Birch Bay EAW

Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Birch Bay RV Resort
Cass County, MN
Prepared for: Dale & Jodi Spohn
April 13, 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: Birch Bay RV Resort
2. Proposer:
Contact person: Dale Spohn
Title: Owner
Address: 5116 145th St. NW
City, State, ZIP: Royalton, MN 56373
Phone: 320-250-4154
Fax:
Email:
3. RGU Cass County
Contact person: Paul Fairbanks
Title: Planner
Address: 303 Minnesota Ave. West,
P.O Box 3000
City, State, ZIP: Walker, MN 56484
Phone: 218-547-7287
Fax: 218-547-7429
Email: [email protected]
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required:
Discretionary:
EIS Scoping
Citizen petition
X Mandatory EAW
RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
4410.4300, subpart 20a: Resorts, Campgrounds, and RV Parks in the Shoreland.
5. Project Location:
County: Cass County
City/Township: Fairview (E) Township
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW ¼, Section 5, Township 134 N., Range 29 W.
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Crow Wing River, #12
GPS Coordinates: Latitude: 46 deg. N, 27 min, 20 sec
Longitude: 94 deg. W, 21 min, 51 sec
Tax Parcel Numbers: See Appendix 1
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
 County map showing the general location of the project; Please see Appendix 2
 U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); Please see Appendix 2
 Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and postconstruction site plan. Please see Appendix 3
page 1
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
The project involves converting the Birch Bay Golf Course and Resort into a seasonal RV Resort.
The proposed RV Resort would have 170 new sites located on 46.2 acres. Each site would be 50
ft wide and 90 ft long and have water, electrical, and sanitary sewer hookups. The existing Birch
Bay Resort consisting of 10 private lakefront cabins and 7 lakeview rooms in the inn, would
remain in operation.
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 involves converting the former Birch Bay Golf Course and Resort on the shoreline of
Agate Lake into a seasonal RV Resort. The proposed RV Resort would have 170 new sites
located on 46.2 acres, most of which was previously used for the 9-hole golf course. Each site
would be 50 ft wide and 90 ft long and have water, electrical, and sanitary sewer hookups. New
construction associated with the development will include the construction of approximately
9,000 ft of new roadway (approximately 22 ft wide) and construction associated with the
development of 170 RV sites, including stormwater management features and several new and
upgraded septic systems.
The existing Birch Bay Resort consisting of 10 private lakefront cabins and 7 lakeview rooms in
the inn, would remain in operation. There is also a tennis court, beach area, boat ramp, and two
larger golf course maintenance buildings along with a well house that will remain. There is an
existing driveway, parking area, and shoreline amenities, including a beach, boat ramp, and
playground that will remain. The tennis court will be removed and a pool may be constructed in
the future. There are several existing septic systems which will be upgraded as part of this
project. The RV Resort would be in operation from May 1 to October 1. When the RV Resort
closes for the season, the water service will be shut off to areas that are not in use. The lakefront
cabins would also be available from May 1 to October 1, with the exception of cabins 1 and 7 as
shown on the site plans in Appendix 3 that may be open year round.
1. Grading on the site will be minimized to construction of the roadway, campsites, septic
systems, and utilities. Trees that have to be removed will have the stumps ground to the
surface and the mulch will either be hauled off the site or used on the site. The wastewater
produced at the Campground will be treated by several septic systems, each consisting of
several tanks and a drainfield. There will be no filling of wetlands as none exist onsite and
no additional runoff will be directed or discharged to Agate Lake because the new
construction activities will occur away from the lake and will follow the stormwater
management plan for the site. Disturbances to the environment will include vegetation
removal for the construction of the buildings, road, septic system, and parking area. The
construction of the buildings, road, and parking areas will also disturb the soils through
excavation and grading. Little or no waste will be generated from these activities that will
not be able to be reused on a different part of the project.
page 2
2. There will no modification to existing equipment or industrial processes beyond routine
maintenance.
3. There will not be significant demolition or removal of existing structures. Remodeling of the
interior and maintenance to the exterior of the existing buildings is expected.
4. Construction activities will occur during the normal building season in the area, with hours
of operation consistent with typical construction projects. Construction would likely be
completed by the fall of 2015 or spring 2016.
c. Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage
Linear project length
Number and type of residential units
Commercial building area (in square feet)
Industrial building area (in square feet)
Institutional building area (in square feet)
Other uses – Parking/Roads (in square feet)
Structure height(s)
46
N/A
170 new campsites (+ existing buildings)
N/A
N/A
N/A
189,091 sq. ft. (+ existing 21,517)
Within Ordinance Guidelines
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 project will be carried out by the project proposer and not a governmental unit. The purpose
of the project is to provide additional RV sites to be developed on a parcel of land that was
formerly the Birch Bay Golf Course and Resort. The beneficiaries would be the project proposer
along with citizens who wish to camp and recreate in the Brainerd Lakes Area. The project is
needed as there is lack of RV Resorts in the Brainerd Lakes area. Of the estimated 100-120
resorts, RV parks, and campgrounds in the Brainerd Lakes area, 10-12 of these are large
comparable RV parks. All of the available seasonal sites (over 500 total) in these parks are
booked for 2015. In addition, most RV parks have expanded over the past several years or are
currently looking for ways to expand.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? X Yes No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
The complete project will be constructed in three phases. The first phase would consist of 60
sites, and the second phase would also consist of 60 sites. The third phase would consist of 50
sites, for a total of 170 sites at full build out. No additional development other than what has
been described above is planned or likely to happen at this time. Any additional development
could require additional environmental review based on the Environmental Quality Board’s 3
year look back rule found at part 4410.4300, subpart 1, paragraph 2, which reads:
“If the proposed project is an expansion or additional stage of an existing project, the cumulative
total of the proposed project and any existing stages or components of the existing project must
be included when determining if a threshold is met or exceeded if construction was begun within
three years before the date of the application for a permit or approval from a government unit for
the expansion or additional stage.”
page 3
f.
Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes
No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
Past development on the site included the 9 hole Birch Bay Golf Course and Resort. The Resort
consists of 9 private lakefront cabins and 7 lakeview rooms in the inn. There is also a tennis
court, beach area, boat ramp, and two golf course maintenance buildings. There has not been
any past environmental review on the site.
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Before After
Before After
Wetlands
0
0
Lawn/landscaping 31.5
29.3
Deep
0
0
Impervious
1.0
7.2
water/streams
surface
Wooded/forest
10.9
8.2
Stormwater Pond
0
0.8
Brush/Grassland
2.8
0.7
Other (describe)
Cropland
0
0
TOTAL
46.2 ac 46.2 ac
8. 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.
Unit of government
MPCA
MPCA
MDH
MDH
Cass County
Type of application
NPDES Stormwater Permit
Septic Design/Permit
Food, Beverage, & Lodging
Public Water Supply Certification
Conditional Use Permit
Status
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested
in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i.
Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands:
page 4
The primary existing land use on the site over the past several decades has been a golf
course and resort. Because of the golf course, the majority of the site remains open. There
are wooded areas along the shoreline of Agate Lake and on the slope between the cabins
and the storage sheds in the northern portion of the site. There is also a large (5+ acre)
wooded area south of the golf course that is part of the project. The adjacent land use to
the north is wooded with lightly developed residential. Immediately west of the project site
is Agate Lake. The adjacent land use to the southwest, south, and southeast is also
wooded with lightly developed residential as well as various roadways. To the east of the
site (across the minimum maintenance road) is undeveloped woodlands. The site is located
outside of the Pillsbury State Forest, located several miles southwest, which has many
miles of trails and parkland. There is a snowmobile network in the vicinity of the project
site. No farmlands are present in the vicinity of the site.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for an aerial photo showing the project and surrounding areas.
ii.
Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
The proposed project is subject to the Cass County Comprehensive Plan Update (available
online at www.co.cass.mn.us)
Comprehensive Plan Language underlined, Project information in italics.
Land Use Planning (pages 14-17)
D. Desired Future Conditions (most relevant listed below)
1. Development of lakeshore property with minimal natural resource impacts
3. Preservation of critical habitats
4. Lake access that does no degrade water quality
6. Concentration of commercial businesses at or near major transportation intersections
The proposed project allows for visitors to enjoy an up-north atmosphere by largely
preserving much of the existing natural features and natural habitat of the site, specifically
including the large wooded area south of the former golf course and the existing naturally
vegetated buffer strips along the shoreline of Agate Lake. Development activities will
primarily occur in the previously converted golf course rather than these areas. Lake
access under the proposed plan will again be limited to the existing boat landing and beach
areas. Because of the project’s proximity to County Rd 77 (the main transportation
corridor in the area), the creation of additional infrastructure to access the project will be
minimal
E. Natural Resources Policy: To incorporate the goals and strategies of the Cass County
Comprehensive Local Water Plan in promoting land and water uses that result in the
sustainable use of natural resources, balancing development and environmental
commitment to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and resources of the County for
this and future generations.
page 5
The Cass County Water Plan currently expired in January of 2014 and is presently being
revised. However, many of the goals and objectives in the Water Plan that were related to
land use and development were focused on gaining compliance with various Land Use
Ordinance items, including subsurface sewage treatment systems ( SSTS), wetlands,
Shoreland alterations, and stormwater management. The proposed project will be in
compliance will all of these land use regulations, as detailed in the following questions
throughout this document.
iii.
Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The proposed project area is currently zoned as Shoreland Water Oriented Commercial,
which allows the proposed use of a RV Resort as a Conditional Use within the Shoreland
District (i.e. area within 1,320 ft of a public water body). The purpose of this zoning class
is for “commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surface water feature is an
integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants
with transient docking facilities are examples of such use” (Cass County Land Use
Ordinance, pg 105). The surrounding zoning in the area is primarily Shoreland
Residential, which is the County’s zoning classification for residential areas within 1,320
feet of a designated public water body.
There are no flood plains, wild and scenic rivers, critical areas, or agricultural preserves
within or adjacent to the site.
Please see Appendix 4 for a Zoning Map of the project area.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
Because the project site is already zoned as Water Oriented Commercial, no rezoning is required
to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed project will result in a conversion of vacant
golf course land to RV pads and a corresponding road network. The new use as an RV Resort is
compatible with the previous open space use as a golf-course and will not necessitate significant
vegetative clearing. Just like the golf course, the project proposes to use the existing topography
as much as possible to avoid unnecessary land alterations. The existing land use of the resort
within 200-250 feet of the lake is not proposed to change. The current owner is planning to leave
the existing vegetative buffers in place and does not have any plans to significantly alter any of
the existing cabins on the site. Because the current and former land use both involve people
coming and going and enjoying recreational activities consistent with an up-north style resort,
the nearby land uses will not be any more affected by the proposed project than the past use as a
golf course. Additional noise and lighting will be discussed in the appropriate EAW items below.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility
as discussed in Item 9b above.
No additional measures proposed. See response to item b. above.
page 6
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
The surficial geology of the project site consists of outwash deposits of sand and gravel deposited
by meltwater streams that drained melting Rainy lobe ice. There are no known geologic hazards
associated with groundwater on the site proposed to be developed. Karst topography associated
with sedimentary bedrock does not exist in the area as the bedrock geology consists of granite,
which is an igneous rock. The non-existence of karst topography indicates the absence of
sinkholes or shallow limestone formations. There is a shallow, surficial (unconfined) aquifer
within 10-20 feet of the ground surface, but it does not pose any design problems as it is common
throughout the sandy, outwash areas of Cass and Crow Wing County. Since sinkholes, shallow
limestone formations, and or karst conditions are not present, there is no need to address
measures aimed at avoiding or minimizing environmental problems due to these types of geologic
hazards.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction
to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures.
Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to
Item 11.b.ii.
There are two soil types on the project site (based on NRCS/USDA classifications):
126B Graycalm loam sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes (majority of the site)
730B Sanburn sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Both soils types are within the hydrologic soil group A, which are soils that have a high
infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well
drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission and have no frequency of ponding or flooding and largely explain the absence of
wetlands onsite.
The soils onsite have a K factor of 0.20 to 0.24, which indicates moderately low erodibility.
A soil survey report for the project, including full soil profiles and descriptions, is included as
Appendix 5.
The topography of the site is gently rolling. Most areas have a slope of less than 3 percent. A
few small areas have slopes up to 8 percent. Other than the short banks along the lakeshore or
the road ditch of County Road 77, there are no areas of steep slopes. Most of the former golf
page 7
course portion of the site drains into several depressional areas that are mostly contained within
the golf course. The area where the cabins are built drains at a gradual slope to Agate Lake.
Approximately 7.3 acres of soil will be disturbed on site by excavation and grading. Since the
work will be happening in stages, it is expected that not more than 2.5-3 acres would be disturbed
at any one time. Approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil will be excavated for the proposed
project at full build out. Excavation will be minor, consisting mainly of topsoil stripping. With
the exception of small cuts for infiltration ponds, no major excavation will be required.
Approximately 3,400 cubic yards of gravel will be imported for the proposed project at full build
out. This will be used for the road surface and RV site construction. Construction activities will
not create any slopes greater than 1-2 percent other than for ditch areas, which will likely be a
minimum of 4:1 slopes. Thus, the project will not require any additional soil stabilization
techniques beyond what is typical. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required
as part of the NPDES permit will further address soil stabilization and vegetation reestablishment in order to prevent erosion.
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i.
Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches.
Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes,
migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include
water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired
Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory
number(s), if any.
There are no streams, wetlands, intermittent channels or county/judicial ditches on the
project site. Agate Lake (PWI-11-216) is located on the project site. Agate Lake is 150 acres
with a maximum depth of 16 feet and an average depth of 7-8 feet (according to locals). Fish
species present include: black bullhead, black crappie, bluegill, brown bullhead, largemouth
bass, northern pike, pumpkinseed sunfish, rock bass, walleye, white sucker, and yellow perch.
There is no public access on the lake. Agate Lake is not a designated wildlife, waterfowl,
trout lake, or outstanding resource value water. Agate Lake is listed on the MPCA 303d
Impaired Waters List for mercury in fish tissue. Gull Lake (PWI-11-305) is within 1 mile of
the project site and is also listed on the MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List for mercury in fish
tissue, which is a common impairment for lakes in the Brainerd area.
According to the MPCA’s Environmental Data Access website, water quality data for Agate
Lake exists from 1990-1992, 2000-2004, and 2009-2013. Transparency (secchi) depth was
the only measure used for water quality until 2010 when phosphorous and chlorophyll a (to a
lesser degree) were also measured for two years. Secchi depth varied from approximately 710 feet in 1990-1992, approximately 10-15 feet in 2000-2004, and approximately 9-13 feet in
2009-2013. The average reading during these recent years was just over 10 feet.
Phosphorous readings ranged from 8-18 micrograms/liter (ug/l) with most readings of 13-16.
page 8
These readings are well within the ecoregion ranges of 8-15 ft (secchi) and 14-27 ug/l
(phosphorus) and indicate good water quality for a shallow lake.
According to the lake association, several private studies have been conducted over the past
several years and have indicated the lake to be in good health in terms of water quality.
Unfortunately, these reports were not available to be included in this EAW. According to
lake association representatives, the studies also indicated a high level of health for the
contributing watershed and the groundwater wells on the adjacent properties.
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 or seeps on the site. There is a surficial sand aquifer that is
located on the site. These aquifers are common around lakes in the sandier portions of
southern Cass and Crow Wing Counties. The surficial sand aquifer largely consists of
glacial outwash, glacial lake sand, and terrace sediments. The glacial outwash is comprised
of sand, gravelly sand, and gravel. Glacial Lake Brainerd deposits consist of well-sorted,
fine to medium grained sand. The terrace sediments consist of sand and gravel that includes
fine grained sand and silt. The estimated thickness of the surficial sand is 0-20 feet. The
Glacial Lake Brainerd buried sand aquifer is also present in the proposed project area.
Buried sand aquifers are present throughout portions of Cass County. Much of the area
formerly covered by Glacial Lake Brainerd in west-central Crow Wing County is underlain
by a significant sand aquifer. Central areas of the former lakebed contain a clay and silt
layer. Sometimes this layer is at the surface, but often it is buried underneath the surficial
sand. A buried sand aquifer (BGLS) is present beneath this clay and silt layer. Insufficient
data are available to determine whether this sand unit is associated with Glacial Lake
Brainerd deposits, part of an underlying outwash layer, or both. The BGLS aquifer is an
important water source for people who live in the area, especially where clayey sediments
are near the surface and the surficial sand aquifer is either very thin or not present. The
depth to groundwater is within 20 feet of the surface where the proposed construction would
occur. The proposed project is located partially within a Source Water Protection Area as
determined by the Minnesota Department of Health because it is a public water supplier.
The area within 200 feet of a public supply well is designated as the Source Water Protection
Area. There are currently 3 wells on the site. Please the attached well log in Appendix 7.
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.
page 9
The proposed project will not discharge any wastewater into a publicly owned
treatment facility as there is no such facility nearby.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a
system.
The sanitary wastewater from the existing structures by the lake is currently
discharged into several SSTS systems.. The proposed project will upgrade many of
these systems by adding new, compartmentalized septic tanks as well as drainfields
consisting of gravity trenches. Several cesspools that are still currently in the ground
will be pumped and then properly abandoned. Appendix 6 shows a sketch of the
current gallons per day design criteria for the existing cabins & resort buildings
(which is primarily based on the number of bedrooms for a residential system) by
Minnesota licensed Advanced Designer, Martin Joyce with Martin Joyce Septic
Service, LLC. A sketch is also included that gives more detail on the proposed
upgrades for the clubhouse, cabin H, and A-frame buildings. All upgrades of the
septic systems of the site will conform to Minnesota Rules 7080-7083 and any other
local requirements.
The primary source of new wastewater will be from the proposed shower house /
restroom building as well as from the individual RV hook-ups for each of the
proposed 170 RV sites. Daily peak flow data from the other similar campgrounds,
including the Two Rivers campground by Royalton (which the proposer also owns),
shows an actual peak flow rate of approximately 20 gallons per day. The project
proposer will work with Cass County and the MPCA to determine a design flow rate
to accommodate the initial phase of the project using an estimate flow, likely around
40 gallons per day. The amount and timing of sites to be hooked up to the system will
depending on future monitored flows. This size of a system will likely incorporate
some flow equalization measures such as time dosing, which will help prevent the
drainfield from being overloaded during peak flows. The system will have a
management plan with alarms that email Martin and another person if anything goes
wrong. The system also will monitor the actual gallons per day used. State Law
requires that all SSTS systems be installed by a state licensed installer. None of the
waste produced will be discharged into Agate Lake or to the ground surface. The
soils onsite are suitable for a SSTS as there are no limiting conditions such as a high
water table or bedrock. The Soil Survey gives the vast majority of the site (90+ %) a
“slightly limited" rating for in-ground trench systems, which indicates that the soil
has features that are “favorable for the specified use.”
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
The proposed project will not discharge any wastewater into any surface waters on
near the site. Because this will be a new system that will rely on advanced
technology and will be governed by modern septic regulations, the proposed project
page 10
is not anticipated to have any negative effects on surface or groundwater on or near
the site.
ii.
Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
Existing conditions:
Because the existing soils on the site (Hydrologic Group A) allow for rapid infiltration
and because most of the site drains to depressional areas on the interior of the site
(specifically in the golf course portion), there is currently little runoff that leaves the site.
There is a ridgeline that runs along the lake 150-200 feet back. Water east of this ridge
flows to the golf course and water west of this ridge flows toward Agate Lake. However,
there are existing vegetative buffers (with widths ranging from 20-75 feet) along much of
the shoreline which prevents a large amount of runoff from getting to Agate Lake. Agate
Lake is near the top of its subwatershed, so runoff that does get to the lake outlets to the
rest of the watershed via a series of wetlands on the west side of the lake. The water
meanders north to Home Brook which drains into Lake Margaret, which is part of the
Gull Chain of Lakes.
Proposed conditions:
Because there is no structural changes to the buildings located between the ridgeline and
the lake, there is not expected to be any additional runoff to Agate Lake. Additional
berms, infiltration areas, or shoreline buffer strips could be installed to further limit the
existing runoff. The quantity of site runoff will increase to the east of the ridgeline due to
the added impervious surfaces for the new road network, RV pads, and buildings (such as
the new shower house). Refer to Appendix 3 for detailed plans showing the increased
impervious surface area from the proposed infrastructure.
Since more than one acre of soil will be disturbed during construction, a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit issued by MPCA is
required. The NPDES Stormwater Permit requires that a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed to utilize best management practices for erosion
and sedimentation control. The NPDES permit requires that the first 1inch of runoff
from all new impervious surfaces on the site shall be held onsite via infiltration.
Stormwater will be directed into several stormwater infiltration areas that utilize the
sandy soils. Please see Appendix 3 for the site plans showing the proposed location of
the stormwater infiltration areas. BMP’s will also be placed upslope of the retention
areas to slow the flow of stormwater into these areas and maintain a high quality of the
runoff.
Best management practices (BMP’s) will also be utilized during and post development to
manage and treat runoff and prevent erosion from exposed soils. Because BMPs in the
page 11
SWPPP include requirements to control both peak flow rates and total stormwater
volume, the SWPPP design will include an analysis of site runoff vs. run-on, expected
flow from impervious surfaces, slopes, and other site drainage features, and the expected
amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation. Some of the erosion and
sedimentation control BMPs planned as part of the project include:
a. All ground disturbed by construction will be stabilized as soon as possible
b. Disturbance to slopes of grade 3:1 or steeper will be minimized
c. Vegetation will be maintained along the property lines and nearby areas disturbed by
construction.
d. Runoff will be directed to existing natural vegetated areas
e. Perimeter control will be installed and maintained along down gradient areas,
before the grading begins and maintained during construction.
f. Following construction, permanent cover such as grass, shrubs, and trees will be
established as soon as practicable.
iii.
Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including
an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
The proposed project does not involve any surface or groundwater appropriation that
would trigger a DNR permit. The existing private wells will supply the necessary water
for the RV resort. There will not be any well abandonment.
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. 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.
There are no wetlands onsite. Please refer to Appendix 8 for a letter from Brinks
Wetland Services which describes the wetland determination that was conducted on
the project site.
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
page 12
features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are
proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the
water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft
on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
The project does not propose any new physical effects or alterations to Agate Lake.
The existing beach and recreational use area will continue to be used for resort
guests. There are no plans to expand this area. The project proposer also intends to
leave the vegetative buffers that are currently in place.
Existing surface water usage:
Because there is no public access to Agate Lake, surface use of the lake is limited to
the private riparian property owners and the two resorts, Agate Lake Resort and the
proposed Birch Bay RV Resort. The owners of the resorts and the lake association
have all indicated that the typical peak usage on the lake is 6-8 boats at a time. The
peak typically occurs on weekends in the summer months, specifically in July. Each
resort typically contributed 1-3 boats to this total. The lake association indicated that
typical users of the lake include fishermen, personal watercraft users, pleasure
boaters, and water skiers.
Projected surface water usage:
The boat landing at Birch Bay will continue to be used and may see increased usage
due to the expansion of the resort. However, there are no plans to significantly
increase dockage beyond the existing 2-3 docks as the proposer does not wish to
contribute additional surface water usage to Agate Lake beyond what the lake can
safely accommodate. Please refer to Appendix 3 for a detailed survey of the
proposed waterfront area, showing the proposed dockage. RV resort users that bring
their boat will be encouraged to trailer it to nearby Gull Lake or other larger,
recreational lakes in the area. The type of watercrafts that are likely to use the lake
would be similar to the current use types. However, the project proposer’s policy is
that he will not allow personal watercraft, wakeboard or ski boats (or similar) on
Agate Lake as he anticipates the users of the Agate Lake from his resort to be seeking
a more relaxing, up-north experience. Although there is a day dock, space is limited
to several boats at a time as the proposer does not anticipate a constant inflow of
boats to the lake on a daily basis. As in the past, smaller (row-boat type) boats will
also be available for use by guests staying in the cabins. The proposed 12 mooring
spaces will be rented out to guests of his resort on a long-term basis. Even if half of
these guests use their boats at a peak time along with two day users and two from the
cabin guests, the total number of boats from Birch Bay will not exceed 10 on peak
times, which combined with the other boats on the lake will still be within DNR safely
guidelines for surface water use. In addition to the many lakes in the Brainerd Lakes
area, it is anticipated that larger watercrafts would use Gull Lake for fishing and
recreation due to its large size (9,947 acres) and close proximity to the proposed RV
Park. Gull Lake is an excellent fishing lake that also has dining options that can be
accessed by watercraft. The proposed RV Resort is also in close proximity to the
Pillsbury State Forest and trail system which offers a variety of outdoor recreational
opportunities. Other opportunities in close proximity to the RV Resort include
page 13
golfing, dining, shopping, and entertainment. Specific docking and/or surface water
usage requirements by Cass County and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources can be addressed during the Conditional Use Permit approval process.
During the first year of operation, all guests must sign in at the office prior to
launching their boats from the RV Resort. This will provide the RV Resort with an
accurate number of guests that are using the lake.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards
on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned
dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas
pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would
be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid,
minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
There are no known pre-project site conditions that will cause or exacerbate any environmental
effects relating to the proposed project. There are two above ground storage tanks on the
property. One tank is 150 gallons and used to store diesel fuel, the other tank is 300 gallons and
is used to store gasoline. These tanks will remain in their current locations to be used to fuel
maintenance equipment for the RV Resort. These existing tanks currently do not have a
secondary containment feature for leak protection. As part of the proposed project these tanks
will be placed in a structure that will have a concrete floor with 12” concrete side walls for a
secondary containment feature. The floor will have a drain plug that can be removed to drain out
precipitation. In the event a leak occurs, appropriate action to remedy the situation will be taken
immediately in accordance to MPCA guidelines and regulations.
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.
The only solid waste that will be present on the site will be related to the RV Resort activities.
These wastes (paper, plastic, cans, food, etc.) will be placed in waste receptacles provided by the
RV Resort. The RV Resort plans to offer recycling receptacles if practical. Any typical
residential grade cleaning products used on the site will be disposed of properly. All waste
generated by the Resort will be removed by a licensed hauler. There are no potential
environmental effects with this type of solid waste handling.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or
other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include
development of a spill prevention plan.
page 14
No toxic or hazardous materials are expected to be used or present as part of the RV Resort
construction. If any hazardous materials are found during the construction of the RV Resort, the
material will be removed and disposed of according to MPCA guidelines. The MPCA will be
notified of any such findings as soon as possible. There are two above ground storage tanks on
the property. One tank is 150 gallons and used to store diesel fuel, the other tank is 300 gallons
and is used to store gasoline. The tanks are located in between the two existing maintenance
buildings. These existing tanks currently do not have a secondary containment feature for leak
protection. As part of the proposed project these tanks will be placed in a structure that will have
a concrete floor with 12” concrete side walls for a secondary containment feature. The floor will
have a drain plug that can be removed to drain out precipitation. In the event a leak occurs,
appropriate action to remedy the situation will be taken immediately in accordance with MPCA
guidelines and regulations.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal.
Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of
hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
The project will not generate or store hazardous wastes during construction or operation.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a.
Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The proposed RV Resort is located adjacent to Agate Lake. Agate Lake is 150 acres with a
maximum depth of 16 ft (according to lake association and Agate Lake Resort). Fish species
present include: black bullhead, black crappie, bluegill, brown bullhead, largemouth bass,
northern pike, pumpkinseed sunfish, rock bass, walleye, white sucker, and yellow perch. There is
no public access on the lake. Agate Lake is not a designated wildlife, waterfowl, trout lake, or
outstanding resource value water. The primary existing land use on the site over the past several
decades has been a golf course and resort. Because of the golf course the majority of the site
remains open. The majority of the site consists of manicured turf grass for the golf course. There
are some coniferous and mixed hardwood trees near the golf course. The majority of these trees
will be preserved during construction.
page 15
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native
plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other
sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement
number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB# _20140140____________) from which
the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional
habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
There are no known Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance (MCBS)
on or in close proximity to the site. There has not been any known additional habitat or species
survey work that has been conducted within the site of the proposed project. The Minnesota Natural
Heritage Information System was queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural
features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project.
Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species have been reported from
the vicinity of the proposed project and may be encountered on the site. A Blanding’s turtle fact sheet
provided by the MN DNR will be given to all contractors working on the project. If turtles are
encountered on the site and are in imminent danger they will be moved by hand out of harm’s way. If
they are not in danger they will be left undisturbed. Please see the attached letter from the MN DNR
Natural Heritage Information System in Appendix 9.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the
project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered
species.
It is assumed that the existing property will continue to provide resources and habitat for a variety of
wildlife and plant life, especially those that use near-shore habitats. Potential impacts to wildlife and
plant life will be the greatest as the result of land use changes that result from construction activities
associated with road and RV pad construction. The project will avoid any impacts to the surface
waters of Agate Lake. Because the proposed project area has already been cleared and graded for a
golf course, no net loss of species is likely to result from the proposed project since there is limited
biodiversity in the proposed expansion area. It is unlikely that any rare features will be affected as
the site has previously been disturbed over the years.
The project is not likely to introduce or spread aquatic invasive species (AIS) during construction as
the infrastructure constructed will be away from the lake. The risk for the spread of AIS during
operation is primarily from boats entering and exiting the lake. Because there is no public access,
the risk is limited to the 5-6 landings that currently exist on the lake, including the access from each
resort (Agate Lake & Birch Bay). Agate Lake Resort (in coordination with the lake association)
currently has a policy in place that prevents their customers from launching their boat without first
being properly decontaminated (or otherwise allowed sufficient dry time). They encourage the use of
a rental company that has maintains high standards of AIS prevention. The Birch Bay RV Resort
project proposer recognizes the threat posed by AIS and also plans to establish similar policies to
address this issue, such as only allowing a boat to launch if there is a DNR-trained Level I inspector
on duty or after receiving an offsite decontamination (such as for boats coming from Gull Lake
without sufficient dry time). The proposer and employees must also attend the DNR’s Lake Service
Provider Training for working with docks, lifts, and other equipment. In addition, aquatic invasive
page 16
species signage is already posted at the boat access to alert guests to the importance of preventing
the introduction and limiting the spread of invasive species.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
The grading and excavation will be kept to a minimum with only the necessary amount needed to
construct the roads and RV pads. A stormwater plan that meets NPDES and Cass County
requirements will be implemented to prevent untreated runoff from entering Agate Lake. All
ground disturbed by excavation and grading will be stabilized as soon as possible using
appropriate best management practices. The project will preserve much of the existing natural
features and natural habitat of the site, specifically including the large wooded area south of the
former golf course and the existing naturally vegetated buffer strips along the shoreline of Agate
Lake.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
There are no known historic structures, archeological sites, or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Please see the attached letter from Archaeologist Christina Harrison
(Appendix 10) and an email from Tom Cinadr, Survey and Information Management Coordinator at
SHPO (Appendix 11).
Although steps have been taken to insure that all archaeological resources in the area were
identified, should any burials or human remains be unearthed during construction, all earth-moving
activities should cease and local law enforcement officials notified as required by MN State Statute
307.08 (or its successor statute). A representative from the state archaeologist’s office will
authenticate whether it is a burial site and the state shall pay for the authentication, marking, and
rescue of any Native American artifacts.
15. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the
project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
There are no known scenic views or vistas on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The
project does not propose the use of any lights that would constitute a strong visual impact. No towers
are planned for the project. Only routine visual impacts associated with construction activities as
well as security and safety lighting are anticipated by the proposed project. There will be safety
lighting at the entrance of the new access driveway off of Shady Point Rd SW, which is located in an
undeveloped, forested area. The project does not propose any lighting adjacent to neighboring
residents. The closest neighbor to the main lodge/clubhouse area (located several hundred feet
page 17
south) was the previous owner of the resort and is well aware of the lighting situation. New lighting
on the site will not be obtrusive.
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including
any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of
any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.
Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
There are no known existing or proposed structures for which stationary source emissions would
be a concern.
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.
Based on the number of daily trips forecasted, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a
substantial impact on air quality.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and
odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under
item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby
sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate
the effects of dust and odors.
Dust would likely occur during site clearing as well as during construction, especially during dry
hydrologic periods. The impact is normally intermittent and a temporary nuisance, subject to
weather conditions. If the dust becomes excessive, it would be mitigated with appropriate BMPs
such as water application. There are no sources of outdoor odors on the site except for campfire
smoke and dumpsters typical of a water-oriented commercial resort. Effects from campfire
smoke are not expected to be significant. Dumpsters will be closed during non-use so as to not
create any odor issues and will be located at least 250 feet from neighboring property owners.
There is no anticipated potential impact on human health or quality of life from dust or odors due
to the proposed project activities. These issues will be further addressed during the Conditional
Use Permit review process
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project
construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1)
existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise
standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the
effects of noise.
page 18
Noise commonly associated with heavy equipment operation would occur during the site preparation
as well as during clearing and road construction. The construction activities would occur during
normal working hours of a contractor. The majority of the infrastructure construction would occur
over a 4-6 month period of actual working time from the beginning of the project. After construction,
the only noise anticipated is for typical resort activities which have occurred onsite for many
decades. The project proposer plans to limit loud, noisy activities to daylight hours. The proposed
Resort guidelines would establish quiet hours from 11:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. At 10:00 p.m. all children
and teens must be at their campsites or with their parents. No fireworks or firearms will be allowed
on the property. There is no anticipated potential impact on human health or quality of life due to the
proposed noise from proposed project activities. This issue will be further addressed during the
Conditional Use Permit review process, as which time specific conditions can be placed on the
project that will limit noisy activities.
18. 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.
Approximately 18 parking spaces will be added for visitor parking. It is estimated that the RV
Resort will generate 67 daily trips. It estimated that 22 of the trips will be in the A.M. hours, and
45 will be in the P.M. hours. Maximum peak hour traffic is expected to be 5.84 total trips.
Maximum peak hour traffic is likely to be in the P.M. hours. Trip generation rates are from the
ITE Trip Generation Rates-8th Edition. There is very little in the way of public transportation in
the Gull Lake area. Being that the proposed project is an RV Resort; customers are likely to use
their own vehicles as transportation to and from the Resort. The entrances to the Resort will
be constructed wide enough to accommodate the larger RV type vehicles without the need
to cross the centerline of CSAH #77 to maneuver.
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,
The proposed project is not likely to have significant impact on traffic congestion. Congestion
will be greatest on the weekends when the Resort is expected to be the busiest. The regional
transportation system will not be negatively impacted by the proposed project.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Dave Enblom, Cass County Engineer was contacted to see if any mitigation measures such as
turn lanes or bypass lanes would need to be constructed for the proposed project. Based on the
proposed project layout, Mr. Enblom stated “At this time there are no County Ordinance
requirements for turn lanes or bypass lanes. From my perspective, the amount of anticipated
page 19
turning movements would not warrant construction of turn or by pass lanes as well at this
location.”
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Due to the seasonal use that the Gull Lake area receives, the cumulative effects to the
environmental will be highest in the summer months. The primary effect will be to Agate Lake,
which receives use by both Agate Lake Resort and the proposed Birch Bay RV Resort. However,
the proposer is limiting the amount of dockage on the site to a day dock and a pontoon rental
dock in an attempt to maintain the historic (pre-RV Resort) use of the lake. Other parts of the
project that could potentially have cumulative effects are expected to have minimal effects largely
because they are being constructed away from the lake and are being constructed in a former golf
course area that had been converted from a natural state many decades ago. Construction of the
road network and RV sites will result in temporary and permanent runoff and the use of the sites
will result in septic waste. Modern erosion & sediment control best management practices will
be used during the construction phases to limit these effects. Permanent stormwater and septic
treatment areas will help mitigate long-term environmental effects. More subjective issues such
as noise and lighting will be mitigated by conditions placed on the project during the Conditional
Use Permit process, which are enforceable by the RGU. These and other issues have been
addressed item-by-item throughout the EAW.
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.
Because most of the land surrounding the proposed project is in smaller, residential tracts that
have largely been developed or is bordered by roads, the likelihood of expansion is minimal.
However, the project proposer does plan to retain the remainder of the natural wooded land on
the southern portion of the proposed site that is currently not planned for development along with
a 10+/- acre property located within the City of Lakeshore that borders the site to the north. This
parcel was formerly one of the holes of the former golf course and is visible in one of the location
maps in Appendix 2. The proposer currently has no plans to develop these areas.
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.
Should additional land be developed, any environmental effects would be away from the shoreline
of Agate Lake and would be minimal, especially given the limited amount of additional land that
could reasonably be acquired and added to the project. Because any minimal effects would also
be mitigated for (such as adding capacity to the septic system, increasing the stormwater
infiltration capacity, creating/ maintaining buffers to the property lines, etc.) they would not
cause a significant cumulative effect on the environment. Any such expansion in the future would
also require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (should the project be approved) and
page 20
could also potentially require additional environmental review depending on the timing and
magnitude of the proposal.
20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental
effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will
be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
There are no additional known environmental effects. The potential impacts of this project are
minimal and have been addressed throughout this EAW.
page 21
List of Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Project Parcel Numbers
Appendix 2 – Project Location Maps
-Aerial Photo Map
-Aerial Photo Site Map with Parcels
-USGS Topographic Map
-Plat Map
Appendix 3 – Site Plans
-KLD survey drawings
-former Birch Bay resort sketch
Appendix 4 – Zoning Map
Appendix 5 – Soil Survey Report
Appendix 6 – Septic System Improvement Sketches
Appendix 7 – Well Logs
Appendix 8 – No-wetland letter by Brinks Wetland Services
Appendix 9 – DNR Natural Heritage Information
Appendix 10 – Letter from Archaeologist Christina Harrison
Appendix 11 – Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Letter
Appendix 12 – Photos of the site
Appendix 1
Parcel ID Numbers
14-357-0030
14-357-0070
14-357-0080
14-357-0090
14-357-0100
14-368-0105 (Birch Bay Golf Villas from here down)
14-368-0110
14-368-0115
14-368-0120
14-368-0125
14-368-0130
14-368-0135
14-368-0140
14-368-0145
14-368-0150
14-368-0155
14-368-0160
14-368-0165
14-368-0170
14-368-0175
14-368-0180
14-368-0205
14-368-0210
14-368-0215
14-368-0220
14-368-0225
14-368-0230
14-368-0235
14-368-0240
14-368-0245
14-368-0250
14-368-0255
14-368-0260
14-005-2303
Appendix 2
These data are provided on an "AS-IS" basis,
without warranty of any type, expressed or implied,
including but not limited to any warranty as to their
performance, merchantability, or fitness for any
particular purpose.
Site Map
w/2010 Aerial Photo & 10 ft Contours
This map is not a substitute for accurate field surveys or for locating actual property lines and any adjacent features.
/
Date: 12/21/2014
www.UpNorthProperties.com
Proposed Site of
Birch Bay RV
Resort
K
5
John &
Karen
Smith 45
ANDERSON
RD
LL T E
C P
32
S7
Murrey 13
W&T Garry
SW
GU
L
DR
L
T&C W 10
H
10
MN 11
H Dondelinger 43
H
Lee 40
D
8
R&L JM
Lee 18
29
J&B
Lee
27
Lee 5
Tietz 9 PG 5
Lee 14
HERITAGE
LN F 10 M 5
D&R
S 40
ECHO
LAKE
EAGLE
BLUFF
L
9 ESTATES
Schmitt
20
2
Bradley D
&
Catherine
Clark
Peterson
61
49
1
DV 9
D
7
C E 14
ST
EP
LA H EN
KE S
2
C
12
4
C&L Buchholz
154
CEI
29
A
11
CEI 26.5
GU
LL
8
B
10 Buchholz
65
G8
PINE BEACH RD
CAL
21
ER
V
RI
MN Power
& Light Co
223
Earl B
Olson
2
Farms Inc
67
3
4
OAK
1
HILLS
ESTATES
77
33
5
Merrill K
Cragun
121
ST
3
2
MP 14
D&H Berg
20
H Keranen
20
S&S Buresh
5 S Z F
26
K8
5 5 5
B M N K
5 5 5 5
S&J Eisler
LEEWOOD LN
20
K
P6
5
Brennan 15
SUOMI DRJ&V BH
5
LA
KE
6
7
SW
WILLERNIE
ESTATES
In
L Abear
S c de p
14
ho en
o d
40 l D ise nt
t
Q
8
ST
BoA
10
18
LL
SEE
PAGE 11
13
3
C
5
MG 5
A 11
Conroy
20
ESTATES
3
4
C 11
LY
NC
H
Laura
Forsberg KINGDOM
41
ACRES
120TH ST SW
L
L
M6
1.
5
10
WOODL
AWN
DR SW
L6
4
C6
Schrank 10
B
5
MC
16
RD
MAPLEWOOD
RIDGE
Eric &
1
OA
K
RD
K
N O LL
K5
BASS LK
C5
F
5
Lupient
39
C 10
BASS
CAL LAKE
41
GULL LAKE DAM RD
C E 16
6
RR
10
32
CoE 24
T D
5 5
ES
TEA
BAY MBOA
RD T
ST
18
28
Merrill K
Cragun
Jr
172
O AKWOOD
KNOLLS
MAPLEWOOD DR
CAL
17
CROW WING COUNTY
LM
18
Lee 20
Steven
Collette 20
PS
29
Fischer 10
Schuft 12
N5
LN
N
SH ADY L
M
11
ME 6
B
6
RENO
PLAT
G 37
J&S
R7
LEL
9
SC
S
9
PENINSULA
S
8
Cragun
32
he
S4c 1
3
Jonah
Smith 28
CH
BE
A
PINE
GUL
L LK
RD
CoE 11
Madden
Bros
Inc
266
2
r
lle
BEACH
13TH
AVE
WESTWOOD
GR E E
N
R
DE
E
DG
E
4 8
MBI
C 12
Hamad
33
2
Leland A
Hope
81
C
R&S Voels
20
Cook 13
22
REAG A
DR TE LK
Al
S
p
Br heu W ASPEN
38 own s
LN R 11 J
.3
7
AGATE
D&B
Eiynck
40
GAI 9
M
6
Christine
Maxson
78
ER
TIMB
SW
Copyright © 2012 Cass County, MN
³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³
UPPER
SYLVAN
TOWNHOUSES
Madden Bros.
Inc
287.6
K5
SEE PAGE
14 MASTEL
J&L S 5
RD
TR
LD
R
O
RED AK T RL SW
SW
S HADOW
K
AC
AR
M
Dayton
27
AGATE LAKE DR SW
IL
TR
A
M S 10
S&H 22
K Noton
20
D r K&
ie C
29 ss e
n
AK
E
YL
NE
DU
FF
RY S
R S W GREGORY
DR SW
EG
O
³ ³
TA
1
DADE
LAKE
No MN 1
Therapeutic Camp
SW
76
R
D
I
16
BI R
LEE'S
ADDTN
K
12
CEI
10 L&P5
M&I
C 10
LAKE DR
R
4
E LA KE
21.
S6
3
NMTC6 33
L9
LL
3
CARLYONS
SYLVAN
PARK
AP
19.
18.
32.2
C F
6 5
POINTE
BAY RD
EAST
POINTE
SW 2.
SYLVAN BIRCH
ADDN
GU
SW
RD
1.
4
LAKE
SYLVAN
MARY
FAWCETT
MEMORIAL CLC
22
DR
7
EAST
20.
5
KAVANAUGH
DR
31
T
1
DR
SYLVAN
VIEW DR
5
ST
28
POINTE
MAPLEWOOD
SYLVAN SHORES
CITY
5
3
R
SYLVAN
SHORES
O
GE
WLAKE RI D
2
D R
RE K D
E
OA2IDG
City
of
E.G.L.
36
5
CARLYONS
SYLVAN
16.
4
PARK
4 14. 15.
16.
17.
THE
WOODS
6
M
LAKE
SYLVAN
ST
So
GE
3
L
1
21
DUNPAINTIN
SHORES
3
CRAGUNS
DR
E
RID
B ER
13.
G
6B
H
7
4
29
77
RD
SW
AK DR1
1
1
ST
105
GREEN GABLES RD
VIL 7
2
John N
&
Barbara
Lee 42
L&P
14
A7
22.
H
1
BIRC RD JENSEN LOTS
D
2
ISLAN
18. LOWER GULL LAKE LN
70
19. LOWER GULL LAKE TRL
20. LOWER GULL LAKE CIR
C 1 21. LOWER GULL LAKE DR
1
2
22. E STEAMBOAT BAY DR
S&J H
SY
J
E& 1 4
A
TIM
15.
GU
SYLVAN
LAK LL
CITY
ER
D
11.
TH
12.
PA
P
2D O
RE
TAMARACK
ONS
14.
30
HHI 14
5
DR
4
RUTH LAKE
PARK
OAKWOOD
J&J
B7
J&S
E 10
DV
10
3
L ES
RUTH SANDY
LAKE BEACH
J Lee
ORCHID
5
28
GULL
TRL
PIKE BAY ESTATES
Celt G
H8
BLUFF
ULL
PIKE BAY RD2 IKE
10
P Y
RG
ER DR
Conklin
FLO
V
A
FLOAN
I
R
B
7 8
5
AN
3
Conklin
21
E
Wolhart
POINT
PO
28
39
IN
CDR
N&M
T R
NI
E
Schley
Tuomi
D
Nathan D
82
35
SUNSET
& Mary L Tuomi
142
VIEW RD
SUN
HAPPY HOOPER HIDEAWAY
5 Q 16
T VALLEY
WOOD
V5
9
DR
DUCK WAY
MADDENS
6
GULL
DR
7
GJW
MEADOW
N
PI I 38
R
B
M
HD
AN
AC
LV CIR
2 2 BE
AN SY
oE INE
LV
36
3
13.
3
H
4 IL
5
4
USA
72 1
BIRCH ISLAND
C
SHADOW TRAILS
12.
4
GREEN
HILL
R
6
CAL HHI Harstad
20
13 10
20
3
1
S
EA
Maxson
Holding
Co LLC
46
GULL
E
PIN LAKE RD
ITE 6 C Maxson 49
WH
19
PINE TOP TRL
11. TALL PINE DR
12. TALL PINE LN
13. OAK LN
14. FAIRWAY RD
15. GOLF VIEW LN
16. NORTHSTAR LN
17. SYLVAN VIEW DR
17
E GULL
LAKE
GA
B
SHORES
INDIAN TRL SHADY LANE
3
Eksten TOWNHOUSES
39 CoE
L 13
11
T RD
POPL A R DR
GULL ACRES
AUDITORS
PLAT OF
PINE BEACH
2
Olson4
21
9
WHITES 1ST SUBDIV 1
5
M
OF GULL LAKE SHORES REEN
G
1ST ADDN TO
CITY OF EAST
GULL LAKE
1
D
5
B ER
TIM
GE
RID
8
GREEN
GABLES LN
SQUAW POINT
T
VIEW
PINE BEACH
PENINSULA
LOOP
O
GR
N5
WILDFLOWER
ESTATES
YELLOW
MOCCASIN TRL
AY
RW
NO 5E RD
PI N
P OIN
B E
V
OAKHURST
2
HILLVIEW FOREST RD
3
S QU A W
AW
VE
O E
GR L A K
C H U LL
R
I
B
G
CH
ON
I R RD
9
LAKE
HILLVIEW
2 FOREST
SQ U
LR
25
8
10. WESTWOOD LN SW
RD
LA LN
TIMB ER 3
4
BIRCH
GROVE LN
WESTWOOD
SHORES
1
AL
M
E
RID G
GULL
4
TIMBER
RIDGE
NORWAY PINE
RD SW
BIG GULL LAKE
7. GULL VIEW RD SW
8. ANCHOR LN SW
GULL
³
AY
H B BIRCH BAY ON
1
18
T
24
LL
MF 2
12
³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³
GULL
LAKE
2
10.
³
HUNTERS POINT
ESTATES
1
7
3
Y
7 8.
³
³ ³
L5
3.
D 8 4.
4
1. S AGATE SHORE TRL SW
2. QUARTERDECK RD SW
3. ANDERSON RD SW
4. GULL TRL SW
BIRCH
DR
6.
5.
1
BIRCH BAY
GOLF VILLAS
9. WESTWOOD SHORES DR SW
IN
PO
R S ES
TE TA T
S
4
13
1
W
5. HILL DR SW
6. VANSICKLE BAY RD SW
K&J 9.
Powell
37.1 5
UN
H
5
1
S
RD
N
OI
P
2
2.
5
IL
³
BERCHER
ACRES
77
O
K
JR EG
AU
S
AT
OS MA N
4
C
BI R
7
ST
2
3
2.
QPL
236
LN SW
Fairview - E
East Gull Lake
T134N • R29W
5
3.
1.
4.
ARROWHEAD
FLATS
1.
5
PINEHURST LN
³
SW
PINE
SONG
13
7.
W
D
1
sV
s
s
6.
TRA
4
FT
48
E
H
³
³ ³
³
³ ³
of
NR
7
RFL 16 5.
2
State of
MN
122
D
6
33
ESTELLA
ESTATES
B8
STATE
R
RFL R 8
10
E
SKI
GULL
ACRES
State of
Mn FOREST
3
304
AR
D
J&A Rardin
30
³
GA
SA
G S
SKI LN
COTTAGE
WOOD
DR SW
1
W GULL TOWER RD SW
IN
State of
MN
361.4
6
3
77
SEE PAGE 19 10R
N
YO O
BA
CH E S H
BIR
T
State of
MN
187.9
State of
MN DNR
73
R
Lake
Shore
Conserv
Club
Inc
113
³ ³ ³ ³LL ³ ³ ³ ³ ³
U
12
AGATE
LAKE
ROCKY POINT TRL
ST
TINGDALE
4
BROS
L9
GULL
LAKE
WPS 13
GARDENS
³ ³
³
³ ³³
³
DH
15
Kenneth
Rasinski
40.2
2
³
JL
5
GC
5
L 10
COTTAGE
WOOD ESTATES
KRC- 9
J&S
C7
State of
MN 29.3
2218.820.7355
ROCKY POINT RD
2
32
AGATE
LAKE
PILLSBURY
MO BILE
OW
SN
Knife River
Corporation 80
AGATE
LAKE
BEACH
³ ³AGAT
³ E³LAKE
³ DR³ ³
Y
SNOWMO BILE
H7
7
³³
1
LH
17
PILLSBUR
State of
MN
280
e of
NR 119
B
8
³
1
2
Maurice & Marvel
Schwen
125
Badger
27
TRAIL
3
LAKE
1
John N & Rebecca B
Allen 203.4
LAKE DRIF TERS
J&C
Simmons
23
21ST AVE SW
State of
MN 79
³
Etoc
Company
Inc
39
C&A E 10
HOMEBROOK
FARMS
H
TR OM
E
L
B
SW
Terry
Stumvoll NETTAS
45
WAY SW
®
31
Project
Site
³
36
Vincent A
Anderson
81
County Administered
Land
316
LN
ROOK
³
te of
MN
16
³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³R E A L E S T A T E G R O U P
MP&LC
149
15
Appendix 3
North Quarter Corner
Section 5-134-29
North line of
Section 5-134-29
N 89^ 39’ 54" E 792.90
249.51
Sandy Point Road
477.31
66.08
123
0
1
12
N14
^53
’09E
12
28
12
Existing Conditions
30
is C
ourt
Recreational Development Classification
30
7
Ten
n
Agate Lake
122
34
12
5
8
GOLF COURSE
12
N 01^ 06’ 36" E 836.95
.64
895
4
N 02^ 28’ 34" E 432.77
3
Swimming Area
Road vacated by Resolu
tion (1992)
N 02^ 28’ 34" E 410.41
30
2
Certificate of Survey
Located in
Office
1234
Section 5, Township 134 North, Range 29 West,
6
N
34
^
45
’5
4"
E
62
0.
20
Cass County, Minnesota.
40
12
4
N10^24’12"W
64
.7
N
38.98
56
^0
8
11
’0
4
5"
E
"W
ISTS Easement
281.54
N
N 00^ 00’ 00" W
34
^
47
’0
GOLF COURSE
C
x
S
A
H
7
7
S
ou
th
A
ga
1240
te
S
ho
re
D
x
0
ri
3
2
ve
1
x
E
02
^
x
N
1.
34
42
N
12
^
38
30
’
’2
07
"
7"
E
12
29
30
5.
48
GOLF COURSE
124
^5
6’
52
27
"E
6.5
2
’2
1240
1246
24
25
^
E
3"
12
18
57
N
N
40
0
8
8
1.
N
64
N 00^ 51’ 22" E
146.06
^1
5
N
’2
3
"W
64
^1
3
87
0.0
4
’4
0
"W
1234
5
.6
71
52
6.8
0
"W
=
32
W
54"
L = 78.06
’2
2
1
73.7
^1
3
97
0.
L
31’
R = 1347.65
64
6^
N1
South
182.05 " W
20’ 29
N 09^
= 3^19’07"
N
13
"
44
5’
^3
=
13
=
R
Denotes iron monument found
Denotes 1/2" iron pipe set and marked by License No. 23668
51
2.7
4
Ag
Orientation of this bearing system is the
.77
ail
Tr
226
N
32"
45’
76^
45’
32"
North American Datum of 1983.
9.9
E 43
20.55
e
or
Sh
6
W
4.8 1"
16 2’ 3
^2
25
North
N
ate
4
^
N 76
SCALE IN FEET
0
E
Client Name:
Survey By:
No.
Date
REVISIONS
MS
Drawn By:
KW
Checked By:
JK
62.5
125
250
375
500
625
Dale and Jodi Spohn
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY, OR REPORT
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
JAMES KRAMER, MN LICENSE NUMBER 23668
1-8-2015
KRAMER
SURVEYING
PROJECT NO.
SPOHD1401
LEAS
DELEO
ENGINEERING
BRAINERD
PLANNING
ST. CLOUD
North Quarter Corner
Section 5-134-29
North line of
Section 5-134-29
N 89^ 39’ 54" E 792.90
P
1
Sandy Point Road
ISTS
T(s)
A
SI Basin
2
3
.64
Swimming Area
N 01^ 06’ 36" E 836.95
895
4
5
22
N14
^53
’09E
12
SI Basin
is C
ourt
8
Ten
n
Agate Lake
Recreational Development Classification
7
Office
Certificate of Survey
Located in
Section 5, Township 134 North, Range 29 West,
6
4"
E
62
0.
20
Cass County, Minnesota.
’5
60x80
T(s
A
)
SI
N
Ba
34
sin
^
45
6
P
ISTS
N
N10^24’12"W
10
64
38.98
^0
8
’0
4
"W
19
re
D
x
ri
ve
13
281.54
N 00^ 00’ 00" W
4
th
A
ga
te
S
ho
11
ou
7
7
SI
H
Ba
7
sin
S
Park
C
x
S
A
11
T(s
)
P
’2
7"
E
ISTS
x
A
02
1.
34
N
x
6
12
^
38
19
3
E
N
N
3"
’2
24
25
^
57
27
88
1.
18
^5
6’
52
"E
6.5
2
19
N
N 00^ 51’ 22" E
146.06
23
"W
64
^1
3’
87
0.0
4
40
"W
5
.6
71
52
6.8
0
0.
10
W
1
"W
L
32
54"
L = 78.06
’2
2
73.7
^1
3
=
=
31’
64
6^
N1
South
182.05 " W
20’ 29
N 09^
= 3^19’07"
R = 1347.65
22
97
4"
’4
35
^
13
13
=
R
N
Typical Campsite
64
^1
5’
N
Denotes iron monument found
10
51
Denotes 1/2" iron pipe set and marked by License No. 23668
30
2.7
4
North
20.55
re
E
9.9
E 43
LANDSCAPE WITH NATIVE PLANTS AND MULCH
OR PLANT WITH GRASS TOLERANT OF INUNDATION
AND DROUGHT. (NATIVE GRASS PREFERRED.
USE ADDITIONAL FESCUE IN SHADED AREAS IF
VEGETATION IS TO BE MOWED TURF.)
SHEET FLOW
AND WATER
SOURCE
MA
X
BOTTOM OF BASIN
1
3:
Orientation of this bearing system is the
North American Datum of 1983.
w
s
SCALE IN FEET
PROTECT EXISTING
OVERFLOW
FROM EROSION
EXISTING
POOLING
ZONE
3:1
w
s
e
e
0
1/2" AVERAGE
ail
Tr
6
W
4.8 1"
16 2’ 3
^2
25
o
Sh
32"
32"
90
N
ate
Ag
.77
226
’
^ 45
N 76
EXISTING TOPSOIL USED FOR ENGINEERED SOIL
(SANDY LOAM OR LOAMY SAND
WITH LESS THAN 5% CLAY CONTENT)
4
’
^ 45
N 76
65
50
Client Name:
Survey By:
No.
EXISTING ENGINEERED SOIL
(WELL BLENDED MIXTURE, BY VOLUME, OF
65% CONSTRUCTION SAND,
30% COMPOST, & 15% TOPSOIL.
IMPORT COMPOST IF NOT AVAILABLE ON-SITE.
Date
REVISIONS
MS
Drawn By:
INFILTRATION BASIN
KW
Checked By:
JK
62.5
125
250
375
500
625
Dale and Jodi Spohn
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY, OR REPORT
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
JAMES KRAMER, MN LICENSE NUMBER 23668
1-8-2015
KRAMER
SURVEYING
PROJECT NO.
SPOHD1401
LEAS
DELEO
ENGINEERING
BRAINERD
PLANNING
ST. CLOUD
Lakeside Detail
Birch Bay RV Resort
20
g
Existin
Patio
IS
TS
Primary ISTS Site
1220
1
T(s)
Proposed Dock
Four Mooring Stations
e Buffer
to remain
1230
2
Vegetativ
Existing ISTS
Agate Lake
Alernate ISTS Site
Recreational Development Classification
Shed
1220
3
50’
ting
Exis
Swimming
IST
Area
S
Shed
4
Two
ain
Units
ffer
1230
to re
m
100
tive
Bu
Day Dock
geta
Shed
5
Ve
Play
Ground
Upgrade
Boat Landing
Proposed Dock
7
ain
Four Mooring Stations
er to
rem
ve B
uff
20
12
To
Ten
Veg
nis
etati
Co
urt
rem
ove
d
Stormwater Infiltration Basin
ISTS Upgrade
be
’09E
.64
^53
895
N14
8
0
Future Pool Area
gra
de
123
Office
SU
p
20
Ve
ge
tat
iv
eB
u
ffe
rt
o
re
m
ain
6
IST
Proposed Dock
Four Mooring Stations
Camp Site
100
60x80
Shower House
Camp Site
20
T(
s)
Camp Site
Alternate ISTS Site
1220
Camp Site
Primary ISTS Site
Camp Site
St
or
mw
iltr
ate
ati
r
on
Ba
sin
Camp Site
Inf
20
SCALE IN FEET
0
Client Name:
Survey By:
No.
Date
REVISIONS
MS
Drawn By:
KW
Checked By:
JK
20
40
80
120
160
200
Birch Bay RV Resort
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY, OR REPORT
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
JAMES KRAMER, MN LICENSE NUMBER 23668
3-16-2015
KRAMER
SURVEYING
PROJECT NO.
SPOHD1401
LEAS
DELEO
ENGINEERING
BRAINERD
PLANNING
ST. CLOUD
Appendix 4
Zoning
Shoreland-Shoreland Residential
Rural Residential 1 (RR-1)
Agricultural/Forestry
Shoreland-WOC
Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5)
Commercial Corridor-1
Shoreland-Commercial
Rural Residential 5 (RR-5)
Commercial Corridor-2
Shoreland-Public Lands
Rural Residential 10 (RR-10)
Commercial
Urban Growth
Rural Residential 20 (RR-20)
Sylvan Commercial
These data are provided on an "AS-IS" basis,
without warranty of any type, expressed or implied,
including but not limited to any warranty as to their
performance, merchantability, or fitness for any
particular purpose.
Zoning Map
/
Date: 12/21/2014
This map is not a substitute for accurate field surveys or for locating actual property lines and any adjacent features.
Appendix 5
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Cass County,
Minnesota
Birch Bay Site
December 21, 2014
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
Soil Map..................................................................................................................5
Soil Map................................................................................................................6
Legend..................................................................................................................7
Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................8
Map Unit Descriptions..........................................................................................8
Cass County, Minnesota.................................................................................10
126B—Graycalm loamy sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes..................................10
730B—Sanburn sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes....................................11
W—Water....................................................................................................12
References............................................................................................................13
4
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
5
395000
395100
395200
395300
395400
5145700
394900
94° 21' 40'' W
94° 22' 10'' W
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
5145500
5145600
5145400
5145500
5145300
5145400
5145200
5145300
5145100
5145200
5145000
5145100
5144900
5145000
5144900
46° 26' 57'' N
395000
395100
395200
Map Scale: 1:4,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
N
Meters
300
Feet
0
150
300
600
900
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0
50
100
200
6
395300
395400
94° 21' 40'' W
394900
94° 22' 10'' W
46° 26' 57'' N
46° 27' 24'' N
5145600
5145700
46° 27' 24'' N
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Mine or Quarry
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Soil Survey Area: Cass County, Minnesota
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 16, 2014
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Date(s) aerial images were photographed:
Sinkhole
Data not available.
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
7
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Cass County, Minnesota (MN021)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
126B
Graycalm loamy sand, 1 to 8
percent slopes
50.8
92.1%
730B
Sanburn sandy loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes
3.4
6.2%
W
Water
0.9
1.7%
55.2
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. AlphaBeta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Cass County, Minnesota
126B—Graycalm loamy sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: fbtz
Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 32 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 46 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 140 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Graycalm and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Graycalm
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on moraines, hillslopes on outwash plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit, backslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy outwash deposits
Typical profile
A,Bw - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand
E - 8 to 16 inches: sand
E&Bt - 16 to 52 inches: sand
C - 52 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Other vegetative classification: Sandy (G090XN022MN)
Minor Components
Friendship
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Meehan
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Demontreville
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
730B—Sanburn sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: fbwy
Elevation: 700 to 1,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 24 to 33 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Sanburn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Sanburn
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on outwash plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy mantled outwash deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
E - 5 to 16 inches: sandy loam
2Bt - 16 to 21 inches: gravelly sandy loam
2C - 21 to 60 inches: gravelly coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Other vegetative classification: Sandy (G090XN022MN)
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Flak
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Mahtomedi
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Menahga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Cromwell
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
12
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
14
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Brinks Wetlands Services LLC
Mitch Brinks
Certified Wetland Delineator #1007
11914 Joneswood Cir
Baxter, MN 56425
218-820-9502
March 28, 2015
Dale Spohn
5116 145th St NW
Royalton, MN 56373
Re: Wetland Determination for Proposed Birch Bay RV Resort
Dale,
On December 21, 2014 & March 27, 2015, I visited the 40+ acre proposed Birch Bay RV
Resort property (former Birch Bay Resort & Golf Course) in the NW ¼ of Section 5,
Township 134 N., Range 29 W. of Cass County, MN. A wetland determination was
conducted by examining the vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators of the site. All three
of these criteria must be met in order for wetlands to exist.
There are no areas on the site that satisfy the criteria to be a wetland pursuant to the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual with subsequent clarification
memoranda and supplements and pursuant to confirmation by the Army Corps of Engineers
and / or the Cass County Environmental Services Department.
The wetland determination was conducted at a level of care and skill generally accepted by
professionals performing this type of work under the usual constraints of time and
resources. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Mitch Brinks
Minnesota Certified Delineator #1007
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES (ARS)
1812 15th Avenue South
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404-2119
Office: 612-870-9775
Cell: 612-770-1721
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: March 10, 2015
To:
"
"
"
"
Paul Fairbanks Department of Environmental Services
Cass County Court House
PO Box 3000
Walker, MN 56484
From:
"
Christina Harrison, P.I.
Archaeological Research Services
Dear Mr. Fairbanks,
In connection with the preparation of an EAW for the proposed RV
campground development at Birch Bay Resort, Nisswa, I have been
asked by Mitch Brinks and Ben Meister to provide you with some
comments about the archaeological potential of the project area.
My comments are based on a careful review of the project plans
as well as of maps and aerial photographs of the current site
conditions and historic aerial views that illustrate past land
use. I have also consulted the inventory and report files at the
Minnesota Historical Society and the Office of the State
Archaeologist, as well as the report and field notes compiled by
ARS in 2011 for a cultural resource survey conducted at the
Quarterdeck Resort due south/southeast of the current project
area1. In addition, I have looked at the preliminary results of
Phase I and II archaeological surveys recently conducted along
CSAH 77 through Nisswa and Lakeshore.
1
C. Harrison, 2011: Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey
Conducted within the Quarterdeck Resort Property, Section 5, T134N, R29W,
Cass County, Minnesota.
Christina Harrison to Paul Fairbanks, 3/10/15 Page 2
No archaeological sites have been recorded either within or in
close proximity to the project area or along the shores of Agate
Lake. Although the survey that was conducted along CSAH 77
identified several pre-contact period habitation sites, they are
all located further north/northeast along the road and also
closer to the west shore of Gull Lake. The quite comprehensive
survey of the Quarterdeck Resort, which in terms of topography
and past land use compares closely to the Birch Lake Resort
property, proved almost completely negative except for a piece
of possibly Native American chipping debris from a very
disturbed soil context adjacent to the lakeshore.
In view of the above, the archaeological potential of the
current project area seems very low and if one also considers
the extensive amount of grading and landscaping that went into
the creation of the golf course and the construction of cabins
and roads closer to Agate Lake, it is most unlikely that any
amount of archaeological evidence, did it ever exist, could have
been preserved in a condition good enough and a context
undisturbed enough for it to provide us with useful information
about local history/prehistory.
Consequently, I feel confident that the proposed changes at the
resort would not adversely impact any archaeological resources
of any significance.
Appendix 11
Appendix 12
Appendix 12 – Photos of Project Site CR 77 Entrance to Birch Drive West ‐ Facing NE Proposed Entrance Off of Sandy Point Rd SW – Facing West Proposed Entrance Off of Sandy Point Rd SW – Facing SW Intersection of CR 77 & Sandy Point Rd SW – Facing SW Golf Shop & Inn ‐ Facing North Inn – East Entrance Inn: Lower Level Laundry/Game Room & Upper Level Rooms to Rent – Facing SE Tennis Court Between Inn & Lake (Facing NW) A‐Frame (Cabin F), South of Tennis Court ‐ Facing West Facing North from A‐Frame Shoreline in Front of A‐Frame – Facing NE Shoreline Access in Front of A‐Frame – Facing NE Shoreline in Front of Tennis Court ‐ Facing NE Boat Landing (Inn & Cabin E in Background) – Facing East Beach Area – Facing NE Beach Area – Facing NW Cabin AA (incl. well in front) – Facing NE from Lakeside Cabin AA – Facing NW from Parking Area Cabin Lake – Facing NE from Lakeside Cabin B – Facing NE from Lakeside Cabin C / D – Facing SE from Lakeside Cabin E – Facing SE from Lakeside Cabin H – Facing West Night Office / Private Residence – Facing East from Lake Storage Buildings – Facing West Storage Building – Facing NW Fuel Tanks and Misc. Storage Area Next to Storage Buildings – Facing West Storage Building – Facing NW Neighboring Residence – Facing NE Along North Property Line Golf Course – Facing West from East Boundary Utility Building in Center of Site – Facing NE Existing Wooded Area South of Golf Course Neighboring Property – Facing NW from SW Corner of Golf Course Southeastern Corner of Golf Course ‐ Facing North from County RD 77