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pedo-Archaeology, edited by J.E. Foss, M.E. Timpson, and M.W. Morris, pp. 41– 67. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experimental Station, Special Publication 93- 03, Knoxville, Tennessee. Johnson, Elden 1988 The Prehistoric People of Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kansas Historical Society 2023 Indian Removal Act. Electronic document, https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/indian- removal-act/16714, accessed May 1, 2023. Kiesow, Danielle 2024 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey for Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association CWP 2022–2025 Amendment 29, Project #11-3001, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. Report No. WR-2024-03. Submitted to Wright- Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Rockford, Minnesota. Lass, William E. 1963 The Removal from Minnesota of the Sioux and Winnebago Indians. Minnesota History 38(8):353–364. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Lyon, Mollie M. 2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Trunk Highway 101 Intersection Improvement Project, Wright and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota. Summit Envirosolutions, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota. Malinowski, Sharon, Anna Sheets, Jeffery Lehman, and Melissa Walsh Doig 1998 Gale Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes. vol. 3. Gale Research, Inc., Detroit, Michigan. Merry, Carl A. 1996 An Overview of the Historic Period. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu/overview-historic-period, accessed September 14, 2016. Michlovic, Michael G. 2025 An Archaeology of the Red River of the North. The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 32 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1988 Natural Vegetation of Minnesota: At the Time of the Public Land Survey, 1847–1907. Biological Report No. 1. Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2026 Ecological Classification System. web-based database. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Electronic document, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html, accessed July 23, 2026. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) 2026 21WRbn Site File. OSA Portal, St. Paul, MN. Electronic resource, https://osaportal.gisdata.mn.gov/, accessed June 9, 2026. Morey, G.B., and Joyce Meints 2000 Geologic map of Minnesota - Bedrock Geology. 3rd ed., scale 1:1,000,000. State Map Series, S-20. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Electronic document, http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/currentpubs.htm, accessed December 7, 2017. Morrow, Julie 1996 Early Paleoindian Period. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu/early-paleoindian-period-0, accessed April 29, 2017. Morrow, Toby. 1996 Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic Period. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu/middle-archaic-period-0, accessed July 8, 2016. 2016 Stone Tools of Minnesota. Manuscript on file at the Office of the State Archeologist, St. Paul, Minnesota. National Climatic Data Center 2017 Climate of Minnesota. Electronic document, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate normals/clim60/states/Clim_MN_01.pdf, accessed December 7, 2017. National Park Service 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register, volume 48, issue 190, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1990 Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections. Federal Register, volume 55, issue 177, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation [1990]. National Register Bulletin, 15, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. National Register Bulletin, 36, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2026 Web Soil Survey. Webbased database, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed July 23, 2026. Newcombe, Barbara T. 1976 A Portion of the American People: the Sioux sign a Treaty in Washington in 1858. Minnesota History 45(3):82–96. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 33 Nichols, David A. 1974 The Other Civil War: Lincoln and the Indians. Minnesota History 44(1):2–15. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Perry, Michael 1996 Woodland Period. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu/woodland-period-0, accessed April 29, 2017. Peterson, Leslie D., Thor A. Olmanson, and Wanda Watson Radford (editors) 1990 The Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Study: Annual Report—1989. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Phillips, Katrina M. 2023 As They Have Formerly Done: Unraveling the Entanglements at Historic Fort Snelling. Parks Stewardship Forum 39(3):419–128. The University of California, Berkely and Geroge Wright Society, California. Picka, Craig 2012 Heat Treatment of Ozark Cherts: An Archaeological Experiment in the Effects of Heat Treatment on Toolstone Flaking Properties. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. Pritzker, Barry M. 2000 A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and People. Oxford University Press, New York. Quivik, Fredric, and Dale L. Martin 1988 Historical Context: Historic Iron and Bridges in Minnesota, 1873–1945. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Electronic document, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/historicbridges/bridge/misc/iron-steel-context.pdf, accessed on April 29, 2017. Radford, David, LeRoy Gonsior, Jacob E. Foss, and Miranda Van Vleet 2015 Minnesota State Parks and Trail Culture Resource Program Annual Report – 2014. Manuscript on file, Office of the State Archeologist, St. Paul, Minnesota. Running, Garry L. 1995 Archaeological Geology of the Rustad Quarry Site (32RI775): An Early Archaic Site in Southeastern North Dakota. Geoarchaeology 10(3):183–205. Schermer, Shirley J., William Green, and James Collins 1995 A Brief Cultural History of Iowa. The Office of the State Archaeologist. Electronic document, http://archaeology.uiowa.edu /brief-cultural-history-iowa-0, accessed April 29, 2017. Schwieder, Dorothy 2000 History of Iowa. Electronic document, http://publications.iowa.gov/135/1/history/7- 1.html, accessed on April 29, 2017. Stoltman, James 1997 Chapter 6: The Archaic Tradition. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 78(1/2):112-139. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 34 Sutherland, Fred, and Kevin Mieras 2025 Phase I Investigation of the MNB67701 St. Michael BL Hydro Mods Install_01052475 Project, Wright County, Minnesota. Merjent, Inc., Minneapolis. Thompson, Ruth 1912 The Sioux Treaties at Traverse des Sioux and Mendota in 1851 and their Outcome. Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota. Electronic document, https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/b6ecca72-20e9-4d0a-a3e4-fb64780a9f77, accessed May 13, 2025. Trygg, J. William 1966 Composite Map of United States Land Surveyors’ Original Plats and Field Notes. [map] Sheet 8, Minnesota Series. Trygg Land Office, Ely, Minnesota. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1855 Historic GLO Plat Map: Township 121N, Range 23W, Wright County, Minnesota. [map] General Land Office Records, U.S. Department of the Interior. Web based database, https://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed June 9, 2026. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1968 Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 2004 Soil Survey of Wright County, Minnesota. In cooperation with Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 2022 Census of Agriculture. Electronic Document. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Online_Resources/County_ Profiles/Minnesota/cp27171.pdf, Accessed April 23, 2025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007 Ecoregions of Minnesota, Level IV Ecoregions of Minnesota Text Descriptions, Provisional, May 11, 2007. Electronic document, ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/mn/, accessed December 7, 2017. U.S. Geological Survey 1980 Elk River, Minn., 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle, 1:24,000 scale. [map] U.S. Geological Survey. Web based database, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview, accessed June 9, 2026. University of California, Davis 2026 SoilWeb. Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis. Web based database, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed July 23, 2026. University of Minnesota (MHAPO) 2015 Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online. Web based database, https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/, accessed June 9, 2026. Upham, Warren 1920 Minnesota Geographic Names: Their origin and Historic Significance. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 35 Wedel, Mildred Mott 2001 Iowa. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains, vol. 13, pt. 1, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 432–446. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. W.W. Hixson & Co. 1916 Plat Book of the State of Minnesota. W.W. Hixson & Co. Rockford, Illinois. Electronic resource, https://www.lib.umn.edu/collections/borchert/digitized-plat-maps-and- atlases#s-44771, accessed June 9, 2026. Westerman, Gwen, and Bruce White 2012 Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Wright, H. E., Jr. 1972 Physiology of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and G.B. Morey, pp. 561–578. Minnesota Geological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota 36 FIGURES Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121NR.023W Sec. 35 T.032N R.026WSec. 11 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032N R.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023WSec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023WSec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.121NR.023WSec. 15 T.121N R.023WSec. 16 T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5 T.121N R.023W Sec. 14 Mississippi RiverRice LakeTOPOGRAPHIC MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody !!Project Location Wright County County Boundary 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 1. Project location on the USGS 1980 Elk River, MN 7.5 minute series topographic map. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet !! N E R i v e r R dPageAveNEP a d gettAve N EPadgettAveNE7 9 t h StN E Pa rk Ave NE 76th StNE 7 8 t h S t N E QuadayAveNEParnellAveNE75th St NE 7 0 t h S t N E 7 3 rd St NE Q u adayAveNE74th St NE 72 n d S t N E Mississi ppi Ri v e r NE RiverR d N E R iv e r R dQuamAveNEStateHighway101 H i g h w a y 1 0 7 1 s tS tN E 7 2 n d S t N E 7 2 n d S t N E N E River R dQuamAve NEQ u i g l eyAveNE71s t Ln NE S io u x T r l 261 D62A WW D62A 260 258B 771 D67B D67B D62A D67B 258E 1362B D67C 1023D D62A 543 W 1377B 1378 D62A 1260E D67C 1257 2 5 8E 1378 106C2 260 12 5 7 543 1362B 7 7 1 261768 D67C1377BD62A D67B261 441 D67B 1288 258B 771260 543D67C26 1 D67B 258 C 106C 2 260 258C102 3 CD62AD67C 106C2 2 6 0 D67C2 6 1D6 7C D 6 2 A 7 6 8 1368 D67B 258E D67C 258 E 1377B 1087B 260 D6 7C 1377E 106D2258E 1 3 5 6 1901BD6 7C 1377C5 4 3 258C 258C D6 7 C D67A D 6 7 C D67A136 8 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121N R.023W Sec. 26 T.032NR.026WSec. 14T.121NR.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023WSec. 28T.121NR.023W Sec. 23 T.121NR.023WSec. 21Mi s s i s s i p p i R i v e rMississippiRiver AERIAL MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Soils Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI Figure 2. Project location on an aerial map. 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Approximate Scale in Feetµ1:12,000 1 inch equals 1,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI ") ") Rice Lake MississippiRiver T. 032N R. 026WSec 11 T. 121NR. 023WSec 21 T. 121N R. 023W Sec 22 T. 121NR. 023WSec 27 T. 121NR. 023WSec 28 T. 121NR. 023W Sec 33 T. 121NR. 023WSec 34 T. 121NR. 023WSec 35T. 032N R. 026WSec 10T. 032NR. 026WSec 14 T. 121NR. 023WSec 14 T. 121NR. 023WSec 15 T. 121NR. 023WSec 16 T. 121NR. 023WSec 23 T. 121NR. 023WSec 25 T. 121NR. 023WSec 26 T. 121NR. 023WSec 36 21WRbn 21SHs 21WRbo 21WRbp 21SH0065 MULT-2004-03 MULT-2016-14 THY-1990-01 WR-1995-02 WR-2014-03 WR-2024-03 WR-2025-03 WR-OTS-00002 SH-ERC-00217 LITERATURE REVIEW TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend ")Unevaluated Architecture Previous Inventory/Survey Archaeological Alpha Site Archaeological Site NRHP Listed Farmstead Project Area Survey Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 3. Topographic map with previous cultural resources surveys and previously recorded sites. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI 8 5 t h S t N E ParrishAveNEN E R i v e r R dPalmgrenAveNEPageAveNE83rdStNE83rdStNE PadgettAveNE7 9 t h St N E Park Ave N E 76th StNE 7 8 t h S t N E QuadayAveNEParnellAveNE75th St N E 7 0 t h S t N E 7 3 rd St NE Q uadayAveNE74th St NE PackardAveNE72 n d S t N E StateHighw ay101Mississi ppi Ri v e r NE River R d N E R iv e r R dQuamAveNEStateHighway101 7 1 s tS tN E 7 2 n d S t N E 7 2 n d S t N E 7 0 t h S t N E 7 0 t h S t N E 7 0 t h S t N E Q u i g l e yAveNE71s t Ln N E QueensAveNES i o u x T r l StateHighway101") M issis s i p p i Ri v e rMi s s i s sippiRiverMississippiRiverMississippi RiverT. 032NR. 026W Sec 11 T. 121N R. 023WSec 22 T. 121NR. 023W Sec 27 T. 121NR. 023WSec 34 T. 121NR. 023WSec 35 T. 032NR. 026WSec 14 T. 121N R. 023WSec 23 T. 121NR. 023W Sec 26 21WRbn 21SHsMULT-2004-03 MULT-2016-14 THY-1990-01 WR-1995-02 WR-2014-03 WR-2024-03 WR-2025-03 SH-ERC-00217 LITERATURE REVIEW AERIAL MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend ")Unevaluated Architecture Previous Inventory/Survey Archaeological Alpha Site NRHP Listed Farmstead Project Area Survey Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 1,250 0 1,250 2,500 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 4. Aerial map with previous cultural resources surveys and previously recorded sites. µ 1:15,000 1 inch equals 1,250 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121NR.023W Sec. 35 T.032N R.026WSec. 11 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032N R.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023WSec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023WSec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.121NR.023WSec. 15 T.121N R.023WSec. 16 T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5 T.121N R.023W Sec. 14 HISTORICAL BLM GLO PLAT MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 5A. Project location on the 1855 BLM GLO Plat map. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of the David Ramsey Map Collection. T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121NR.023W Sec. 35 T.032N R.026WSec. 11 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032N R.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023WSec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023WSec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.121NR.023WSec. 15 T.121N R.023WSec. 16 T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5 T.121N R.023W Sec. 14 HISTORICAL ANDREAS ATLAS MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 5B. Project location on the 1874 historic andreas atlas maps. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of the Trygg Historic Maps. T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121NR.023W Sec. 35 T.032N R.026WSec. 11 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032N R.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023WSec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023WSec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.121NR.023WSec. 15 T.121N R.023WSec. 16 T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5 T.121N R.023W Sec. 14 HISTORICAL TRYGG MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 5C. Project location on the 1966 historic trygg map. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of the University of Minnesota Digitized Plat Maps and Atlases. T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121NR.023W Sec. 35 T.032N R.026WSec. 11 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032N R.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023WSec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023WSec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.121NR.023WSec. 15 T.121N R.023WSec. 16 T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5 T.121N R.023W Sec. 14 HISTORICAL 1916 PLAT MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 5D. Project location on the 1916 historic plat maps. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of the Minnesota Historic Aerial Photographs Online. T.121N R.023WSec. 27 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.121N R.023W Sec. 22 T.121NR.023WSec. 34 T.121N R.023WSec. 23 T.121N R.023W Sec. 35 T.032NR.026WSec. 14T.032N R.026WSec. 11 HISTORICAL 1953 AERIAL IMAGERY Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 5E. Project location on the 1953 historic aerial imagery. µ 1:12,000 1 inch equals 1,000 feet Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 6. Project plans showing a schematic of the proposed Project footprint. N E R i v e r R dPageAveNEP a d gettAve N E PadgettAveNE7 9 t h StN E P a rk Ave NE 76th StNE 7 8 t h S t N E QuadayAveNEPinnacl eAve NE ParnellAveNE71st S t N E 75th St NE 7 0 t h S t NEPalmgrenAveNE7 3rd St NE Q uad ayAveNE74th St NE 7 2 n d S t N E Mississi ppi Ri v e r NE RiverR d N E R iv e r R dQuamAveNEStateHighway101 7 1 s tS tN E 7 2 nd S t N E 7 2 n d S t N E 7 0 t h S t N E N E River R dQuamAve NEQ u i gl eyAveNE71 s t Ln NE CrowRiverDrS io u x T r l 8-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 POLITICALMAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Legend Mapbook Page Project Area Survey Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI. Figure 7. Political map showing page layout for the fieldwork results maps. 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Approximate Scale in Feetµ1:12,000 1 inch equals 1,000 feet QuadayAveNEPrairieCreekLnNEQuadayAveNEP i n na c le A v e N E PrairieCreekCtNEN E R iv e r R d N E River Rd N E River Rd N E R iv e r R d QuamAveNE101 101 101 101 NE RiverRdNE RiverRdStateHighway101StateHighway101###9 11 10 21WRbnT.121NR.023WSec. 26 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-1. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Disturbed/Ditch Conditions Pedestrian Survey Survey Area Project Area Archaeological Alpha Site Township/Range/Section 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 7 8 t h S t N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEQuamAveNENERiverRdNE RiverRd 101 101QuamAveNEStateHighway101##1312 21WRbnT.121NR.023WSec. 26 T.121NR.023WSec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-2. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Disturbed/Ditch Conditions Pedestrian Survey Survey Area Project Area Archaeological Alpha Site Township/Range/Section 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 QuadayAveNE101 101QuamAveNEStateHighway101########21 20 19 1718 16 15 14 21WRbnT.121NR.023WSec. 26 T.121NR.023W Sec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-3. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Disturbed/Ditch Conditions Pedestrian Survey Survey Area Project Area Archaeological Alpha Site Township/Range/Section 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 Par i sAv e N E 7 8 t h S t N E 7 8 t h S t N E ######31 30 29 28 27 26 T.121N R.023WSec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-4. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Disturbed/Ditch Conditions Pedestrian Survey Survey Area Project Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 Par i sAv e N E !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!########32 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 T.121N R.023WSec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-5. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Pedestrian Survey Sloped Conditions !!Negative Shovel Test Survey Area Project Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 75th Ci r NE7 6 th C tN E 7 5 t h S t N E PalmgrenAveNE75thCirNEParnellAveNE!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!#####37 36 35 34 33 T.121N R.023WSec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-6. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Sloped Conditions !!Negative Shovel Test Survey Area Project Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!###############51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42414039 38 37 T.121N R.023WSec. 27 Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI FIELDWORK MAP Otsego Residential Wright County, Minnesota Figure 8-7. Aerial mapbook indicating results from fieldwork and photographic orientation.µ Legend Sloped Conditions Wetland Conditions !!Negative Shovel Test Survey Area Project Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 2ft Contours Photographic Orientation 100 0 10050 Approximate Scale in Feet 1:1,200 1 inch equals 100 feet N E R iv e r R dPageAveNE PadgettAveNE7 6th St NE 7 8 t h S t N E 7 3 r d St N E QuadayAveNEQuamAveNEStateHighway1018-3 8-7 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-6 8-4 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 9: Overview facing south within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1456). Figure 10: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1507). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 11: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1509). Figure 12: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1492). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 13: Overview facing northeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1486). Figure 14: Overview facing northeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1478). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 15: Overview facing southeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1480). Figure 16: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1467). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 17: Overview facing southeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1472). Figure 18: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1474). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 19: Overview facing northeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1448). Figure 20: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1498). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 21: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1500). Figure 22: Overview facing southwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1638). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 23: Overview facing northwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1641). Figure 24: Overview facing northeast within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1634). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 25: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1305). Figure 26: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1318). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 27: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1338). Figure 28: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1340). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 29: Overview facing northwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1349). Figure 30: Overview facing southwest within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1367). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 31: Overview facing southeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1371). Figure 32: Overview facing northeast within the pedestrian surveyed area (IMG_1299). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 33: Overview facing southwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1665). Figure 34: Overview facing southeast within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1662). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 35: Overview facing northwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1673). Figure 36: Overview facing southwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1675). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 37: Overview facing northwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1683). Figure 38: Overview facing southwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1606). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 39: Overview facing northeast within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1595). Figure 40: Overview facing west within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1585). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 41: Overview facing east within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1583). Figure 42: Overview facing northwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1568). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 43: Overview facing south within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1557). Figure 44: Overview facing east within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1555). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 45: Overview facing south within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1560). Figure 46: Overview facing west within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1564). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 47: Overview facing north within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1514). Figure 48: Overview facing northeast within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1598). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 49: Overview facing southeast within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1600). Figure 50: Overview facing southwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1602). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 51: Overview facing northwest within the targeted shovel testing area (IMG_1604). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 52A. View of typical ground surface visibility (25-50%) for pedestrian survey within the survey area (IMG_1460/IMG_1301). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 52B: View of typical wet/inundated conditions within the survey area (IMG_1584/IMG_1585). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 52C: View of typical disturbed conditions (road and ditched) within the survey area (IMG_1447/IMG_1450). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 52D: View of typical sloped conditions within the survey area (IMG_1597/IMG_1602). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 53. A typical shovel test unit excavated within the project area. Representative Shovel Test Soil Profile Soil Series: Sandberg loamy sand (258C) Depth to Subsoil: 28 cm Depth to Terminus: 100 cm Excavator: BWS Date: 06/16/2026 Representative shovel test photo. Representative soil profile photo. A: 10YR3/3 Dark brown loamy sand (0-18 cm) Bw1: 10YR5/2 Grayish brown sand (18-23 cm) Bw2: 10YR6/3 Pale brown sand (23-28 cm) Bk: 10YR4/6 Dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam (28-100 cm) Scale 0 cm 20 cm 40 cm 60 cm 80 cm 100 cm 120 cm Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 54. A typical hydric shovel test unit excavated within the project area. Representative Shovel Test Soil Profile Soil Series: Markey muck, occasionally ponded (543) Depth to Subsoil: 45 cm Depth to Terminus: 67 cm Excavator: FM Date: 06/19/2026 Representative shovel test photo. Representative soil profile photo. A: 10YR2/1 Black sandy loam (0-23 cm) B1: 10YR3/6 Dark yellowish brown sand (23-40 cm) B2: Gley 1 4/5G Grayish green sand (40-45 cm) B3: 10YR2/1 Black silt loam (45-67 cm) Scale 0 cm 20 cm 40 cm 60 cm 80 cm 100 cm 120 cm Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI 21WRbn T.121N R.023WSec. 22 T.121N R.023WSec. 27 T.121NR.023W Sec. 34 T.121NR.023WSec. 35 T.121N R.023WSec. 26 T.032NR.026W Sec. 11 T.032NR.026WSec. 14 T.121NR.023W Sec. 28 T.121NR.023WSec. 21 T.121NR.023W Sec. 33 T.121NR.023WSec. 23T.121NR.023WSec. 36T.1 2 1 N R.0 2 3 W Sec. 2 5Mississippi RiverRice LakeTOPOGRAPHIC MAP Alpha Site 21WRbn Wright County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend Alpha Site 21WRbn Survey Area Project Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 55. Site 21WRbn Location on the USGS 1980 Elk River, MN 7.5 minute series topographic map. µ 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Note: Imagery courtesy of ESRI### 59 58 57 21WRbn T.121NR.023WSec. 26 T.121NR.023WSec. 27 T.121N R.023W Sec. 23 T.121NR.023WSec. 22 AERIAL MAP Alpha Site 21WRbn Wright County, Minnesota DO NOT RELEASE Archaeological Site Location Not for Public Disclosure Legend Alpha Site 21WRbn Survey Area Project Area 1-Mile Study Area Township/Range/Section Stream/River Waterbody Photo Spot 417 0 417 834 Approximate Scale in Feet Figure 56. Site 21WRbn location on aerial imagery. µ 1:5,000 1 inch equals 417 feet Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 57: Overview facing southeast within Alpha Site 21WRbn (IMG_1455). Figure 58: Overview facing east within Alpha Site 21WRbn (IMG_1479). Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Otsego Residential Project, Wright County, Minnesota Figure 59: Overview facing northeast within Alpha Site 21WRbn (IMG_1448).