Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Botanical Garden, 1991 ). Indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz, J.T. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace .army.mil). U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill , NC.) III.RESULTS Review of Soils, NWI, and DNR Information The National Wetland Inventory Map (NW/) (Mound Quadrangle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1989) showed one PUBG:x/PEMA wetland within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/) showed the following soil types within or near site boundaries (Figure 4). Partially hydric means that at least one component of the map unit is rated as hydric . SMU Map Unit Name Hvdric? L22E Lester loam, morainic, 18 to 25 percent slopes Partially hvdric L23A Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Partially hydric L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes Partially hydric L40B Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Partially hydric L41C2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to I 2 pe rcent slopes, eroded Partially hydric L41E Lester-Kilkenny complex, 18 to 25 percent slopes Partially hydric The DNR Protected Waters Map, Hennepin County (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/) did not show any DNR Protected Waters, Waterways, or Wetlands within or near site boundaries (Figure 5). Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on October 1, 2012. One wetland was identified and delineated on the subject s ite (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix A. The following description of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that time, herbaceous vegetation was actively growing and temperatures were typical of the season. Wetland hydrology was assumed to be drier than typica l for that date based on below normal precipitatio n amounts in for the preceding 30 days (Appendix B). The survey of the wetland boundary is presented in Appendix C. Wetland 1 was a Type 4 (PUBG:x/PEMA) excavated, open water and fresh (wet) meadow wetland complex. The PUBGx portion of the wetland was un-vegetated and dry. The center of the basin was an upland knoll dominated by a canopy of boxelder. For the purposes of this delineation it was included within the wetland boundary. Fresh (wet) meadow was dominated by reed canary grass with lesse r amounts of giant goldenrod and Canada thistle. Other non- 3