Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2515 North Shore Dr Wetland delineation report 2023BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District County: Hennepin County Applicant Name: Mandeep Sigh Sodhi Applicant Representative: Mary Clare McAleer, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Project Name: 2515 North Shore Drive LGU Project No. (if any): W23-016 Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 5/9/2023 Date of LGU Decision: 6/5/2023 Date this Notice was Sent: 6/6/2023 WCA Decision Type - check all that apply ☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase) ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420) Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only) Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits: ☐ Bank Credits: Bank Account Number(s): Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any) ☐ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☒ No TEP Recommendation LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied List Conditions: Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other: Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify): 1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project- specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid. LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify): ☒ Summary: Mandeep Sigh Sodhi has applied for a Boundary/Type confirmation for the wetland located at 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono. A wetland delineation was conducted by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on April 25th, 2023. One wetland was delineated within the project area as described in the table below. BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2 Wetland # Wetland Type Eggers and Reed Size (ac) 1 Type 3/2 Shallow marsh with wet meadow fringe 0.59 MCWD staff and a representative from Kjolhaug Environmental reviewed the boundaries in the field on May 31st, 2023. MCWD was in agreement with the wetland boundaries and types as flagged on site and shown in the delineation report. MCWD approves the wetland boundaries and types as shown in this delineation report. This decision is valid for five years. A future project located on this property may require a permit from MCWD. 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. Attached Project Documents ☒ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Wetland Delineation Report Appeals of LGU Decisions If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail. The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Send to: Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision? ☒ Yes1 ☐ No 1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process. Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable) Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send petition and $100 fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 wca@minnehahacreek.org Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski – Stacey.Lijewski@hennepin.us ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Jed Chesnut – jed.chesnut@state.mn.us ☐ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): ☒ DNR Representative: Jack Gleason – John.Gleason@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: ☒ Applicant: Mandeep Sigh Sodhi – mandeeps@selectsourceintl.com ☒ Agent/Consultant: Mary Clare McAleer, Kjolhaug Environmental Services – maryclare@kjolhaugenv.com BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 3 Optional or As Applicable: ☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only): ☐ Members of the Public (notice only): ☐ Other: Signature: Date: This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3. 6/6/2023 2515 North Shore Drive City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Mandeep Sodhi by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2023-022) May 9, 2023 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 2 2515 North Shore Drive City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 3 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 4 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 5 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 5 4.4 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 6 4.5 MnRAM Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 6 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 6 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 7 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Information D. MnRAM Results 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 3 2515 North Shore Drive City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY  The 1.46-acre 2515 North Shore Drive site was inspected on April 25, 2023 for the presence and extent of wetlands.  The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed one PEM1C wetland within the site boundaries and one L2UBH wetland along the south site boundary.  The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Tadkee-Tadkee depressional complex and Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils as the hydric soil types mapped within the site boundaries.  The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed Public Water Basin 27-133-10 P (Minnetonka-Crystal) along the southern site boundary and Public Water Basin 27-140- 02 P (Fresh Marsh (South)) approximately 60 feet north of the site boundaries.  The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond along the southern site boundary.  One wetland was delineated onsite as summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Wetlands delineated on the 2515 North Shore Drive site. Wetland ID Wetland Type Dominant Vegetation Onsite Area (ac) Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed 1 Type 3/2 PEM1C/PEM1B Shallow marsh with wet meadow fringe Cattail, reed canary grass with lake sedge fringe 0.59 2. OVERVIEW The 1.46-acre 2515 North Shore Drive site was inspected on April 25th, 2023, for the presence and extent of wetlands. The property was located in Section 9, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, City of Orono, Hennepin County MN. The site was situated west of the intersection between Scotch Pine Lane and North Shore Drive (CR 51) (Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Hennepin County PID 0911723410002 [1.46 ac]. 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 4 The site consisted of a single-family home, a driveway, and a wetland. Topography was highest near the home (952 ft MSL) and from there sloped downhill to the south to Lake Minnetonka (926 ft MSL) and downhill to the north to Wetland 1 (932 ft MSL). Surrounding land use consisted of single-family homes and wetlands. One (1) wetland was delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundary and existing conditions are shown in Figure 2. Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in request for a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). 3. METHODS 3.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest region required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located using Trimble R1 GNSS GPS Units. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2020 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 5 2017. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 4. RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) identified one PEM1C wetland within the site boundaries. An L2UBH wetland was identified along the south site boundary (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Tadkee-Tadkee depressional complex and Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils as the hydric soil types mapped within the site boundaries. All soil types mapped on the property are listed below in Table 3 and a map showing soil types is included in (Figure 4). Table 3. Soil types mapped on the 2515 North Shore Drive site. Symbol Soil Name Acres in AOI % of AOI % Hydric Hydric Category L16A Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.5 36.6% 100% Hydric L61D2 Lester-Metea complex, 12 to18 percent slopes, eroded 0.2 10.7% 3% Predominantly Non-Hydric L64A Tadkee-Tadkee, depressional, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.6 41.5% 92% Predominantly Hydric U2A Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.2 11.2% 0 Non-Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) showed Public Water Basin 27-133-10 P (Minnetonka-Crystal) along the southern site boundary and Public Water Basin 27-140-02 P (Fresh Marsh (South)) approximately 60 feet north of the site boundaries (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond along the southern site boundary (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during a field visit on April 23rd, 2023. One wetland was identified and delineated on the property based on field observations (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following description of the wetland and the adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation had begun to grow and precipitation conditions were atypical (wet) based on the Precipitation 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 6 Worksheet Using Gridded Database method, and above the normal range based on available 30- day rolling total precipitation (Appendix C). Wetland 1 was a Type 3/2 (PEM1C/PEM1B) shallow marsh wetland with a wet meadow fringe. The shallow marsh portion was dominated by reed canary grass and narrowleaf cattail and the wet meadow fringe was dominated by lake sedge. Free water was observed at 15 inches below the soil surface and saturated soils were observed 12 inches below the surface in the wetland sample borehole. Other indicators of wetland hydrology included geomorphic position and the FAC-Neutral Test. The surrounding upland was dominated by Kentucky bluegrass. No primary or additional secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed in the upland. The delineated boundary followed slight changes in topography and the transition from a hydrophytic plant community to an upland plant community. Wetland 1 was shown as a PEM1C on the NWI map and was mapped on hydric soils (Tadkee-Tadkee, depressional, complex and Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils) according to the soil survey. Wetland 1 was connected to the wetland to the west via a driveway culvert. 4.4 Other Areas It was initially suspected the shoreline along the southern boundary might have a wetland fringe but during the site visit no fringe was present. The shoreline consisted of steep sloping rock riprap and abruptly transitioned to an aquatic environment. 4.5 MnRAM Analysis Results A MnRAM analysis were completed for Wetland 1 to determine applied buffer width. MnRAM output results are included in Appendix D. A summary of MnRAM results plus the watershed district applied buffer width is provided in Table 2 on the following page. 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in request for a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). 2515 North Shore Drive, Orono MN Wetland Delineation Report 7 Table 2. MnRAM Analysis Results – 2515 North Shore Drive Function/Type/Classification Wetland 1 Wetland Type Type 3/2 Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Low Hydrology - Characteristic Medium Flood Attenuation Medium Water Quality--Downstream Medium Water Quality--Wetland Medium Shoreline Protection N/A Wildlife Habitat Structure Medium Fish Habitat N/A Amphibian Habitat Low Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural Low Highest Rated Function Medium for Wildlife Habitat Structure MNRAM Management Classification Manage 2 MCWD Management Classification & Associated Buffer Width Manage 2; 24-ft minimum and 30-ft average 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Melissa Barrett – Wetland Scientist/Soil Scientist Mary Clare McAleer – Wetland Delineator Report prepared by: Mary Clare McAleer – Wetland Delineator Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: May 9, 2023 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 2515 North Shore Drive Orono, MN Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset North Shore Drive (CR 51) S c o t c h P i n e L a n e French Creek Drive Crystal Bay- Lake Minnetonka © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons !(!( Wetland 1 (0.59 ac.) 9 3 2 9 4 2 9 3 2 932 9 5 4 9 3 0 926 928 930 932 9 3 2 9 5 0 9 4 6 9 4 8 9 4 4 952 9 3 2 942 9 4 0 9 3 8 9 3 6 9 3 4 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2020 Metro Photo) 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Wetlan d L ine Hennepin C ounty Lidar Culvert !(Sa mp le Po ints Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons Circular 39 Cowardin Egge rs and Re e d 1 T ype 3/2 PEM1C/PEM1B Shallow marsh, wet meadow Cattail, reed canary grass, lake sedge 0.59 We tland TypeWetland ID Dom inant V e ge tation Onsite Are a (ac) PEM1C L2UBH PEM1C L1UBH Figure 3 - National Wet lands Inventory 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 200 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Hennepin County NWI L1UBH L2UBH PEM1C Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USFWS Muskego, Blue Ea rth, andHoughton soils, ponded,0 to 1 percent slopes Crowfork loamysand, 1 to 6percent slopes Tadkee-Tadke e,depressional,comple x, 0 to 2percent slope s Udorthents, wetsubstratum, 0 to2 percent slopes Wa te r Lester-Metea complex,12 to 18 percentslopes, erode d Figure 4 - Soil Survey 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Hydric/Pred ominantly Hydric Pa rtia lly Hydric Pred ominan tly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS See narrative for soil series information. Minnetonka-Crystal Bay (27-133-10 P) French Marsh (South) (27-140-02 P) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 200 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Pu blic Ditch/Altere d N atu ra l Wa tercou rse Pu blic Wate rco urse Pu blic Wate rs Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset 2515 North Shore Drive (KES 2023-022)Orono, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Hydro Ju nctio n Artificial Path Canal/Ditch Lake/Po nd Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USGS 2515 North Shore Drive Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota 2515 North Shore Drive Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A) (B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): Mary Clare M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Mandeep Sodhi State: Hillslope- Toeslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Tadkee-Tadkee, depressional complex, 0-2% slopes NWI Classification: 2-4% Lat: Long:-Datum:- X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Climatic conditions are atypical (wet) this time of year based on the gridded database. The upland sample point was taken in the managed lawn with significantly distrubed vegetation, resulting in not normal circumstances. N Dominant Species Indicator Status 0 0 100 300 0 3.00 100 300 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Poa pratensis 100 Y FAC (Plot size: 5 Y 0 2515 North Shore Drive Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 100 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: NAD 1983 UTM 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 1 0 0 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 4/25/2023 Sampling Point:SP1-UplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex S: 9, T:117N, R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP1-Upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** 0-3 10YR 3/1 100 Clay Loam 3-7 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Dry down to 24 inches under wet conditions. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 7-24 10YR 5/4 100 Sandy Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A) (B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 X Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 4/25/2023 Sampling Point:SP1-WetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave S: 9, T:117N, R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 2515 North Shore Drive Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 100 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: NAD 1983 UTM OBL 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Yes 2 2 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Typha angustifolia 15 N Cornus sericea 5 N FACW Carex lacustris 60 Y OBL (Plot size: 5 Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW 0 1.25 100 125 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 75 75 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 1If yes, optional wetland site ID: Climatic conditions are atypical (wet) this time of year based on the gridded database. Y Dominant Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Tadkee-Tadkee, depressional complex, 0-2% slopes NWI Classification: 0-1% Lat: Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s): Melissa B. and Mary M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Mandeep Sodhi State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X 10YR 5/2 10 D M Saturated at 12 inches during wet conditions. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):15 12 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 12-24 10YR 5/2 100 Silty Clay 4-12 10YR 3/1 80 10YR 4/6 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-Wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region 2515 North Shore Drive Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Information 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1/31 2/15 3/2 3/17 4/1 4/16 Da i l y a n d m o n t h l y t o t a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n c h e s ) daily precip 30d rolling total 30 -day rolling total Climate Conditions 2023 2515 North Shore Drive Orono, MN normal precip range Site Visit:April 25th, 2023 Orono, Minnesota: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2023 Target: T 117N R 23W S 9, Lat: 44.953231 Lon: -93.588012 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre Jan 2023 27 117N 23W 13 BYRG 2.51 Feb 2023 27 117N 23W 13 BYRG 2.76 Mar 2023 27 117N 23W 13 BYRG 1.95 Apr 2023 27 117N 24W 27 BYRG 4.50 February/March/April Daily Records Date Precip. Feb 1, 2023 0 Feb 2, 2023 0 Feb 3, 2023 0 Feb 4, 2023 0 Feb 5, 2023 0 Feb 6, 2023 0 Feb 7, 2023 .10 Feb 8, 2023 0 Feb 9, 2023 0 Feb 10, 2023 0 Feb 11, 2023 0 Feb 12, 2023 0 Feb 13, 2023 0 Feb 14, 2023 .02 Feb 15, 2023 1.25 Feb 16, 2023 0 Feb 17, 2023 0 Feb 18, 2023 0 Feb 19, 2023 0 Feb 20, 2023 .05 Feb 21, 2023 0 Feb 22, 2023 .38 Feb 23, 2023 .62 Feb 24, 2023 0 Feb 25, 2023 .01 Feb 26, 2023 0 Feb 27, 2023 .30 Feb 28, 2023 .03 1991-2020 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.47 0.53 1.12 2.14 3.11 3.52 2.90 2.82 2.09 1.42 0.93 0.78 17.81 27.91 28.88 70% 1.20 1.12 1.84 3.17 4.97 4.95 5.03 5.63 4.33 3.36 1.60 1.48 23.25 34.37 34.03 mean 0.83 0.88 1.52 2.78 4.24 4.55 4.12 4.32 3.34 2.60 1.53 1.19 20.57 31.90 31.86 Date Precip. Mar 1, 2023 0 Mar 2, 2023 .08 Mar 3, 2023 0 Mar 4, 2023 0 Mar 5, 2023 0 Mar 6, 2023 .36 Mar 7, 2023 .02 Mar 8, 2023 0 Mar 9, 2023 0 Mar 10, 2023 0 Mar 11, 2023 0 Mar 12, 2023 0 Mar 13, 2023 .62 Mar 14, 2023 0 Mar 15, 2023 0 Mar 16, 2023 0 Mar 17, 2023 0 Mar 18, 2023 .24 Mar 19, 2023 0 Mar 20, 2023 0 Mar 21, 2023 0 Mar 22, 2023 0 Mar 23, 2023 0 Mar 24, 2023 0 Mar 25, 2023 0 Mar 26, 2023 .19 Mar 27, 2023 0 Mar 28, 2023 0 Mar 29, 2023 0 Mar 30, 2023 0 Mar 31, 2023 .44 Date Precip. Apr 1, 2023 - Apr 2, 2023 - Apr 3, 2023 1.25 Apr 4, 2023 0 Apr 5, 2023 .13 Apr 6, 2023 .02 Apr 7, 2023 0 Apr 8, 2023 0 Apr 9, 2023 0 Apr 10, 2023 T Apr 11, 2023 0 Apr 12, 2023 0 Apr 13, 2023 0 Apr 14, 2023 0 Apr 15, 2023 .12 Apr 16, 2023 .58 Apr 17, 2023 .20 Apr 18, 2023 0 Apr 19, 2023 .02 Apr 20, 2023 1.43 Apr 21, 2023 .54 Apr 22, 2023 .02 Apr 23, 2023 0 Apr 24, 2023 0 Apr 25, 2023 0 Site Visit: April 25, 2023 2515 North Shore Drive Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX D MnRAM Results MNRAM 3.2 Wetland Assessment Data Form Page 1 Date Special Features (from list, p.2--enter letter/s)- ____-____-____-____ #1 Community Number (circle each community which represents at least 10% of the wetland) Community Type (wet meadow, marsh) 13B Shallow Marsh ------ Community Proportion (% of total) Dominant Vegetation / Cover Class Invasive/exotic Vegetation / Cover Class Community Quality (E, H, M, L) L 0.1 0 0 0 Community Type (wet meadow, marsh) 13A Sedge Meadow ------ Community Proportion (% of total) Dominant Vegetation / Cover Class Invasive/exotic Vegetation / Cover Class Community Quality (E, H, M, L) M 0.5 0 0 0 Community Type (wet meadow, marsh) -------- Community Proportion (% of total) Dominant Vegetation / Cover Class Invasive/exotic Vegetation / Cover Class Community Quality (E, H, M, L)0 0 0 0 Community Type (wet meadow, marsh) -------- Community Proportion (% of total) Dominant Vegetation / Cover Class Invasive/exotic Vegetation / Cover Class Community Quality (E, H, M, L) -0 0 0 0 Circular 39 Types (primary <TAB> others) Cowardin Types Photo ID 0.5 Medium 0 - 0 - 0 - 0.30 Low - - - - - - 0.14 Low 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - #4 Listed, rare, special plant species? n Y N Y N Y N Y N #5 Rare community or habitat?n Y N Y N Y N Y N #6 Pre-European-settlement conditions? n Y N Y N Y N Y N Average vegetative diversity/integrity: Weighted Average veg. diversity/integrity: Pl a n t C o m m u n i t y # 2 Pl a n t C o m m u n i t y # 3 Pl a n t C o m m u n i t y # 4 * Highest rated community veg. div./integ: 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 10A, 13A, 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B 90% 10% 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 10A, 13A, 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 10A, 13A, 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 10A, 13A, 13B, 12B, 14A, 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B #2 & #3 ~ Describe each community type individually below ~ ~ Describe each community type individually below ~ Pl a n t C o m m u n i t y # 1 Cover Class Class Range 1 0 - 3% 2 3 - 10% 3 10 - 25% 4 25 - 50% 5 50 - 75% 6 75 - 100% Floodplain Forest [1A, 2A, 3A] * Hardwood Swamp [3B] * Coniferous Bog [2A, 4B] * Coniferous Swamp [4B] * Open Bog [1B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 7A, 9A, 10A] * Calcareous Fen [7B, 11B, 14A] * Shrub Swamp [6B] * Alder Thicket [8A] * Shrub-carr [8B] * Sedge Meadow [10B, 11A, 12A, 13A] * Shallow Marsh [13B] * Deep Marsh [12B] * Wet to Wet-Mesic Prairie [14B, 15A] * Fresh (Wet) Meadow [15B] * Shallow, Open Water [9B, 16A] * Seasonally Flooded Basin [16B] *If there are more than four plant community types, use the next column over to enter the rest and do not rely on the automatic average calculations. Wetland name / ID ___Wetland 1________ Wetland name / ID ___________________ Wetland name / ID __________________ Wetland name / ID __________________ Score_sheet_V3_2 - Copy (2)Vegetative Diversity Integrity 5/2/2023 MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3637 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P MnRAM 3.2 Digital Worksheet, Side 2 Question Description Rating Highest-rated: 1 Veg. Table 2, Option 4 0.14 0.5 TOTAL VEG Rating 0.14 L 4 Listed, rare, special plant species?n next 5 Rare community or habitat?n next 6 Pre-European-settlement conditions?n next 7 hydrogeo & topo #N/A 8 Water depth (inches) Water depth (% inundation) 9 Local watershed/immedita drainage (acres) 10 Existing wetland size 0.59 11 SOILS: Up/Wetland (survey classification + site) 12 Outlet characteristics for flood retention B 0.5 13 Outlet characteristics for hydrologic regime A 1 14 Dominant upland land use (within 500 ft)C 0.1 1 15 Soil condition (wetland) A 1 16 Vegetation (% cover)100%H 1 17 Emerg. veg. flood resistance N/A 0 18 Sediment delivery B 0.5 19 Upland soils (based on soil group)C 1 20 Stormwater runoff pretreatment & detention B 0.5 0.5 21 Subwatershed wetland density C 0.1 22 Channels/sheet flow A 1 23 Adjacent naturalized buffer average width (feet)20 L WQ 0.1 L 0.1 24 Adjacent Area Management: % Full 0%0 2 0.3 adjacent area mgmt: % Manicured 50%0.25 adjacent area mgmt: % Bare 50%0.05 25 Adjacent Area Diversity & Structure: % Native 0%0 1 0.1 adjacent area diversity: % Mixed 0%0 adjacent area diversity: % Sparse/Inv./Exotic 100%0.1 26 Adjacent Area Slope: % Gentle 100%1 1 1 adjacent area slope: % Moderate 0%0 adjacent area slope: % Steep 0%0 27 Downstream sensitivity/WQ protection A 1 28 Nutrient loading B 0.5 29 Shoreline wetland? N N 30 Rooted shoreline vegetation (%cover )Enter a percentage 31 Wetland in-water width (in feet, average)Enter a percentage 32 Emergent vegetation erosion resistance Enter valid choice 33 Shoreline erosion potential Enter valid choice 34 Bank protection/upslope veg. Enter valid choice 35 Rare Wildlife N N 36 Scarce/Rare/S1/S2 local community N N 37 Vegetation interspersion cover (see diagram 1)1 L 0.1 38 Community interspersion (see diagram 2)1 L 0.1 0 39 Wetland detritus A 1 40 Wetland interspersion on landscape A 1 1 41 Wildlife barriers B 0.5 42 Amphibian breeding potential-hydroperiod A 1 43 Amphibian breeding potential--fish presence A 1 44 Amphibian & reptile overwintering habitat N/A 0 45 Wildlife species (list) 46 Fish habitat quality N/A N/A 47 Fish species (list) 48 Unique/rare educ./cultural/rec.opportunity N N 49 Wetland visibility B 0.5 50 Proximity to population N 0.1 51 Public ownership C 0.1 52 Public access C 0.1 53 Human influence on wetland B 0.5 54 Human influence on viewshed B 0.5 55 Spatial buffer C 0.1 56 Recreational activity potential C 0.1 57 Commercial crop--hydrologic impact N/A N/A Di g i t a l w o r k s h e e t , s e c t i o n I I Di g i t a l w o r k s h e e t , s e c t i o n I User entry This comes in from Side 1 automatically using the weighted average. To use the highest rated veg. Community rating, please manually overwrite that value (shown to the right) into the field at E5. Enter data starting here. Yellow boxes are used in calculations. Scroll down to answer more questions and see formula calculations Score_sheet_V3_2 - Copy (2)1 5/2/2023 MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P 58 GW - Wetland soils - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 59 GW - Subwatershed land use - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 60 GW - Wetland size and soil group - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 61 GW - Wetland hydroperiod - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 62 GW - Inlet/Outlet configuration - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 63 GW - Surrounding upland topographic relief - R or D Enter "R" or "D" 64 Restoration potential w/o flooding Y or N 0 65 Landowners affected by restoration E a b c Enter valid choice 66A Existing wetland size (acres) [from #10]0.59 __ acres 66B Total wetland restoration size (acres) __ acres 0.1 66C (Calculated) Potential New Wetland Area [B-A] -0.59 __ acres #### 67 Average width of naturalized upland buffer (potential)0 __ feet 0.1 value: #### 68 Likelihood of restoration success a b c Enter valid choice 69 Hydrologic alteration type Outlet, Tile, Ditch, GW pump, Wtrshd div., Filling 70 Potential wetland type (Circ. 39) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 71 Wetland sensitivity to stormwater E a b c 72 Additional stormwater treatment needs a b c Function Name Formula shown to the right. Vegetative Diversity/Integrity 0.14 L Hydrology - Characteristic 0.65 Med Flood Attenuation 0.64 Med Water Quality--Downstream 0.51 Med Water Quality--Wetland 0.34 Med Shoreline Protection N/A N/A Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure 0.46 0.46 Med Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat ######N/A N/A Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat 0.22 Low Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural 0.25 0.25 Low Commercial use N/A N/A 0 Special Features listing: - ____ Groundwater Interaction recharge Groundwater Functional Index no special indicators Restoration Potential (draft formula) #VALUE! ##### Stormwater Sensitivity (not active) Ad d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s % effectively drained: Fi n a l Ra t i n g Ra t i n g Ca t e g o r y Fu n c t i o n a l R a t i n g S u m m a r i e s Ra w sc o r e Score_sheet_V3_2 - Copy (2)3 5/2/2023