Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act

Home Browse Search

V � Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings Report Date(s)of Site Januray 9th,2018 LGU: MCWD Visit/Meeting: County: Hennepin LGU Contact: Heidi Quinn - Project Name: MCWD 17-611 Phone#: 952-641-4504 Location of Project: 1140 Wyndmere Drive,Orono Email haulnn@minnehahacreek.org (attach map if possible) Address: TEP ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES: LGU:Heidi Quinn,MCWD City of Orono:Melanie Curtis Property Owner:David Gagne SWCD: City of Orono:Laura Oakden BWSR:Ben Carlson MCWD:Cole Thompson DNR: Sall Investigations:Paul Brandt PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF MEETING: On January 9«',2018 TEP members from MCWD,BWSR,and the City of Orono met onsite with soil specialist Paul Brandt and land owner David Gagne to discuss the findings of the 2007 delinewation report prepared by Svoboda Ecological Resources(Prosect Number:2007-029-03 dated June 215".2007). The delination report was not submitted for WCA Boundary&Type Confirmation and MCWD as the LGU does not have record of a NOD.Two areas were investigated in the delination report. Wetland One was identifiesd as a Type 2/3 Shallow Marsh adlacent to a small creek. Sample point SP-A was investigated and determined to not meet wetland criteria,however,since 2007 the field data forms have been updated to include additional secondary hydrology Indicators. The TEP met onsite to determine if the area around sample point SP-A would meet wetland criteria. TYPE OF MEETING:checkomoppllcobte ❑ Office ® On-Site ❑ Phone Conference ❑ E-Mail ❑ Other: TEP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS': Two soil samples were taken at the meeting to determine if hydric soils around SP-A were present Boring 1 was taken approximatly 60 feet south of the property line and near the 986'elevation countour. Boring 2 was taken approximately 100 feet to the west of Boring 1(see attached survey mark-up for approximate locations). Boring 1 showed hydric soils and the potential for saturation at five to six feet. Boring 2 did not meet hydric soil criteria and saturation was not observed. The TEP concurred that although vegetation was not observable during the visit,that there were no primary hydrology indicators or two secondary hydrology indicators present,therefore SP-A area did not meet wetland criteria. SIGNATURES h 011818 ^'C""" 1/18/2018 -----•--.•--- --•• - City of Orono Date BWSR Representative Date Do not concur ❑ Do not concur ❑ 1 TEP Findings should be a meaningful concise summary detailing the project conditions,technical data,and what rules apply. The TEP recommendation should be clear,based on rule and best professional judgement. Rev.12/17/2013