HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinnesota Wetland Conservation Act V �
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings Report
Date(s)of Site Januray 9th,2018 LGU: MCWD
Visit/Meeting:
County: Hennepin LGU Contact: Heidi Quinn
- Project Name: MCWD 17-611 Phone#: 952-641-4504
Location of Project: 1140 Wyndmere Drive,Orono Email haulnn@minnehahacreek.org
(attach map if possible) Address:
TEP ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES:
LGU:Heidi Quinn,MCWD City of Orono:Melanie Curtis Property Owner:David Gagne
SWCD: City of Orono:Laura Oakden
BWSR:Ben Carlson MCWD:Cole Thompson
DNR: Sall Investigations:Paul Brandt
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF MEETING:
On January 9«',2018 TEP members from MCWD,BWSR,and the City of Orono met onsite with soil specialist Paul
Brandt and land owner David Gagne to discuss the findings of the 2007 delinewation report prepared by Svoboda
Ecological Resources(Prosect Number:2007-029-03 dated June 215".2007). The delination report was not submitted
for WCA Boundary&Type Confirmation and MCWD as the LGU does not have record of a NOD.Two areas were
investigated in the delination report. Wetland One was identifiesd as a Type 2/3 Shallow Marsh adlacent to a small
creek. Sample point SP-A was investigated and determined to not meet wetland criteria,however,since 2007 the field
data forms have been updated to include additional secondary hydrology Indicators. The TEP met onsite to determine
if the area around sample point SP-A would meet wetland criteria.
TYPE OF MEETING:checkomoppllcobte
❑ Office ® On-Site ❑ Phone Conference ❑ E-Mail ❑ Other:
TEP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS':
Two soil samples were taken at the meeting to determine if hydric soils around SP-A were present Boring 1 was taken
approximatly 60 feet south of the property line and near the 986'elevation countour. Boring 2 was taken
approximately 100 feet to the west of Boring 1(see attached survey mark-up for approximate locations). Boring 1
showed hydric soils and the potential for saturation at five to six feet. Boring 2 did not meet hydric soil criteria and
saturation was not observed. The TEP concurred that although vegetation was not observable during the visit,that
there were no primary hydrology indicators or two secondary hydrology indicators present,therefore SP-A area did not
meet wetland criteria.
SIGNATURES h
011818 ^'C""" 1/18/2018
-----•--.•--- --•• - City of Orono
Date BWSR Representative Date
Do not concur ❑ Do not concur ❑
1 TEP Findings should be a meaningful concise summary detailing the project conditions,technical data,and what rules apply.
The TEP recommendation should be clear,based on rule and best professional judgement.
Rev.12/17/2013
LGU Representative Date DNR Representative Date
Do not concur ❑ Do not concur ❑
i
TEP Findings should be a meaningful concise summary detailing the project conditions,technical data,and what rules apply.
The TEP recommendation should be clearbased on rule and best professional judgement.
Rev.12/17/2013
�Ale►tland 1
s
SP 1-1 Up
i
SP-A
SP 1,1 Wet
1
-rtofth N Approximate Wetiand Boundary Map �,.,,�,"��,,
Pert of the NE Y of the 8E Y+
of$90on 20,7118N.azsw Overlaid on 2004 Aerial Photography UdvsrswTnmr z srBou " a
QApproximate Parcel Boundary H«m Cdwy�oun� `
z. 7 r_ ''E i * sample Pointe Parcel llatabtae
SVC B 3fi� 0 Approximate Wetland Boundary 300 1150 WSmdmare Rd r
Resources � Orono,MN
*,",, Ecological Faure 5
1
f
s
IN
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DAVID GAGNE
OF LOT 2.BLOCK 1,WYNDMERE 2ND ADDITION
HENNEPIN COUNTY.MINNESOTA \\ \
IN
IN i i -`!-!n it x t IN021- r
4T 63` i ®
r \N 6Y
\
nvom IMAM":h-ft) �:► - ,r f t i=ce{ _mac' �j'-'_- _ ;�;:= 2_{iR7j
w wvmmm 2w mmo
------------
pw;: ...w.dW".,-w..rt :.......ra«a.. ar /r a..-'ir---. ,.�.- � -RIG'-`�,.�,..�_ _....------
- --: `..w.d.*4 aw..,t—cltr w&—-M �.w ` - - - 0011 T pog'M
,saw
sr•.+Aq s...b......r
7bb.nr.ry t.rs Y M WIM.p..M tft ft~ Y.
.wy...4-.M1 yr de1y�r w)ti r 1. -
rwM tw..4 W•...1Mp.t Asr M ppMl M Yw.wy.tlw k
t O.IIVOOtl..�h \\
1�
t