Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 - 00610 - pool in ground CITY OF ORONO II 11 j!1III II HIJI I II II 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY DATE ISSUED: 04/07/2014 ORONO, MN 55356- (952) 249-4600 FAX: (952) 249-4616 ADDRESS : 945 WILLOW VIEW DR PIN : 28-118-23-44-0009 LEGAL DESC : WILLOW VIEW : LOT 008 BLOCK 001 PERMIT TYPE : ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PROPERTY TYPE : RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : POOL-IN GROUND ACTIVITY : 329-STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDINGS VALUATION : $ 18,000.00 NOTE: THE SURVEY DATED 1/30/2014 SHOWS ALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CITY'S EASEMENT. THE CITY ENGINEER WILL VERIFY THE AS-BUILT SURVEY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT COMPLETION AND WILL VERIFY THERE ARE NO CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED WITH THE CITY'S EASEMENT. PLEASE BE AWARE IF ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLAN ARE MADE OR IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED WIT T ITY'S EASEMENT,WE WILL REQUIRE AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ESCROW ITIAL APPLICANT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE 309.75 CUSTOM POOLS PLAN REVIEW 201.34 8960 EXCELSIOR BLVD STATE SURCHARGE(VALUATION) 9.00 HOPKINS, MN 55343 TOTAL 520.09 (612)933-2255 Payment(s) Minnesota State License#: 5023 CHECK 25009 520.09 OWNER HUBBARD, TIMOTHY&AMY 945 WILLOW VIEW DR LONG LAKE, MN 55356- AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications,applicable City approvals,and the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be compied with whether or not specified herein.This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance,or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code.This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. . L.\117 (—/ 7 7 .. ' .nt Permitee '�tiTi1T• Date Issu By Signature Date • • 3 -Lf--°1541v - City of Orono 520 -oq q Building Permit Application for a Swimming Pool ��l V Mailing Address: Permit number: 09013 - OC, (0 16 O PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Date received: 7-3 -13 86 Street Address: Received by: S y� 2750 Kelley Parkway Plan review fee: (go ra-to bo et Orono, MN 55356 01 C _ 1KFSH° Total Fee: 4120l.34P Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 wnry ci orono mn us This application form must be completed in full and all required information must be submitted. Incomplete applications will be returned. (Please print) GENERAL INFORMATIO • ��/ c Job Site Address: -5 /,Ti'�CGG'C�`" /e4C-3 /d, Name: (i I AP i./ �9N7 F RAA*zw ej1+1`/��� State License# w r e Expir n Date:C/ 3 — ,3r-„. /' &/ Phone: S Fax: � ;3 Z ,-„1.,../. Address: ___ A,,, ;4-'g Cit : . � - I P j I eC Contact Person: . jfl ! Contact's phone n •-•AlcIEEVAIMAFAM Email: ---;/ ,� 4 .a I _,, ,_.,r A.•licant is: ontract• Homeowner (Circle one) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMAT N: Name: 1 _' /244 �i.�'�/ Phone (day): �j �/ Mailing Address: 9- r L �G (e/ �, ,/� '/� > ZIP:53:9 Email and/or Fax: ENGINEER INFORMATION: Name: Phone: Address: City: ZIP: Email: Fax: PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Pool Dimensions: ��f 4.Accessory to: 5. Pool Type: 7. Retaining Walls? X `, -/ feet El Above ground Oyes ❑ no Heighf� ' ` ” Single Family 2. Heated? ❑ Multiple Family/Condo ,gIn-ground *A building permit is required /14 yes ❑ no ❑ Public for any wall over 4 feet in ❑ Other(specify) height measured from the 3. Excavated materials will be: ❑ Commercial bottom of the footing to the top CI Industrial of the wall, even if it replaces SA removed from site 6. Sewage Disposal & an existing wall. Xused on site ❑ Other: (specify) Water Supply Tiered walls are considered 1:1Other: (specify) ❑ Public Sewer one wall unless they are separated by twice the height ,50 Private Sewer of the higher wall. Total Cubic Yards CI ❑ Public Water 017 yp '– Estimated Construction Value $ Packet Last Updated: 03/29/13 Page 19 of 21 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the information must be submitted in order for your application to be processed: Not Enclosed Applicable ❑ Permit Application $ ❑ Plan Review Fee �- ❑ Pool Plans ❑ Survey (includes grading plan) J2- ❑ Hardcover Calculation Worksheets ❑ ❑ Erosion Control Plan or copy of MCWD Permit ❑ ❑ Septic System Certification ❑ ❑ Wetland Buffer Improvement Plan ❑ ❑ Escrow& Escrow Agreement ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: • Agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning&Building Departments; • Understands, if applicable, an as-built survey and as-built hardcover cover calculations, are required to be submitted after the project is complete (including final grading and landscaping) prior to refunding the escrow; • Certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete; • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information,the permit may not be issued. Applicant's Signature: Date: / Owner's Signature Date: Packet Last Updated: 03/04/13 Page 20 of 21 Otpt O PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR NEW STRUCTURES / ADDITIONS Address/Permit Number: `",1.1� I� �Lc__) ( ° � `�j I "� Cr,/ Description of work: Septic review by: A1_ Date Approved: 8 -I - Zoning review by: WCU t .�'�)APin*.�, i Date Approved: 2/1 ' If Building review by: �W�ILt I , Date Approved: • - k Grading review by: OW Date Approved: Amit. Zoning District: Zoning File#: Reso#: Reso Date: Zoning: Lot Area: SF/AC Width: Lot Coverage: at , % Survey Submitted: Yes D No Date of Survey: ,— '1 Revised date(?): I Proposed Setbacks: Front(Lake) Rear(Street) ( N C E W ) (C) S E W ) Othejr_Bui�gs Wetland Side Side ++tiff Defined Height: Peak Height: FFE: FFE minus 6 feet= (Existing Contour) Perimeter(linear feet) = 50% = #of Stories Ok? D YES FOR A BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE: The distance between the lowest FOR A BUILDING ON A SLAB FOUNDATION: START WITH proposed floor(of the basement or crawl space)and the highest point of the roof. START WITH The distance between the top of slab and If you have a... the highest point of the roof. If you have a... • GABLE OR HIPPED ROOF(no • GABLE OR HIPPED ROOF(no windows): Subtract half the windows): Subtract half the distance distance between the highest point between the highest point of the roof of the roof to the low point of the to the low point of the corresponding SUBTRACTION corresponding gable or h�pe roof SUBTRACTION gable or hipped roof ---- (BASED oof.-r(BASED ON ROOF • GABLE OR HIPPED ROOF(with (BASED ON • GABLE OR HIPPED ROOF(with TYPE) windows): Subtract half the ROOF TYPE) windows)Subtract half the distance distaneUeen the top of the between the top of the highest highest window and the highest window and the highest point of the /.point of the roof roof '': ALL OTHER ROOF TYPES(flat, • ALL OTHER ROOF TYPES(flat, % mansard,etc):No subtraction. / lmansard,etc):No subtraction. ADDITION/ Add the distance between the top of slab SUBT ION Subtract the distance between the (BASED- N and the highest existing grade adjacent to (B DON EXISTING basement/crawl space floor and the EXISTING the foundation. DES) highest existing grade adjacent to the GRADES) foundation OR 10 feet(whichever is less). it EQUALS Defined building height EQUALS Defined building height Shoreland District M WD Permit Received Average Lakeshore Setback Met? Bluff Yes DNo D N/A D Yes 0N D YesNo D Yes DNo /A 2:1 Permit Number: i3--2, C1 Setback: Stormwater Quality Existing Proposed Variance Required CUP Required Overlay District Tier Hardcover Hardcover • W 1)C D Yes / D Yes lo Type(s): Type(s): Updated: January 2013 v:\forms\plan review checklist 2013.docx REMARKS (in-house): Fees to be Charged YES NO Permit 2. • e:! ' Plan Review f/ State Surcharge Investigation Fee SAC—Number of,SAC Units 2 Other(specify) Square Footage $per Square Footage Basement X = $ 1st Floor X = $ 2nd Floor X = $ Garage X = $ Estimated Construction Value: $ 100a)" Orono Inspections Required Work Requiring Separate Permits Required State Permits O Site 0 Plumbing 0 Grading/ Filling 0 Well Fardcover Removal )1 Mechanical 0 Fire Electrical ooting 0 Septic 0 Water Connection O Poured Wall 0 Fireplace 0 Sewer Connection O Foundation Survey 0 Masonry 0 Lawn Irrigation O Radon Rock Bed 0 Mfg. O Framing 0 Other(specify) O Insulation .As-Built Survey yi Final O Wetland Buffer O Other(specify) REMARKS (in-house): Other Review: Reviewed by: Date Approved: Access: Existing: 0 YES 0 NO New: 0 YES 0 NO OFFICIAL REMARKS -TO BE NOTED ON PERMIT AND INITIALLED The survey dated 1/30/2014 shows all improvements are located outside the City's easement. The City Engineer will verify the as-built survey submitted at the time of project completion and will verify there are no changes or improvements installed with the City's easement. Please be aware if any changes to the approved plan are made or improvements installed within the City's easement, we will require an encroachment agreement prior to the release of escrow. Updated: __..__., v:\forms\plan review checklist 2013.docx (111)4..2,94( Q) � N c 03 co �� c o U caC Z- o o W m O cov)L �� ul -,�N C j 2 q.) o C Q: • C C '4Oi Es r)'4) off Nr: N ��oo C U �� {J 0 i)... E �J 4.(i. ��� p� v,v) cnv)v) j ���"oih worntC1 3 o '7�, rn W t,�,r �j e •C . CO "' N. O V C\1 -< cJp Q. Ove? C a �? lo 0 " + 0 O N 0 Z y03� = cn2pQ� 0 4 D U >. 4j Q o Z >, Q 4r (5 2 a 4 W Q O Q W Q. • Q V)41 2Q , • 0 4 --J l 3= Z a W 3 Z \� E 15 Et�z -�� k � ctU2 � ��o 3 L 2 k.o4.10QWo a oCtoWOQWoo 1 (�' o 0 oaoUakk zoaova ��� a OQ) 0 N I c� N I 14.J '6 NLr) CN O --)c o UO t co co tn 4 N co co o ~- o co 0 � 8 �g � ro - a -4 0 mill U - ow to -I- V /1, , V ( _ c Q C) OD I CI) i2.--S chts_. i N. i _ o c: D C „, / 0 w c0 / oj '� j O / ...... ., • 3 / Q.) L / V �,(� ,:s o ` / mom, ...: ,. ., / „ �i U t) / /i (6' cci ..• i I (I) � v dbo)s �uoo 0 lco ^--� r--- 0 O ytA 0 U / �' e CZ / " / lil ...0 Christine Mattson From: Jesse Struve Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:16 AM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Christine Mattson Subject: 20140131 945 Willowview Dr-2013-00610 Melanie, The new survey dated 1/30/14 shows all landscaping to be done outside of the City's easement. I am fine with what they are proposing, but I would put a condition on the permit stating all the landscaping needs to occur outside of this easement unless they want to enter into an encroachment agreement and have them sign off on it. This will at least make the homeowners aware of the condition in case the landscaper installs the landscaping within the easement area because it will be something I will check with their as-built submittal. Jesse Struve, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Orono (952) 249-4661- Direct (952) 249-4616- Fax www.ci.orono.mn.us From: Jesse Struve Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:13 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Christine Mattson Subject: RE: 20130723 945 Willowview Dr- 2013-00610 Melanie, I have reviewed the revisions to the survey for the proposed pool and landscaping. While I will sign the permit and can approve the grading within the City easement,the applicant needs to be aware that any plantings, mulch, rock,or any other sort of landscape material besides grass is not allowed within the City's easement without an encroachment agreement. If they want to pursue to place any landscape material besides grass,they will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City prior to any work being performed. The applicant also needs a permit from MCWD prior to issuing our grading permit. Jesse Struve, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Orono (952)249-4661- Direct (952) 249-4616- Fax www.ci.orono.mn.us From: Jesse Struve Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:52 PM To: Melanie Curtis 1 Cc; Christine Mattson Subject: 20130710 945 Willowview Dr - 2013-00610 Melanie, I have reviewed the proposed pool at 945 Willowview Dr and have the following comments: 1. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will be required for the proposed work. 2. Grading is being proposed within the 10' Drainage and Utility Easement. I am ok with the proposed grading, but if the applicant wants to install any plantings or trees within this easement,they should enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 3. There are a few solid lines which appear to represent something, but I am unsure what it is. For instance,just north of the proposed deck and steps,there is a dark solid line, but it does not call out what it is for. A similar line extends from the SW corner of the pool, wraps around to the North and ties into the corner of the drainage and utility easement point. Another line close to the SE corner of the pool heads south, wraps back to the west, curls to the south, heads back east and ties into an existing retaining wall. 4. There appears to be proposed retaining walls which the top and bottom of walls are not called out. Jesse Struve, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Orono (952) 249-4661- Direct (952) 249-4616- Fax www.ci.orono.mn.us 2 G` `��-2 � � qiib V '25 ' S\a'•-it 1h St C Ts A vAs SA-\.:71 Vie4 or Sd(a ~--'r • — . I . , r A1C,,,:ISAM 1 / s DREcnR1 or 4 amt 1wnL ' ' / I I f • '� ' I ,\. , \--/ / , 1 ,` wuorr IOM . "AnOAL SOL 1 ^ / I I I M r / N \ 1 \J \ II 1�([� ♦ o 100 200 300 ` /^ ' j' 1 11 / \ 1 •-,/ I ^1,X11 1\; /'• ''� 1 B I 1 9 1 g/R ... _ ,o0 1 u.. 1 rll J 2 �> �� �� qI 1 I \` - .• 1\L. " - Fed n Scale 1" = 100' "C' all \I TTL:' - • A \I` `•>� ..a.\\q $• l ii \ _ I '�E ♦♦ 1 ,—__ 1 ♦ ♦-- y1 4 S II T FENCE DETAIL I S�••.•> i-- - �: �� �P y ..._..,......."--777-------.V,I 1�,.'-. r—.r COMM ALL IOM \f s♦` •... / IN pLLISC7.:7);0:2-''''L,' �� aM1I!L o /40,Z0,;[1".r.Pi 'II j .' fi ♦,' "LLia . 7 / / \r, �' \ I .z�im,1 AMMO 0 \' " ll.. .� v y 1111 -r ft_ifi 44 "awe— "S;41111111r �� 40 �►: ♦ / ` Y //_ .e j ♦ it %I �,y* E:�'�..7.s.a"s'L'�•d"$.0 ffi CONSli6)Cf10N FM1RAwts II) �-/ a ,! \�e. - \ `I 11 ::::,1' ,k 2_, FULL WALKOUT(M/C0 ` ! `� _21 12 IMOINIIIIIMMI '11 ws1.$au. / I II J L��sa / / "cA \ I 154 f.,..-g — r-2331 Iliplitil,11.. /' / -1,-k-..7.,-,.1...-. loll i` �1 —r.....A CC. Typo Ir mL \� .' /��/ \�♦ �. !I✓ �� y\\ 1, FULL BASEMENT "� "�'I / f/I \\ r \ '"I WILOOROUT WINDOWS CLO) ,, 1 .:w .\' �� /k I • iRA1L DFTAII Lit/iift _1 / 1 ; I i IY • TYPICAL HOUSE PAD DETAILS \ \� ..� { ��{{ •J c41 `11 - �..�' N � 1NL PADS SE P eE ET IL\ A 1 L IMAM 00.4.110 Of RAL A MOMM.MOM MONA i 7 \, ` 1i. i fAOE a flwl\ / ��\ r '�'� `\\�1`^�w, i \\ 1 •\ \ / l • m�1/t,�,.F,b. MAMA=MO A AMMO iMiM 1 / 3.um MAL MILT AM Or MAMA AMA.MOMS v v N ,IO YK KRwot roan"006�IW,1(W.e'0 ':/ I441.1.....s • ' \ `\�, 1\ y// r� I� E: ton MO MOAT SiMAMIMO AMo AT ramOSI MM1 Ram �� i • yam AA. �M�A1� I i 111 � �rimmwe m Own..IMO,.cn.ar 4wman r..nm \ \ \ "V- { rar 14.p4TAma M020101101011 M uroAt C1CRI aM MOIAmon rair. ";+ , I �1 \ \\� „p �fl`� �1 .� R 4nAi.IMMOMe USI OOAi MO mom M.OMCClr�a \, 3 l ` Ifil )_ v , i. ,°Rw10 1OOOiea»uccwx eAwe O m.urm (Ir A M 0.111000 MAL ASL.COMM iOV�ISS AO SOMOISO \I ` \ f ��I i. .� Ldi I I1L iL1g1 MO 01GRa RM NO MnmITRKR06tn4 II` j A IiAM.1G41r1NL 1R AMM14IIe1[�IRAG0414y. \ a \ \ 'M . BMMON010 �0 10 MSM ODS¢� Ott\ ' 1. �'a , iiiir„..., ._(1~4._` \ ♦ g \�v f •"''1 I Fr1- 1 pI "mam00'"1¢.:Mac.a.+Mr O.MM nw asM M, \ r'..-- � \ J •, �/'. ,��Ell /f � T.wn sw.�000 nM uer MN.re AMMO.Or au+m. AO M1100100311,0 MAKI .1........--1--'1'' • r uu.00 a OnOM um41Os alum wO OOn w w 10 IS ALLTIMPOSIOU AA MT OD M 00•1000 10031 MAT M OCCORMIS VI AS MAN 10 Dann LOOTS MO AMOK AA • 1 IL LAMS LOAM. - IWO" " / Wrc--�.._�' .:.t!•1�.„.cL-I4,11•._.c �... .4..� N Y MOOT W t MIMEO 41COv�w�MIWI W.'IMtCIIOM ..... _ ` �( +1-• — M SOTAL fT-A'MAO Cf I11MM OM •11II t ROMM`MOM —3.— II' 11' —3'— EWltrq 0rC1M! �'n Lr-1R RR qq B1K • NYQ IL E ]M 11 1. =Mane O1R1YR 3R 1. ii it ., —F, ,.----- I 4. I -1 1/2•BMM 11lN0US MECOURSE(WDOT2331 i 11) —2.BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE(MNDOT 2331 TWE 31) 10•CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE(1001(PUSHED)(MNDOT 2211) SJBCRADE STABIL12A1101 FABRIC(SUPRA ENP OR EQUAL) PREPARED SUB(1AOE SHALL BE 34'TME TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION GRAD E Ma WILLOW VIEW UNG,DRAINAGE,R •' �� w AIRF de CPS ROn st EROSION CONTROL PLAN 99286 ���. �••..•.4.•4•,..... um x Ude a Mc MX Cr lItO01A T•^+•�" �1 WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS.L.L.C. am® �.,.., ..400 ML BI= Mme P.e..E1O �� ORONO,MN SI-IF-FT N(1 in OF 1 CNFFTC 03/0//00 III MI is is - i i i EL EL s mia Ea ow ma. m ma m - =m: 1' A_FRAME DETAIL DIMENSIONS B A 201-0" fir eance� PANLL �� m_t_ } B 42.r—0" \ A III O M C 31.-6" ........I I— I� BI) NI I D 3'—4„ Mom. ORALE I �— E 3'—4" MANDATORY tort AND /COAT12 UICHE] /EOM F 4'-8" sums CHANCE. COPING DETAIL G 4'-0„ MICK SUPPORT DETAIL. 1 1 1 • E __ D _ C .NOTE; DIMENSION C H S. ✓—p" •NOtT UAQ L 11.1111.11°N T Is THE HEICRT OP �o.�o F ` THL POOL PANEL. J 141-0'. I! r \�� DIMENSIONS D.E AND �� I H lam K L ARE TRE POOLSKOUT. FINISHED DIMENSIONS. K 14:,'-0" 1.4110E..�E --G --.- L 8' —p„ M 12'-0" 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' _ _0' [VOTES: N 4'-0.' 4RSCP 4RSCP 4RSCP 4RSCP 4' , 4' 4' ,— q• 1. THIS IS A TYPE II POOL 1N ACCORDANCE TO Ni 4' —0 4' N.S.P.I. STANDARD OF JAN 1989 AND B.O.C.A. 4• 8' 8' , g' CODE - 1994 - SECTION 421. 0 34-7:--80'1' 7'-8 13/16 I_ I_ 2. ALL A-FRAME BRACES WILL BE MOUNDED 1RTF1 4RSCP 4RSCP 4RSCP .- "-" - 4RSCP A MINIMUM OF 1 CUBIC FOOT OF CONCRETE. RI 4'-0" 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' • 3. MAXIMUM DIVING -BOARD LENGTH IS B FT. LITE PANEL LAYOUT PANEL LAYOUT 4. NO DIVING LABELS MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND —,- SHALLOW END OF POOL. - —- 8' g' e' 8'4RSCP L2• 8' 4RSCP -- - . 4RSCP 4'R 1, N, 4'R 4'1 SPECIFICATIONS INTERPOOL 10' II 8' 12' Iz' 1 8' AREA: 788 SQ. FT. 20' X re 4.;.. RADIUS RECTANC 3 PI 1 PERIMETER: 1 13'-1 1/2" 4RSCP aRSCP 4'R 4'R VOLUME: 30,000 O1e' ""` NONE "" ... B' 8' 8' 8' 12' 12' B' CM- ^ we w.w O' STEEL STEP LAYOUT COPING LAYOUT �� "0^ •'L"'O c:I2040R4 — — ---- -------- --- -- - . . . - - +l )1''...".•,' e -E''3 e • x � 2y. � -s � ? ,r t i €:>� i`T ,d z {, `j i v . *, `�,r a z' v _ t r-Y t r +S.r z e a� ''''` , t� el a y d e' e 'ir,,.' Vi i' � :, �sy q 1 :.-;.,-,..,-,,,,..-,,,,;-.T.''';;,„-,',.'-. f ,5 n r S� k r a n, 3 Rr -- �. ,2"1r >K yN _ ,, "t *4.'44'1". r;li` �� ' A: .> 3"`' 4,a'ry. e,.. , zY4.1 r"::ex�i�ss' :,-",-^"',< .., ;:-�, s.{ :' f5$w _e'*.i'.w. • -. ®• An up-close look — ?""1: ,_ Top-mounted pressure gauge is conveniently positioned for easy reading -. • Tough stuff '- Dura-Glas an exclusive high-density composite resin, $ will never corrode and weathers the elements • Safe,easy access ; v i Posi-Lok clamps provide safe,easy access to the filter ., '. module.50/50 split-tank design provide extra room for . "k „. cleaning and service. Fast in.fast out! '-; ,. • Smooth operator I 2" plumbing ports improve hydraulic flow for greater efficiency .! „ M Stylish good looks r y Sleek,contemporary styling blends beautifully with any poolscapes t ,er `f Less maintenance, Falter ' orPool6 nc-5 � for Pools Optimal Sand _^ ore relaxation � � up to(Gal.) Filter Area Performance Required2 I tiJ on Model 8 Hr.Turnover (Sq.Ft.) at this GPM (lbs.) Sand is the most widely used filtration method for swimming pools. S7S50 23,000 2.4 36 200 Convenience,low maintenance and water quality are the reasons for S8S70 33,000 3.4 51 300 sand's popularity The System3®sand filter is a time-tested favorite with Operating at this GPM will provide the longest fitter cycles combined with the pool owners for its simple maintenance,easy-to-operate control valve best and greatest dirt-loading capacity. selector and outstanding water clarity The biggest reason for installing the 2 Use only#20 white quartz silica sand,size range 40-.55 mm;12"to 15"sand bed depth required. System:3-the additional leisure time you'll spend enjoying your pool. Operating Limits-Maximum continual operating pressure is 50 PSI,For pool/spa(bather)applications,the maximum operating water temperature i Low, low maintenance within the filters 104°F(40°C). lil 16-spoke filter hub evenly distributes water through One-year limited warranty.See warranty for details. entire sand layer, which greatly increases the amount .. s of dirt the System 3 can hold. Increased dirt loading extends the time between cleanings. Available from: One-step cleaning -NikFor quick and easy cleaning,simply move the valve - selector to the backwash position—that's it! In 'ati seconds,your System i3 is at work,keeping your water CUSTOM POOLS & SPAS crystal clear 8960 EXCELSIOR BLVD. HOPKINS, MN 55343 952-933-2255"800-893-7771 t. . t STA-RITE ! P Flt ' 3t h.k Yom` rk-t 0' -� '{r {' :ii 4K R,,,-- r i .�" .r+ ' 0 4.::? WWW.Sr1i I.i l o I n it r0. ,.. t p,: .,'� v .1' r ?R d• ` -17,r'a'w ' �,�' ,f ; .� ', y f n,. �� ,. Phone:ctt)i)..}�,,t I ! �,� pumps/.�iltel-s/h.,',.�'l a/ I i .�e�.pumps/au'°.lesion /lighting/cleai t'-..:,/ a::;to,P.. : ,:>/ i-..:. -'-'.. ......., ; 5/10 Part#PI-715 ©2010 PentairWater Pool and Spa.Inc At rights reserved Si • , _. ...... ... .. . _ i. The leader never _ ,, h ., •, . ,, •) ..:... stands still . .. The jnteljiPi U pump b4 ought a ;.:, .- e speed '' i market:,years ahead of every ���e" man( ,.�: � r.. Were. .. ° i first then--and we've continued to vvide i ourI evers, , t� Our latest pump retains thE'se IntelliPro pump inn ' =ions; i'',;-.,-,:. • Hyper-efficient permanent magnet motor—the same technology found in hybrid automobiles. •. • Motor speed adjusts to match your pool's requirements in real time. " . %1 . •TEFC (Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled) motor runs cooler,quieter and lasts longer. • • Built-in diagnostics safeguard the pump for greater durability. ® And IntelliPro pumps still lead the market today in all these ways: LaI . • ® 1 • More total energy savings than any other pool pump family,ever. vD m i ' 1V • Over 5 years of proven in-field reliability. • I w, 0 op • Exclusive software and digital controls make programming a breeze. • Easy installation for inground pools and pool/spa combos of all sizes and types, ,a - �\ aftermarket or new. � •The IntelliPro pump is fully compatible with IntelliTouch®,EasyTouch®and SunTouch®Control Systems,providing a range of options from indoor control panels to wireless remotes to manage pool heating,lighting,spa lets,water features and more.Add an optional ScreenLogic2® Interface and IntelliTouch and EasyTouch system owners can enjoy pool and spa control using their iPhone®, i • iPad®, Pod touch®mobile digital devices,Mac®computer or PC2. 4 i i g® rim 'IntelliPro pump also works with other manufacturer's pool/spa controllers when used with a separately purchased IntelliComm®H Adapter. f i/ ° 3 . , , Technical Data Digital and Millivolt Gas Heaters B— mown \A/tir Illk C4N8[,,, &11t4 0414 CD ql/FU D/R MBU Icily SI,RE40-ST/Bl f 4-3/8' —' 8-7/8" — (6.5/8'ASME) (3-3/8'ASME) 1 INDOOR I! I . _o •( DRAFTHOOD I� -- • OI r.) • •• • • 16 /// 32-11/ ' 40" /'` c 38" EJECT/16 ® sTA4 / CONNECTION . � OUTDOOR TOP � 1 26-5/8" (28-5/8 ASME) • (1== R \fRTii,t� 13-1/4" cns CONNECTION Amp Draw 120 volt 240 volt A 28" Digital 4 2 Shipping Weights (lbs) BTUH (A) (B) (C) w/Polymer wl Cast Iron Heater Input Cabinet Flue Indoor (J) Gas Water Headers Headers P and Stackless and Stackless Indoor Model (000) Width Diameter Drafthood Minimum Conn. Conn. Top Top Drafthood 13206A 199.5 20" 6" 61-5/8" 11-7/8" 3/4" 2" 187 206 12 R266A 266.0 23" 7" 62" 11" 3/4" 2" 210 229 15 R336A 332.5 26" 8" 63" 10-5/8" 3/4" 2" 230 249 17 R406A 399.0 29" 9" 64-1/2" 12-5/16" 3/4" 2" 249 268 20 Designation for a Digital heater using propane gas is "EP"; a Digital heater using natural gas is "EN". Designation for a Millivolt heater using propane gas is "MP"; a Millivolt heater using natural gas is "MN". Prefix "P" is for plastic (polymer) headers; "C" is for cast iron (ASME) headers. Suffix "X" is for cupro-nickel tubing; "C" is for copper tubing Example: P-R406A-EN-X = Plastic headers, 406 model size, digital, natural gas, cupro-nickel Reduce input 4% for each 1000 feet above sea level when installed above 2000 feet elevation. Manufactured under Patent No. 3,623,458. . — ___N --s Nome Company Swimming Pool and Spa The Pool and Spa Heating Experts"" Heating Products , • • While pools provide great fun,there are also potential safety issues for children and pets.The ECLIPSE is engineered with safety as the top priority. Fences and other devices can provide some safety, but none will provide the level of-safety or peace of mind that the ECLIPSE safety cover system gives with a"horizontal fence." In less than a minute, your pool is easily covered to create a barrier that every pool should have. . The Eclipse is independently certified by the Underwriters Laboratories to meet and exceed powered safety cover requirements(A.S.T.M. F1346-91) and, is UL listed to national electrical standards. Coverstar's commitment to great engineering is also a commitment to you. It will take the worry out of pool ownership. �!�� I Ell' ° r 1 1' s . I- 1 1 i . •! `4s - -i • - — i- /® o• ,i9" i _-7 h r ' rl tic i�'u $ 4 �� , 1 v�, ‘ .4,-,,‘ _ fit � n inteiiiTthat ° , J,i� 5 -4t.,.-1...,,,,. .,1-.•.= ,ix.i _ ,, 4 \ -4°4.6: - . . .\\.1::::,._... ---,. ",-.',i'f-Y'-',....,,,,,.;,,,;,.-,:.,,,-,,,),,,,,„ '..,4,,,::.i tglili) CI) .A,PSP IN(tl•IY IIOMAI The ASSOCIDion o/ cam' DATE TIME CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN 0 �'4, — INSPECTION TICE SCHEDULED A. - C) - 3.'0z) PERMIT NO. -Ai 1O COMPLETED �� ADDRESS %��1-�?r! 9 .� WI(o (AZ ,QP OWNER 4 TEL ION NO. /a-glos--a` S / CONTRACTOR i 1' ��� 0 , 4 DESCRIPTION -ADD ' '�OlJ —e-- lli 01,FOOTING 0 PLUMBING Fl 0 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING Q ❑ POURED WALL ❑ MECHANICAL 0 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS y ❑ FRAMING ❑ MECHANICAL FINAL Q ❑ TREE REMOVAL • LI INSULATION LI WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 0 SITE INSPECTION Q ❑ RADON SLAB ❑ WATER HOOK-UP 0 PROGRESS Is 0 FINAL ❑ SEWER HOOK-UP ❑ COMPLAINT v ❑ DEMO-SITE LI SEPTIC MAINT. ❑ FOLLOW-UP LI DEMO-FINAL ❑ SEPTIC INSTALL ❑ HARD COVER REMOVAL v LIPLUMBING RI 0 SEPTIC FINAL ❑ FOUNDATION/REMOVAL Z OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU:_YES_NO 2 COMMENTS: 5 ,ik- r- 4- cc W Q. cc POD -CT'S.--- `Jr4c iN:5 e e" ✓rp5 N. d cc o () C 7i1e - W CC Q W CC d IQ ^S4I RRK SATISFACTORY:PROCEED ❑ PROJECT COMPLETE CC W ElCORRECT WORK&PROCEED ❑ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY El CORRECT WORK,CALL FOR REINSPECTION TEMPORARY 0 BEFORE COVERING PERMANENT ❑CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. ❑ PHOTO TAKEN INSPECTOR WILL RETURN El CITATION ISSUED O STOP ORDER POSTED.CALL INSPECTOR ❑INSPECTION REQUIRED.CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. ort : . t inspecti• 24 hours in advance. (952) 249-4600 Owne Contractor on site: k I K Inspector: / !M^' 714------- White Copyllnspector's File Canary CopylSite Notice DATE TIME CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED PERMIT NO. ;16/3 -0,06IO COMPLETED ADDRESS 9 .#/,//ac-) 1/,ems Cc- OWNER TELEPHONE NO. CONTRACTOR Cos 42c)/5 DESCRIPTION ,7,0-a4 2 /607 W ❑ FOOTING 0 DEMO-FINAL 0 SEPTIC FINAL ❑ POURED WALL 0 PLUMBING RI 0 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING ❑ FOUNDATION WATERPROOF 0 PLUMBING FINAL 0 TREE REMOVAL • ❑ RADON SLAB 0 MECHANICAL RI 0 SITE INSPECTION Q 0 FRAMING 0 MECHANICAL FINAL 0 PROGRESS • ❑ INSULATION 0 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 0 COMPLAINT jiCELNAL ❑ WATER HOOK-UP FOLLOW-UP ❑ AS BUILT-SURVEY ❑ SEWER HOOK-UP 0 HARD COVER REMOVAL ❑ DEMO-SITE 0 SEPTIC INSTALL 0 FOUNDATION/REMOVAL Z OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU:_YES_NO ac • COMMENTS: o . 2e s4.c,e-7 — /o -023 /y cc o X// K co „r%L`c W cc frevt:-C GW ❑WORK SATISFACTORY:PROCEED ( - E6•T£OMPLETE • ❑CORRECT WORK&PROCEED ❑ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY O ❑CORRECT WORK,CALL FOR REINSPECTION TEMPORARY C..) BEFORE COVERING PERMANENT O CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. ❑ PHOTO TAKEN INSPECTOR WILL RETURN CISTOP ORDER POSTED.CALL INSPECTOR ❑CITATION ISSUED ❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED.CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. (952) 249-4600 Owner/Contractor on site: Inspector. White Copy/Inspector's File Canary Copy/Site Notice y� 4. - rpt /� �2 DATE TIME• CITY OF ORONO 20(3 ' U101-3 3 ALLED IN INSPECTION NOTICE , SCHEDULED 1- PERMIT NO.ZOO -NOTICE,,,,, r COMPLETED 4. m O ADDRESS Q4 , (l O VAI v.av br, OWNER TELEPHONE NO. CONTRACTOR Si ,n �yy� DESCRIPTION Atl if Sk ( Y ( +) / - l, tU ❑ FOOTING 0 DEMO-FINAL 0 SEPTIC FINAL 4.Q ❑ POURED WALL 0 PLUMBING RI 0 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING Q0 FOUNDATION WATERPROOF 0 PLUMBING FINAL 0 TREE REMOVAL ❑ RADON SLAB 0 MECHANICAL RI 0 SITE INSPECTION .4 0 FRAMING 0 MECHANICAL FINAL 0 PROGRESS is ❑ INSULATION 0 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 0 COMPLAINT Q ❑ FINAL 0 WATER HOOK-UP 0 FOLLOW-UP W 0 AS BUILT-SURVEY 0 SEWER HOOK-UP 0 HARD COVER REMOVAL , ❑ DEMO-SITE 0 SEPTIC INSTALL 0 FOUNDATION/REMOVAL Z OWN ER1CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU:_YES NO cl COMMENTS: cc w Q. cc o q 4-11 c) 7"r 141€ - / a9Ar,©aPC( IQ c/ CC Q 2 W Z W CC W 0 WORK SATISFACTORY:PROCEED ROJECT COMPLETE CCW 0 CORRECT WORK&PROCEED 0 I E CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OO 0 CORRECT WORK,CALL FOR REINSPECTION TEMPORARY V BEFORE COVERING PERMANENT ❑CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. 0 PHOTO TAKEN INSPECTOR WILL RETURN ❑STOP ORDER POSTED.CALL INSPECTOR ❑CITATION ISSUED 0 INSPECTION REQUIRED.CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. (952) 249-4600 Owner/Contra M •� •nn ssiit/e:l Inspector. - U White Copyllnspector's File Canary CopylSlte Notice I ' E TIpl CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN INSPECTION NQTIC 'n SCHEDULED -MEV.. �,�3.il& PERMIT NO.Gppp�1 COMPLETED, r ADDRESS 1N S it l lVJ v e `�-N OWNER TELEPHONE NO.S32 -1.1.3 - CONTRACTOR Cv1/4.5v\ \74olS DESCRIPTION \ vD k..... \ I ca__ W ❑ FOOTING ❑ PLUMBING FINAL ❑ EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING cz ❑ POURED WALL LI MECHANICAL RI 0 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS y Q ❑ FRAMING ❑ MECHANICAL FINAL ❑ TREE REMOVAL • 0 INSULATION 0 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE ❑ SITE INSPECTION Q ❑ RADON SLAB ❑ WATER HOOK-UP ❑ PROGRESS p• c FINAL 0 SEWER HOOK-UP ❑ COMPLAINT v ❑ DEMO-SITE ❑ SEPTIC MAINT. 0 FOLLOW-UP IQ 0 DEMO-FINAL ❑ SEPTIC INSTALL 0 HARD COVER REMOVAL v ❑ PLUMBING RI ❑ SEPTIC FINAL LIFOUNDATION/REMOVAL Z OWNERICONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU:_YES_NO COMMENTS: Q. C O /rovg(�e ./te t-..uG fi t4Q! tirs� 4o'�, cc ,O c Pr'O',o-c a," `✓4 s Lt 5 4 r v CC p O /�eSe- or cJ6VA- 13 r6 144.01e-7141c W cc Q w Gti (( rar re.t et Siiaic.N CC W ❑WORK SATISFACTORY:PROCEED ❑ PROJECT COMPLETE IXW 0 CORRECT WORK&PROCEED El ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY C) CT WORK,CALL FOR REINSPECTION TEMPORARY OU BEFORE COVERING PERMANENT 0 CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. LI PHOTO TAKEN INSPECTOR WILL RETURN ❑CITATION ISSUED ❑STOP ORDER POSTED.CALL INSPECTOR 0 INSPECTION REQUIRED.CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Call for the next inspection_ 4 hours in advance. (952) 249-4600 Owner/ ntractor on site: d,`J:.1 Prt y Inspector. / White Copy/Inspector's File Canary Copy/Site Notice Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit(LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka,MN 55391 1.PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Tim and Amy Hubbard 945 Willow View Drive Application Number City of Orono 9/30/2013 W13-37 ®Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑No-Loss ❑Exemption El Sequencing 0 Replacement Plan ❑Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation(if any): ❑Approve ❑Approve with conditions ❑Deny Summary(or attach): 2.LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: 10/25/2013 ®Approved 0 Approved with conditions(include below) ❑Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions(attach additional sheets as necessary): A wetland delineation was conducted by Svoboda Ecological Resources on the subject property located at 945 Willow Drive in the City of Orono on June 15,2013. One wetland was identified and delineated on the property. The wetland was identified as a Type 2 wet meadow. The boundary&type of the delineated wetland were reviewed in the field on October 25,2013 by Wenck Associates staff on behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD). The wetland boundary and type was confirmed to be accurate during the site visit. MCWD approves the wetland boundary&type as delineated in the field and documented in the delineation report dated September 30, 2013.This decision is valid for five years. A project on this property may require a permit from the MCWD. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account# Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal(sq.ft.or nearest.01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: 0 Financial Assurance: For project-specific replacement that is not in-advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522,Subp. 9(List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project-specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. 0 Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist,they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Brandon Wisner Compliance Officer Date Phone Number and E-mail 12.4- (952)iI 641-4505 I 3//3 bwisner@minnehahacreek.org THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal(30 days)has expired.If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal,the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3.APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee,within thirty(30)calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and$0 fee(if applicable)to: petition and$500 filing fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Minnetonka,MN 55391 520 Lafayette Road North BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 St. Paul,MN 55155 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski—Stacey.lijewski@co.hennepin.mn.us • BWSR TEP member: Lynda Peterson—Lynda.peterson@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member(if different than LGU Contact): ❑ DNR TEP member: • DNR Regional Office(if different than DNR TEP member): Melissa Doperalski— Melissa.doperalski@state.mn.us ❑ WD or WMO(if applicable): ® Applicant(notice only)and Landowner(if different): Tim and Amy Hubbard- ajhubbard@mchsi.com Members of the public who requested notice(notice only): Consultant: Svoboda Ecological Resources(Frank Svoboda)—frank@gpsinnovations.com gpsinnovations.com City of Orono(Christine Mattson): cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager(notice only):Melissa Jenny— Melissa.m.j enny@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator(wetland bank plan applications only) 5. MAILING INFORMATION For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA_areas.pdf For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP_contacts.pdf >Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E.Hwy.2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids,MN 55744 St.Paul,MN 55106 New Ulm,MN 56073 Bemidji,MN 56601 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr_regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District,ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St.East, Suite 700 St.Paul,MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications,also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St.Paul,MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: 111 111 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application Local Government Unit(LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka,MN 55391 1.PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Tim and Amy Hubbard q45 Willow View Drive Application Number City of Orono 9/30/2013 W13-37 Type of Application(check all that apply): ®Wetland Boundary or Type ❑No-Loss ❑Exemption 0 Sequencing ❑Replacement Plan ❑Banking Plan Summary and description of proposed project(attach additional sheets as necessary): Tim and Amy Hubbard have applied for a wetland boundary&type approval for the parcel located at 945 Willow View Drive(Long Lake)in the City of Orono.The complete application was received on October 2, 2013.The delineation was performed by Svoboda Ecological Resources on June 15,2013.The boundary will be reviewed in the field by MCWD staff. 2.APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Comments must be received by (minimum 15 Brandon Wisner business-day comment period): Compliance Officer October 25,2013(4:30 PM) Address(if different than LGU) Date,time,and location of decision: 15320 Minnetonka Blvd A decision will be made following the field Minnetonka,MN 55391 review and completion of the comment period. Phone Number and E-mail Address Decision-maker for this application: (952)641-4505 ® Staff bwisner@minnehahacreek.org ❑ Governing Board or Council Signature: g/4 ''LCL-- Date: (d/03 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 2 3.LIST OF ADDRESSEES • SWCD TEP member:Stacey Lijewski—stacey.lijewski@co.hennepin.mn.us • BWSR TEP member:Lynda Peterson—lynda.peterson@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member(if different than LGU Contact): ❑ DNR TEP member: ® DNR Regional Office(if different than DNR TEP member):Melissa Doperalski— Melissa.Doperalski@state.mn.us ❑ WD or WMO(if applicable): ® Applicant(notice only)and Landowner(if different):Tim and Amy Hubbard—ajhubbard@mchsi.com ® Members of the public who requested notice(notice only): Consultant: Svoboda Ecological Resources(Frank Svoboda)—frank@gpsinnovations.com City of Orono(Christine Mattson)—cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager(notice only):Melissa Jenny—Melissa.m.jenny@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator(wetland bank plan applications only) 4.MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives:www.bwsr.state.mn.us/contact/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives:www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd.NE 1201 E.Hwy.2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Bemidji,MN 56601 Grand Rapids,MN 55744 St.Paul,MN 55106 New Ulm,MN 56073 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions,see:http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers:www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asn?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District,ATTN:OP-R 180 Fifth St.East,Suite 700 St.Paul,MN 55101-1678 For Wetland Bank Plan applications,also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St.Paul,MN 55155 5.ATTACHMENTS In addition to the application,list any other attachments: ® Wetland Delineation Report 0 0 0 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 2 r ‘,'"4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Application for Approval of Wetland Type arid Boundary 1. Project/Site Information Project/Site Name: 945 Willow View Dr. Local Government Unit: Orono Location (address and/or T, R, Sec.): Willow View Addition Lot 8, Blk 1, A portion of Section 28, T118N, R23W 2. Applicant Information Applicant Name: Tim & Amy Hubbard Address: 945 Willow View Drive City, State, Zip: Long Lake, MN 55356 E-mail: ajhubbard@mchsi.com Phone: 952-473-2250 3. Agent/Consultant Information Company Name (if applicable): Svoboda Ecological Resources Contact Person: Frank Svoboda Address: 25580 Nelsine Drive City, State, Zip: Shorewood,MN,55331 E-mail: franks@gpsinnovations.com Phone: 952-471-1100 4. Description of Request Check all that apply: Cl Wetland Boundary (must attach wetland delineation report) O Wetland Type (Eggers & Reed and/or Circular 39 type) 5. Signature By signature below, the applicant requests a determination from the Local Government Unit under Minnesota Rules 8420.0225 on the submitted wetland boundary and type information in this application. The applicant also affirms that they are the owner of the subject property or have permission from the landowner to purs e this dete,minat n. 4r/1 Applicant or Authorize. ,aent ignature Date Important Notes: • The applicant may be required to submit multiple copies of the report/information to the LGU. The LGU may require the applicant to submit copies directly to Technical Evaluation Panel Members. Check with your LGU regarding their submittal requirements. • The LGU decision must be made in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99. For LGU use only Date Received: Page 1 of 1 BWSR Wetland Boundary/Type Application Form 11/10/08 Print Form CS army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District Request for Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Review Please enter the following general information about the property under review: Name of property owner Tim&Amy Hubbard Property Address (No. & Street, City, State, Zip Code) 945 Willow View Drive, Long Lake, MN 55356 Lat. Long. (decimal degrees) County Hennepin Location: 1/4 Section 28 Township 118N Range 23W Size of review area acre(s) By submission of this wetland delineation report I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. St. Paul District provide me with the following(check only one box): ❑ Wetland Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with awetland delineation is a written notification from the Corps concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the wetland boundaries delineated on a property. Under this request, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the wetlands on the property. only the boundaries of the resources within the review area. ❑✓ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination is a nonbinding written indication that there may be waters of the United States, including wetlands, on a parcel or indications of the approximate location(s)of waters of the United States or wetlands on a parcel. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary jurisdictional determination will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Preliminary jurisdictional determinations are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States or navigable waters of the United States,or both, are either present or absent on the property. An approved jurisdictional determination precisely identifies the limits of those waters on the project site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved jurisdictional determinations can be relied upon by the affected party for a period of five years. An approved jurisdictional determination may be appealed through the Corps' administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual,and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetla - Delineations in Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://www.mvp.0 ce.army mil/regulato /). / Requestor • Xvg14 / Date 9/30/13 Name(typed)Franklin J Svoboda ) M 945 Willow View Dr. is Long Lake, MN j ;t 1 5 Prepared by Svoboda Ecological .. . 4►u! t Resources for: � ." if, ,• Tim & Amy Hubbard \, ,,,,------ Vit. ' ',/ � 1101111) \\ `: 'I. iii(.41,'6.4,1:1111!c11044[4t‘ . ,1;:!I it j.' i si ' ;il',1W4,a'4.r tiii,I.NV a Aft 4' / ' / 1 r,"? iFikti,'..., 4,.,,l'e,M17,1 7 Ny 1 +� :' •:41V1',:p'.....• •'NI Rfid 114 4):1 •ir,I� Io• • 1_ .1 ,� , #�4i// JJJ �' .140 / Ir.' /� 1 , r la 1� ;,ti Wetland Classification, . 1 I/ / 1 / itt\t • /1 V r•. Identification, and Delineation • ��I ;��''�� j i y\ Project No. 2013-011-03 r. �+ , J \1���•' ' September 30, 20 13 �'i { 1 i Prouidirzg the Sljwper Edge in •SNatural Resources & Environmental Consulting ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 25580 Nelsinc Drive.Suite IOU • Shorcv+oud.MN 55331 (952)471-I 100 • (953)-171-0007(Fax) 945 Willow View Dr Long Lake, Hennepin County, MN Wetland Classification, Identification, and Delineation Report Prepared for: Tim &Amy Hubbard By: Svoboda Ecological Resources Project Number 2013-011-03 9/30/13 The contents and format of this report are considered intellectual property and are subject to copyright restrictions and may not be reproduced without the express permission of Svoboda Ecological Resources. Table of Contents ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 1 DISCUSSION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4 CERTIFICATION 6 DATA SOURCES 7 LITERATURE REFERENCED 8 FIGURES: Figure 1: Site Location Overlaid on Topographic Map Figure 2: National Wetlands Inventory Figure 3: Web Soil Survey-Hennepin County Figure 4: DNR-Public Waters Map Figure 5: Approximate Wetland Boundary and Sample Transect Location TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS: Photo Log Field Data Sheets Plant Indicator Status Soil Series Data ABSTRACT Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) visited the above referenced property on 6/15/13 to examine the site for the presence of areas meeting wetland criteria. The study parcel is located in the city of Long Lake, MN in Hennepin County(Figure 1). One wetland boundary was delineated at this site. Three sample transects were established along the boundary of the wetland area and in order to characterize the soil, vegetation, and existing hydrology within the wetland-to-upland transition zone. INTRODUCTION The subject parcel is approximately 1.90 acres and the wetland dominated by mesic trees ad herbaceous emergents. The topography of the site is split between the large permanently inundated wetland area occupying the northeastern corner of the parcel, a drier temporary wetland area to its west and the upland/developed area on the remainder of the parcel where the landowner structure is placed. The surrounding land use is primarily sparsely spaced single family homes. The identified wetland was classified according to the Cowardin et al., the Circular 39 and the Eggers and Reed classification systems and marked with pink "Wetland Delineation"pin flags. The Technical Documents section of this report contains field data sheets, plant indicator status information, soil survey information, and wetland definition information. METHODS The methods used to delineate the subject parcel are as described in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Midwest Regional Supplement Manual. In the 1987 Manual, the methods used were described under the "routine" methods for sites less than 5 acres. This methodology is followed in order to assess whether the three parameters of a wetland are met for areas on the subject parcel. The three parameters required under normal circumstances in order to delineate a wetland are described in the Technical Documents section. The Midwest Regional Supplement Wetland Delineation Manual is also being utilized to increase the accuracy of our wetland boundaries. This addendum to the original 87 Manual was created to address the many regional differences that affect wetlands and the delineation methods used throughout the country. The following explanations are passages from that document. "This Regional Supplement is part of a nationwide effort to address regional wetland characteristics and improve the accuracy and efficiency of wetland- delineation procedures. Regional differences in climate, geology, soils, hydrology plant and animal communities,and other factors are important to the identification and functioning of wetlands. These differences cannot be considered adequately in a single national manual. The development of this supplement follows National Academy of Sciences recommendations to increase the regional sensitivity of wetland-delineation methods (National Research Council 1995).The intent of this supplement is to bring the Corps Manual up to date with current knowledge and practice in the region and not to change wetland boundaries." "...This Regional Supplement is designed for use with the Svoboda Ecological Resources 1 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN current version of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and all subsequent versions. Where differences in the two documents occur, this Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Midwest Region." National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (Figure 2), Web Soil Survey of Hennepin County map (Figure 3), Minnesota Public Waters Inventory maps (Figure 4), and 2012 aerial photographs were reviewed prior to the site visit to identify areas that may be wetlands. Areas illustrating evidence of wetland conditions were examined in greater detail during the field survey. Vegetation, soils and hydrology were examined (as outlined in the 1987 Manual) and used to characterize wetland types and determine wetland boundaries. Sample transects were established in representative wetland-to-upland transition zones in order to characterize the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site. Transects consist of a representative upland sample point and representative wetland sample point. Information obtained at the sample points can be found on the field data sheets located in the Technical Documents section. Wetland boundaries were marked at the site by pink "Wetland Delineation" pin flags, wooden stakes with pink or orange flagging attached to them, or orange flagging tape. The wetland boundary is considered to be the topographically highest extent of the wetland basin; areas below the staked boundary met the three required wetland criteria while areas above were lacking in one or more of these criteria. Wetlands were classified in accordance with methods described by Cowardin et al. (1979) and used in the NWI (e.g. PEMB, PSS1C, etc.), completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Circular 39 and Eggers and Reed classification systems are also given. The indicator status of plants, as described in the Technical Documents section, was determined using the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands — 2013 National Wetland Plant List. 2013 wetland ratings. RESULTS The National Wetland Inventory indicates the presence of one wetland in the survey area, categorized as PEMC (Figure 2). The Web Soil Survey of Hennepin County(Figure 3) identifies two soil map units present on the subject property. They are as follows: Hamel-Glencoe, depressional, complex and Le Sueur loam. The first soil type is the predominantly hydric soil on the site. The Le Sueur loam is predominantly nonhydric. Soil series descriptions are provided in the Technical Documents section. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, State Protected Waters Map (Public Water Inventory) indicates no public waters within the study area(Figure 4). Site Visit SER ecologists examined the subject property for areas meeting jurisdictional wetland criteria during the site visit. One area meeting the jurisdictional criteria of a wetland was flagged, and boundaries were determined and delineated. The approximate wetland boundary is outlined in yellow (Figure 5). Svoboda Ecological Resources 2 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN The wetlands on this parcel are classified as PEMC Type 2 wetlands, however it appears that the eastern part of the delineated wetland is at least semipermanently flooded. The wetland vegetation in the semipermanently inundated wetland was typically dominated by peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides FACW), and boxelder (Acer negundo FAC) in the canopy and sandbar willow (Salix interior FACW) in the shrub layers with the herb layer with several dominants, most often canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis FACU), stickywilly (Galium aparine FACU) but also inland sedge (Carex interior OBL) and common rush (Juncus effusus OBL). The transition to upland can be marked vegetatively, as upland vegetation becomes more prevalent. On the west side of the wetland inundation appears to be more temporary and therefore the wetland area is more heavily vegetated throughout, whereas the eastern side of the wetland is permanently inundated so vegetation is largely absent in the center. Sample point transect SP-A was located on the east side of the semipermanently inundated wetland area. The soils at sample point SP-A1 consisted of a silty clay loam at the surface that gave way to a clay after four inches. Hydric indicator S7 (Dark surface) was present. The soils at sample point SP-A2 also consisted of a silty clay loam for the first four inches then gave way to a silty clay below. Hydric indicator S7 (Dark surface) was present. Similarly, the soils at sample point SP-A3 consisted of an initial 4 inches of silty clay loam with a silty clay below, however hydric indicator Al 2 (Thick Dark Surface) was present here. Sample point transect SP-B was located on the south side of the wetland. The soils at sample points SP-B 1 and SP-B2 consisted of a silty clay loam down to 4-5 inches with a silty clay below. Hydric indicator S7 (Dark Surface) was present at both points. Sample point SP-B3 had soil that had an inch of clay loam at the surface and clay below. Hydric indicators were not present. Sample point transect SP-C was located on the west side of the temporary wetland area. The soils at sample point SP-C1 consisted of an initial inch of a mucky silty clay loam with a silty clay below. Hydric indicator A10 (2 cm Muck) was present. The soils at sample point SP-C2 consisted of two inches of a silty clay loam with clay below. The initial 8 inches of the clay layer was a depleted matrix with concentration pore linings. Hydric indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix) was present. Wetland hydrology indicators A2 (High Water Table) and A3 (Saturation) were present at SP-Al. The water table was at 7 inches at this point. At sample point SP-A2 secondary indicators D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test) were present. At sample point SP-A3 no hydrology indicators were present. Wetland hydrology indicator A2 (High Water Table) was present at both SP-Bl and SP-B2. The water table was at 7 inches at point B1 and 6 inches at point B2. Only one secondary wetland hydrology indicators was present at SP-B3, D5 (FAC-Neutral Test), and so hydrology was not indicated. Wetland hydrology indicator A2 (High Water Table) was present at SP-C1. The water table was at 4 inches at this point. No wetland hydrology indicators were present at SP-C2. Svoboda Ecological Resources 3 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN Detailed soils, vegetation, and hydrology data for the delineated jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the data sheets of the Technical Documents section. DISCUSSION SER completed all on-site delineations based on the three required technical criteria as outlined by the 1987 Manual: the presence of hydric soils, a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and indicators of wetland hydrology in each basin. The site visit portion of the wetland delineation was completed on 6/15/13. SER personnel examined the subject property for areas meeting jurisdictional wetland criteria during the site visit and delineated the western, southern and eastern edges of the semipermanently/temporarily flooded depression as being jurisdictional wetland (Figure 5). The NWI categorization of a more geographically restricted area as PEMC Type 2 is better described as a larger wetland split between PEMF Type 3 to the east and PEMB Type 1 to the west and surrounding the semipermanent depression. Detailed soils, vegetation and hydrology data are provided in the data sheets of the Technical Documents section. A set of figures is provided in the Figures section. RECOMMENDATIONS Activities that impact or could potentially impact wetlands are regulated at several levels of government. In Minnesota, the two primary jurisdictions are covered at the state and federal levels by the provisions of the following legislative actions. 1* State jurisdiction by the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) administered by the WCA Local Governmental Unit(LGU). 2* Federal jurisdiction by the Clean Water Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments. Wetland protection is implemented by the Corps of Engineers (Corps)with permit certification issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While the wetland boundaries that SER has delineated are not official until approved by a WCA approved local government unit (LGU), SER advises the property owner/developer to refrain from any filling, draining, or excavating, or any impact to the area SER has delineated as wetland. No grading or filling in wetland basins should commence until all necessary permits have been obtained. Violation of wetland regulations may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties. Local ordinances may regulate wetland modifications such as brush and tree removal and burning in addition to grading and filling. Depending on the location of the property, buffers around the wetland may also be protected. Any activities in the proximity of the wetland should be cleared with appropriate WCA regulatory agencies. It is also advisable to have the wetland boundary surveyed by a licensed land surveyor. Since the pin flags used along the boundary can be vandalized or inadvertently knocked over, a GPS survey of the flags will assure the permanence of the boundary. The client should also be aware that approved wetland boundaries are typically valid for only three years from the date of approval. Svoboda Ecological Resources 4 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN To avoid project delays associated with wetland regulations, it is essential that you acquire necessary permits from all jurisdictional agencies before initiating activities.A WCA Sequencing form, a WCA and Army Corps of Engineers Replacement Plan Application form, and a DNR permit application are among the materials that you may be required to submit if impacts are proposed for the delineated wetlands. By initiating the permit process as soon as possible, potential costly delays to the project may be avoided. Svoboda Ecological Resources 5 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN CERTIFICATION David Haar completed the above-described delineation on 6/15/2013. This delineation was performed according to the procedures described by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2007 Midwest Region Supplement Wetland Delineation Manual. The delineation meets the standards and a criterion described in these manuals and conforms to the applicable standards and regulations in force at the time the delineation was completed. Report and graphics were prepared by David Remucal (Wetland Ecologist) on this day 8/12/2013.The delineation report was reviewed by Frank Svoboda, President of Svoboda Ecological Resources. Client: Tim&Amy Hubbard Project Name:945 Willow View Dr Project No.: 2013-011 Location: Long Lake MN Wetland Ecologist I/GIS Specialist Wetland Ecologist President, Svoboda Ecological Resources 9/30/13 Date Svoboda Ecological Resources 6 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN DATA SOURCES Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Public Waters Inventory Basin Delineations, Published 7/31/2008 and retrieved from http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html on 5/28/12. 2010 Aerial Color Photos. Publicly Distributed by MN Geo WMS Service. Topographic maps obtained via the National Geographic Society's USA Topo service through ESRI. Web Soil Survey for Hennepin County, MN. Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Svoboda Ecological Resources 7 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN LITERATURE REFERENCED Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and R.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. Eggers, Steve D. and Donald M. Reed. 2011. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd edition. US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 478 pp, unclassified. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. 1987 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Gleason, H.A. and A.C. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada.New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 910pp. Lichvar, R. W. 2013 National Wetland Plant List. 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1 —241 (See also [http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/]. Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. 67pp. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.August 2010.Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-16. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Svoboda Ecological Resources 8 945 Willow View Dr Project Number: 2013-011-03 Long Lake,MN FIGURES t/J • ``\ 0. WOLga _---• s A. . [ . `�•. '~ 1 •�ti `\ 7 .Laky • • • • s -j. ..,.... • • .�. } + \''• ,_,./—a:vf } RI Pt - — f--j"\j, ''''\\' n , .00 C\. _ - �✓ 28 / I ` • 1 , r i . tots . w , 9 '+—' " 1L••• •'''61.,.......---.7 7 � Tbrio 1. Lake - • ,. ► Cln l j; ..,,,-- 4.- r 4.- _ , t 'I,ice - �Q •: __ ,ry(+/�roniit ,� _ • . • { \i'- -'�w }.. igh j ., •- .1:. • • _� ! * t_ f I. { - �;� , 33 • " I II 1 ,• ,.. F-1 Approximate Parcel Boundary � --� / • � �'t • . '(_ roti "`.. ,*1 -. "4 j, r-- T118N R23W S28 Overview Figure 1 Overlaid on Topographic Map �� xSVOBODA 0 1,300 2,600 5,200 2013-011 i';, 945 Willow View Drive Ecological Resources Feet Plymouth,MN • • „ : . , ., 'd' '43 * ' r , 47 e „.,,, ' , - ,.,..; ' .• , 'V; , ..,,,,, 1 r: ',; t ' ' ° ' ,r"81 4:'$ **!,1' ' , .,.‘,'7 4 t''-'1,'",''',.::` ik A r • I, b• •4n �m ;;11)r ,1,.. 0 `” ,J s 1 Approximate Parcel Boundary Js, T118NR23W S28 National Wetland Inventory Figure 2 Overlaid on 2012 Aerial Photo II3*.SVOBODA 0 50 100 2002013-011 V-, Ecological Resources Feet 945 Willow View Drive Plymouth,MN 4,/ ' r6r/47v - -f/.4 4**4 'i - - TrF. v4/4".0% / 4`,./7"/P/4 , t t ;•,,,"*0* .404, f y ,4,, / :::040,640...... -4 4#0 0,/, �' f ,''::j,j:';/'l'//''4:A:/2;///:::/P * : '''''''*''. 4. 1 fi a •1 4l'4, i 0,, 4 ....', , „te.0, ye'"? ..."„, / ,ty " '•\,14 00'4'14'.� r %Y {#'• t C •iti., r ¢�.: •. r,, •- LuSuCw,Ic�am /I' �erccnNstopes �� �4 ,e., '1.'9.'101/ / ,/ / / /* * '- y t 11„, 1 ' " 7 / y Pk // - . . ,..fr• , , 7,,,,,,,,,,,,/,,,,,,/ /� / ; n Approximate Parcel Boundary ` 4 01:j � ���'�'�'~� ., °' % ��4.��!A�oi'4 /f,, �''jr�J.✓i0* f $OILS / « • :'' r ,,,,:„,..j% Al /// Predominantly nonhydric � '° • " �� .�, T118N R23W S28 Soil Survey Figure 3 Overlaid on 2012 Aerial Photo *. 2013-011 SV0B0DA is 0 50 100 200 945 Willow View Drive Ecological Resources Feet Long Lake,MN 11 V x * t ..�4` n eJ 'el,, .t ,Iy.' x& * pry r e ' . .,,,,,,,tett i:.,, -a w . I k 41 t' s� - r v a.: J • Jµ ... + ..; a *ii 4 -gi ....mo Illmr, 4 • f c----- Approximate Parcel Boundary r� r Public Waters Inventory J T118N R23W S28 Public Waters Inventory Figure 4 Overlaid on 2012 Aerial Photo (I 45VOBODA 2013-011 ;: . 0 50 100 200 945 Willow View Drive Ecological Resources Feet Long Lake,MN , i,\ , 1,*;171-:41it l'''14:r1.:, i., y. YR .Y� , . r i f ' % 4 i • I /4/ii **' , 4 . ,• , • 4. ,4 • ' .„4 41 f g: I y1 � wa a € a g J • .,.,, I -. * Sample Points Approximate Wetland Boundary I Approximate Parcel Boundary .'� T118N R23W S28 Approximate Wetland Boundary and Figure 5 Sample Transect Points Overlaid on 2012 Aerial Photo I1 :>lSVOBODA 2013-011 j: 0 50 100 200 945 Willow View Drive Ecological Resources Feet Long Lake,MN THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION SECTION Field Data Sheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-A1 Investigator(s): DH Section,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y F yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2 Salix amygdaloides 1 N FACW Total Number of Dominant 3 Salix sp. 1 N Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 75.00% (A/B) 7 =Total Cover Saolino/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 6 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Cornus sericea 0.1 N OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Sambucus racemosa 0.1 N FACU FACW species 17 x 2= 34 4 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 5 FACU species 3.1 x 4= 12.4 6.2 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 20.1 (A) 46.4 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 5 Y FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.31 2 Circaea canadensis 2 Y FACU 3 Cirsium arvense 1 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Lepidium campestre 0.1 N _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is>50% 6 X Prevalence index is 53.0' 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' 8.1 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-Al Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 4 N 2.5 Silty clay loam 20 N 2.5 Silty clay `Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(A1) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) X Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _ _ _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) 2 cm Muck(A10) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Other(explain in remarks) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) _True Aquatic Plants(B14) _Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C 1) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) —Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 7 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 10 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-A2 Investigator(s): DH >ection,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 7 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 57.14% (A/B) 5 =Total Cover Saolina/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix inferior 5 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Acer negundo 1 N FAC OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Crataegus sp. 1 N FACW species 18 x 2= 36 4 Rubus sp. 1 N FAC species 1 x 3= 3 5 FACU species 18 x 4= 72 8 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 37 (A) 111 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 5 Y FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.00 2 Solidago canadensis 3 Y FACU 3 Galium aparine 3 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Glechoma hederacea 2 N FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Circaea canadensis 1 N FACU X Dominance test is>50% 6 Cirsium arvense 1 N FACU X Prevalence index is 553.0' 7 Asclepias syriaca 1 N FACU Morphogical adaptations"(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation` 16 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 7 Y FACU present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Vitis riparia 3 Y FACW Hydrophytic 10 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-A2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 4 N 2.5 Silty clay loam 20 N 2.5 Clay 'Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. "Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) X Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _ _ _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) 2 cm Muck(A10) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Other(explain in remarks) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) `Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reauired:check all that aaoly) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reauired) _Surface Water(Al) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) True Aquatic Plants(B14) _Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(B5) _(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-A3 Investigator(s): DH ;ection,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N `yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 40.00% (NB) 2 =Total Cover Saolino/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 15 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Acer negundo 3 N FAC OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Crataegus sp. 1 N FACW species 20 x 2= 40 4 Rubus sp. 1 N FAC species 6 x 3= 18 5 FACU species 42 x 4= 168 20 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 68 (A) 226 (B) 1 Solidago canadensis 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.32 2 Glechoma hederacea 10 Y FACU 3 Alliaria petiolata 3 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Lepidium Campestre 2 N _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Galium aparine 2 N FACU _Dominance test is>50% 6 Cirsium arvense 2 N FACU Prevalence index is s3.0" 7 Asclepias syriaca 1 N FACU Morphogical adaptations"(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation" 40 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 7 Y FACU present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Vitisriparia 3 Y FACW Hydrophytic 10 =Total Cover vegetation present? N Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-A3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type" Loc" Texture Remarks 4 N 2.5 Silty clay loam 19 N 2.5 Silty clay 24 10YR 2/1 Silty clay "Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) 2 cm Muck(A10) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Other(explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) X Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reauired:check all that am:ly) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reauired) _Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) —High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) _Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(82) (C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils —Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(89) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-B1 Investigator(s): DH vection,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Salix amygdaloides 45 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Acer negundo 5 N FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N FACW Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50.00% (NB) 55 =Total Cover Saoling/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 25 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Cornus alba 5 N FACW OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Ulmus americana 2 N FACW FACW species 82 x 2= 164 4 Crataegus sp. 1 N FAC species 5 x 3= 15 5 FACU species 27 x 4= 108 33 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 114 (A) 287 (B) 1 Solidago canadensis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.52 2 Galium aparine 10 Y FACU 3 Glechoma hederacea 5 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Circaea canadensis 2 N FACU _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 _Dominance test is>50% 6 X Prevalence index is 53.0` 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 _separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 27 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-Bl Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 5 N 2.5 Silty clay loam 15 N 2.5 Silty clay *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _Histisol(Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) X Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _ _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) 2 cm Muck(A10) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Other(explain in remarks) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) _True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) ^_Saturation(A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils _Geomorphic Position(D2) -Iron Deposits(B5) —(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(89) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 7 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No Depth(inches): hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-B2 Investigator(s): DH Section,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y `yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Salix amygdaloides 30 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N FACW Total Number of Dominant 3 Acer negundo 5 N FAC Species Across all Strata: 6 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 33.33% (A/B) 40 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 25 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Cornus alba 3 N FACW OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Acer rubrum 2 N FAC FACW species 67 x 2= 134 4 Crataegus sp. 1 N FAC species 7 x 3= 21 5 FACU species 46 x 4= 184 31 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 120 (A) 339 (B) 1 Galium aparine 15 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.83 2 Solidago canadensis 5 Y FACU 3 Lepidium campestre 5 Y Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Phalaris arundinacea 3 N FACW _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Fragaria virginiana 3 N FACU _Dominance test is>50% 6 Oxalis stricta 3 N FACU X Prevalence index is 53.0" 7 Glechoma hederacea 3 N FACU Morphogical adaptations"(provide 8 Pastinaca saliva 2 N supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 Cirsium arvense 1 N FACU _separate sheet) 10 Circaea canadensis 1 N FACU Problematic hydrophytic vegetation" 41 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 15 Y FACU present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Vitis riparia 1 N FACW Hydrophytic 16 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-B2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type` Loc** Texture Remarks 4 N 2.5 Silty clay loam 15 N 2.5 Silty clay *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) X Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Other(explain in remarks) _-Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reauired:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) True Aquatic Plants(B14) _Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _(C6) _FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 6 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No Depth(inches): hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-B3 Investigator(s): DH ;ection,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N F yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Salix amygdaloides 20 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N FACW Total Number of Dominant 3 Acer negundo 3 N FAC Species Across all Strata: 6 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 28 =Total Cover Saolino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 10 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 Acer rubrum 3 Y FAC OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 Cornus alba 1 N FACW FACW species 46 x 2= 92 4 FAC species 10 x 3= 30 5 FACU species 37 x 4= 148 14 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 93 (A) 270 (B) 1 Solidago canadensis 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.90 2 Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y FACW 3 Glechoma hederacea 3 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Galium aparine 3 N FACU _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Lespidium campestre 3 N X Dominance test is>50% 6 Rumex crispus 2 N FAC X Prevalence index is 53.0' 7 Poa pratensis 2 N FAC Morphogical adaptations"(provide 8 Circaea canadensis 1 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a g separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' 44 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 Parthenoc/ssus quinquefolia 10 Y FACU present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 10 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-B3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 1 10YR 3/1 Clay loam 8 10YR 3/1 Clay 22 10YR 3/2 Clay *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) -Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Other(explain in remarks) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) `Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? N Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Pattems(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _-Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Plymouth Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-C3 Investigator(s): DH >ection,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur loam JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y `yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Populus deltoides 1 FAC that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 1 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 60 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 36 x 1= 36 3 FACW species 65 x 2= 130 4 FAC species 3 x 3= 9 5 FACU species 30.2 x 4= 120.8 60 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 134.2 (A) 295.8 (B) 1 Solidago canadensis 30 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.20 2 Juncus efusus 20 Y OBL 3 Carex interior 15 N OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Phalaris arundinacea 5 N FACW _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Lepidium campestre 3 N X Dominance test is>50% 6 Poa pratensis 2 N FAC X Prevalence index is 53.0* 7 Glyceria canadensis 1 N OBL Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 Pastinaca sativa 1 N supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 Cirsium arvense 0.1 N FACU _separate sheet) 10 Ambrosia artemisiifolia 0.1 N FACU Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 77.2 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) "Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-C3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 1 N 2.5 Mucky silty clay loam 12 N 2.5 silty clay *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _Histisol(A1) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _ _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfi (A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) _deIron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) X 2 cm Muck(A10) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Other(explain in remarks) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reauired:check all that amply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Surface Soil Cracks(86) X High Water Table(A2) True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _(C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — _Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) —(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 4 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No Depth(inches): hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&Amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-C2 Investigator(s): DH Section,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur laom JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Populus deltoides 1 FAC that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) 1 =Total Cover Saoling/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 60 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 3 x 1= 3 3 FACW species 90 x 2= 180 4 FAC species 4 x 3= 12 5 FACU species 2 x 4= 8 60 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 99 (A) 203 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 30 V FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.05 2 Pastinaca sativa 7 N 3 Glyceria canadensis 3 N OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Poa pratensis 3 N FAC Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Cirsium arvense 1 N FACU X Dominance test is>50% 6 Lepidium campestre 1 N X Prevalence index is 53.0' 7 Asclepias syriaca 1 N FACU Morphogical adaptations"(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 _separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' 46 =Total Cover _(explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-C2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 2 10YR 2/1 Silty clay loam 10 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 4/4 10 C M Clay 20 10YR 2/1 Clay • *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) _Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) -2 cm Muck(A10) X Depleted Matrix(F3) Other(explain in remarks) —Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that aooly) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) —High Water Table(A2) True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _(C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(85) _(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 945 Willow View Dr City/County: Long Lake Sampling Date: 6/15/2013 Applicant/Owner: Tim&amy Hubbard State: MN Sampling Point: SP-C3 Investigator(s): DH Section,Township,Range: T118N R23W S28 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex,none): None Slope(%): Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name Le Sueur laom JWI Classification: PEMC Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y F yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation is 4.74"above normal for the season to date from April 1st at MSP. VEGETATION--Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Populus deltoides 1 FAC that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66.67% (NB) 1 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix interior 60 Y FACW Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 36 x 1= 36 3 FACW species 65 x 2= 130 4 FAC species 3 x 3= 9 5 FACU species 30.2 x 4= 120.8 60 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 134.2 (A) 295.8 (B) 1 Solidago canadensis 30 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.20 2 Juncus effusus 20 Y OBL 3 Carex interior 15 N OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Phalaris arundinacea 5 N FACW _Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Lepidium campestre 3 N X Dominance test is>50% 6 Poa pratensis 2 N FAC X Prevalence index is 553.0" 7 Glyceria canadensis 1 N OBL Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 Pastinaca sativa 1 N supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 Cirsium arvense 0.1 N FACU separate sheet) 10 Ambrosia artemisiifolia 0.1 N FACU Problematic hydrophytic vegetation" 77.2 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION SECTION Plant Indicator Status INDICATOR CATEGORIES* Obligate Wetland (OBL)—Occur almost always (estimated probability>99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW)—Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative(FAC)—Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% - 66%). Facultative Upland (FACU)—Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67%- 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%). Obligate Upland (UPL)—Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimated probability>99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands in the region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the National List. *Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Minnesota. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION SECTION Soil Series Descriptions Acquired from Natural Resource Conservation Service Website,Official Soil Series Descriptions LE SUEUR SERIES The Le Sueur series consists of very deep,somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on moraines.These soils have moderate permeability.Their slopes range from 1 to 3 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 29 inches.Mean annual air temperature is about 47 degrees F. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,mesic Aquic Argiudolls TYPICAL PEDON: Le Sueur clay loam with a 2 percent plane slope on glacial till plain in a pastured woodlot. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) Ap--0 to 12 inches;black(10YR 2/1) clay loam, dark grayish brown(10YR 4/2) dry; moderate medium granular blocky structure parting to moderate fine subangular; friable; about 2 percent gravel; slightly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 12 inches thick) AB--12 to 17 inches; very dark gray(10YR 3/1) and about 25 percent dark yellowish brown(10YR 4/4)clay loam, grayish brown(10YR 5/2) dry; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; friable; about 2 percent gravel; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 8 inches thick) Btl--17 to 24 inches; olive brown(2.5Y 4/3) clay loam; moderate medium prismatic structure parting to strong fine subangular blocky; friable; common dark brown(10YR 3/3) clay films on faces of peds; about 2 percent gravel; few fine faint dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) Fe depletions; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. Bt2--24 to 37 inches; olive brown(2.5Y 4/3) clay loam; weak medium prismatic structure parting to moderate fine subangular blocky; friable; common very dark grayish brown(2.5Y 3/2)clay films on faces of peds and in pores; about 4 percent gravel; few fine faint grayish brown(2.5Y 5/2) Fe depletions and few fine prominent dark yellowish brown(10YR 4/6) Fe concentrations; neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 16 to 45 inches.) Bk--37 to 46 inches; light olive brown(2.5Y 5/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common light gray pale brown(2.5Y 7/2) soft masses of carboante throughout and carbonate threads; about 5 percent gravel; common medium distinct grayish brown(2.5Y 5/2) Fe depletions and common medium distinct light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6) Fe concentrations; strongly effervescent; slightly alkaline; clear smooth boundary. C--46 to 80 inches; grayish brown(2.5Y 5/2) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure parting to massive; friable; common light gray pale brown(2.5Y 7/2) soft masses of carbonate throughout and carbonate threads; about 5 percent gravel; many common medium prominent dark yellowish brown(10YR 4/4) and dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) Fe concentrations; strongly effervescent; slightly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Waseca County, Minnesota; about 9 miles south of Waseca; 2000 feet south and 1950 feet south of northwest corner of sec. 26, T. 108 N., R. 22 W.; USGS Morrisontown quadrangle; lat. 44 degrees 7 minutes 57 seconds N. and long. 93 degrees 26 minutes 45 seconds W.,NAD27. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Depth to free carbonates ranges from 22 to 55 inches. The thickness of the mollic epipedon ranges from 10 to 18 inches. Rock fragment content is 1 to 8 percent by volume throughout and is of mixed lithology. The A horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 or 2. The A horizon is clay loam, loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam. It has 20 to 30 percent clay. It is moderately acid to neutral. An E horizon as much as 3 inches thick is in some pedons. The AB horizon has characteristics similar to the A and the Bt. The upper part of the Bt horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 or 3. The lower part of the Bt horizon has a hue of 2.5Y, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 2 to 4. The Bt horizon is mostly clay loam or loam. The argillic horizon averages between 24 and 35 percent clay and from 15 to 40 percent fine sand or coarser. The Bt horizon is strongly acid to slightly acid in the upper part and strongly acid to neutral in the lower part. The bulk density ranges from 1.30 to 1.45 gm/cc. Some pedons have a BC or Bk horizon. The C horizon has hue of 2.5Y or 5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 4. It is loam or clay loam. It is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline. The bulk density ranges from 1.45 to 1.60 gm/cc. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Andres,Aurand(T), Aztalan, Crane, Darroch, Gilboa, Houstenader(T), La Hogue, Marcellon, Mokena, Nachusa, Nenno, Newhaven, Odell, Protivin, Tiderishi, Vigar, and Wilmer series. The Aurand(T) and Tiderishi series are presently not in the OSD file. The Andres,Aztalan, and Mokena soils have silty clay loam lower B and C horizons. Aztalan soils also have hue of 7.5YR in the B and C horizons. Crane soils have more than 8 percent rock fragments in the lower part of the argillic horizon. Darroch soils have C horizons of stratified silty and sandy sediments within the series control section. Gilboa soils have silt loam and silty clay loam in the upper part of the series control section. Houstenader soils have 30 to 40 percent gravel in the lower third of the series control section. La Hogue soils have less than 20 percent clay in the lower part of the series control section. Marcellon soils have less than 24 percent clay in the argillic horizon.Nachusa soils do not have rock fragments in the upper part of the series control section.Nenno soils have more than 8 percent rock fragments in the lower part of the series control section. Newhaven soils do not have free carbonates in the series control section. Odell soils have hue of 10YR in the lower B and C horizons and higher chroma in the upper B horizon. Protivin soils have bulk density greater than 1.60 gm/cc in the lower part of the series control section. Vigar soils have a mollic epipedon greater than 24 inches thick. Wilmer soils have more than 40 percent fine sand or coarser in the argillic horizon. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Le Sueur soils have slightly concave,plane, or slightly convex slopes on moraines within the Des Moines lobe and Grantsburg sublobe of the Late Wisconsin glaciation. They formed in a calcareous, loamy till. Slopes range from 1 to 3 percent. Mean annual air temperature ranges from 45 to 52 degrees F. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 25 to 32 inches. Frost-free days range from 125 to 165. Elevation above sea level ranges from 700 to 1600 feet. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: The main ones are the Cordova, Lester, and Hamel soils. These soils formed in materials similar to the Le Sueur soils and are members of a hydrosequence with the Le Sueur soils. The poorly drained Cordova and Hamel soils are common associates on adjacent nearly level slopes. The well drained Lester soils are the most common associate on the undulating to gently undulating slopes. The well drained Hayden soils and the poorly drained Dundas soils are associates in some places. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained. Surface runoff is low. Permeability is moderate. An apparent water table is at 1.5 to 2.5 feet during November to June in most years. USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly under cultivation with corn, soybeans, grain, and hay the principal crops.Native vegetation was deciduous forest, dominantly elm, basswood, and maple in some areas, and oak with prairie and brush understory in the timber outliers within the prairie. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: South-central Minnesota and north-central Iowa. This soil is extensive. MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Le Sueur County, Minnesota, 1944. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: mollic epipedon-the zone from the surface to 13 inches(A and AB horizons); argillic horizon- the zone from 13 to 41 inches(Bt horizons); aquic subgroup-hue of 10YR and chroma of 2 immediately below mollic epipedon. Somewhat poorly drained matches depth to redox(2 chroma at 17 inches) and taxonomic class(Aquic subgroup)closer than the previous moderately well drained class. Photo Log 945 Willow View Dr svoBoDA Ecological Resources Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources&Environmental Consulting 3 `' triot5mo i''• x`:. : y »" 1 •' , 2" ♦ .. .� �V1 c • ' (,. I _>. '-.a „4.,'.5� - �� 'r': " ' ' '" '•1: 'e. • •',.: -.. 4 :iive , ,1 t .:4 t' F 4-i` In q ,C` '�' ' �A 1 ''. l, '''..; .\ " . '- ..0‘ -�.» y Ft*. Y A' Ail:, - 3 t `�.,",.X. p µ''it ",P* £ . 3,r ti ,y A 4 :iy� 1s,. • `... *..--11 ' J.• 1..4.19. 1T�G � M...`L1- I .:' ^ts.��k J.� q!',\.. Wetland A typical view of the permanently inundated wetland taken from the east facing west. Photo taken near SP- Al. -t„-.^. \ u 4'41' 7�• >-•tt .f 4 S'1 ? .1 4. •,‘;:;,1,1:: .n. .<” \, �' ., 1'7. s, ;s n a r 1•_` ,f,*, ' , rr „qz. f y rJ`` f ,+ � ,, i.. 4E I.a t yx l / _ �� t jw �;s �� 4 ]1 CV. A. 1 4 t,r. . ` re •.. 3,.` ! r.,, 7 � rr � \.�� t d •t yk ,.': "-?..1,.A,1:.f - ,r` t a.: •.,'� ' s4 1 r .^r' 4f F • d 1 ( s.s., '.,y. , M Y f t o / 4k , L.:44' "', ,:t ••' + -`teli r t 4 :4 `/ ✓' e� 1':'(' 4'' '' !} ;}\. .` i' �4/",:i j.,{ *,or' nail'• ' t .. r 1 1- �« .4° ,,� M1���''.- 4 i4�'":., ! .1 o f .,x.J f 7i • _ .1 i' I.' •Ao-. tts a_ Wetland View of transect at SP-A. SP-A1 is the pink flag photo left, SP-A2 is the pink flag photo center and SP-A3 is on the right. Salix and reeds canary grass on the left gives way to more upland species on the right. ,41:01'.1. ' � ..•' - .' 1:1'14.417„.741:, yv 4kt 45 ti ; rC - 2,*- e" 1' 1 t rp #. ( >x a- �,` ,,t. W,�J 1 �f+ > -/'-1.''''' .y,1 fi r,. t „` • 1 • Yv ,... , ^n. ! yt...e,,,.:4,' ✓;;,,tY fit+ 1.41.- .i4l . �« . . ,,, r V „,A . t,., Sx !^ £ _• J.,.f ? ,1 .'-=s➢' f '�c^^t`1.1 7 4" ' u [ 3 ( 4,F, ,, i.' �: , :as' "'{n P 'T Wetland View of sample transect SP-B, facing east to west. SP-B3 is pink flag photo left and SP-B2 is the pink flag photo center . Vegetation is too thick in this photo to see SP-B1. Ground slopes down from left to right. 'n df "..."'t '1swry sL n"+ a ' > •. t y'yN tz �� t• orf' t ''a`'� j� i,d' ^4` X4 ,1 •1 \� 1"4',,4 ,,,,. 4./ i' sa... • ;��:�'� r`� !�r L.,,,, -��. .,�; � i ter, tel{ �r. '�,d t•ts , '- ' t N.:� ..1, >4 by ti i' . C\1^ a af - , ' �'S "Y4 • 4 a f " ,' r`45w �, �., ,5 ' ' \.may''/"/(..7;4:4'1..,:':::- .7 ,'' ''j .: ' ta • pt ------:' � Wetland View of sample transecthe facing east to west. SP-C2 is pink flag photo left and SP-C1 is behind the tall grass to the right of the pink flag photo center .