Laserfiche WebLink
Minnehaha Creek A Watershed Distiict <br />Improving Qtuzlity ofWater, Quality of Life <br />MEMORANDUM <br />Date: November 8,2000 <br />To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono <br />From: Jim Ha&er, Senior Technician <br />RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site <br />ician <br />A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug <br />Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafoer (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) <br />visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16,2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of <br />Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). <br />The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The <br />wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the <br />wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono <br />to confirm fiiose areas. <br />It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The <br />exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fiify years ago. After a field <br />investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical <br />changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary <br />photos. <br />Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered <br />site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands <br />getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits <br />dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was <br />observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and <br />were a basis for the TEP decision. <br />Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area <br />behind the existing house ^^ere a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main <br />wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the <br />general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small <br />1 asin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The <br />LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out <br />A <br />^ T k'arr'iT — 'T t ti r r alt I ' UV kI .*1