The URL can be used to link to this page

6_WetlandPermitApplication COMPILED_Holasek_2018-10-19October 17, 2018 Sambatek Project #21274 Wetland Permit Application -OF- Holasek Farms Chanhassen, MN -FOR- Eden Trace Corporation Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 1 Eden Trace Corporation Wetland Permit Application Holasek Farms Development Chanhassen, Minnesota Table of Contents SUMMARY OF PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 2 SEQUENCING DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Site Design ................................................................................................................ 4 Proposed Wetland Impacts .................................................................................................. 4 Wetland Impact Avoidance ...................................................................................................... 5 No Build Alternative .............................................................................................................. 5 Wetland Impact Minimization .................................................................................................. 5 Alternative Site Design #1 ................................................................................................... 5 Wetland Impact Rectification .................................................................................................. 5 Wetland Impact Reduction and Elimination Over Time ...................................................... 6 Sequencing Flexibility ............................................................................................................... 6 NON-REGULATED WETLANDS ......................................................................................................... 7 Incidental Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 7 Aerial Photograph Review .................................................................................................... 7 WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................... 8 Mitigation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 9 FIGURES Location Map APPENDICIES Appendix A - Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Appendix B – Site Plan (Grading Plan) Appendix C – Alternative Site Plan Appendix D – Wetland Bank Credits Purchase Agreements Appendix E – Interim Use Permit for Top Soil Mining Appendix F – Wetland Delineation Report Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 2 Eden Trace Corporation SUMMARY OF PROJECT The Applicant (Eden Trace Corporation) is proposing an industrial development on the parcel identified by Carver County as PID # 250210100. The development will consist of three industrial buildings with the associated parking spaces and driveways. The project area is approximately 49.75 acres located along Lyman Boulevard near the City of Chanhassan and City of Chaska border. The proposed project is located within NE1/4 of Section 21, T116N, R23W, City of Chanhassan, and Carver County, Minnesota. The project area is located within Bank Service Area 9, the Lower Minnesota River (#33) major watershed and an unnamed minor watershed. The Subject Property currently consists of agricultural fields, former building pads, wooded areas, and wetlands . The site was first delineated by Braun Intertec in 2005. The 2005 delineation identified one Type 3 / 4 wetland located that encompasses one-fifth of the western portion of the property. In 2008, what appears to be a stormwater pond was constructed in the northeast corner of the Subject Property. In 2015, all of the structures were removed from the Subject Property and a portion of the adjacent agricultural field was excavated as part of a top soil mining operation (Please see Appendix E – Interim Use Permit for Top Soil Mining). Pinnacle Engineering performed a wetland delineation of the site in August 2017 to get an update of the existing conditions on the Subject Property. The Pinnacle Engineering Wetland Delineation Report dated August 25, 2017 identifies five wetlands on the site. These wetlands are identified as Wetlands 1 - 5. Wetlands 2 and 3 are situated within the area disturbed for the construction of the stormwater pond in 2008. Wetland 5 is located on a portion of the Subject Property where several buildings existed prior to 2015. Wetland 1 is situated within the excavated portion of the agricultural fields. The boundaries of Wetland 4 are similar to the wetland boundaries identified in the 2005 Braun Intertec report. Based on the 2005 wetland delineation report and a review of the available aerial imagery, Sambatek believes that Wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 5 were created for purposes other than to create a wetland and should be considered “incidental”. The proposed project complies with the wetland compensation requirements of the WCA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is enforced by the USACOE. A total of 104,938 SF (2.41 acres) of wetland will be impacted by the commercial development. The wetland impact is due to the grading of a lot for a housing pad and the construction of an infiltration basin. The applicant will provide 209,876 SF (4.82 acres) of wetland mitigation will be provided at a 2:1 replacement ratio in the form of 3.2647 wetland bank credits from Wetland Bank #1468, which is located in Le Sueur County, the Minnesota River – Shakopee (#33) major watershed and Bank Service Area 9. 0.8512 acres of credit will come from Wetland Bank #1650 which is located within Lyon County, the Minnesota River – Granite Falls (#25) major watershed and Bank Service Area #9. The remaining 0.7041 acres of credit will come from Wetland Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 3 Eden Trace Corporation Bank #1605, which is located within Stevens County, the Pomme de Terre (#23) major watershed and Bank Service Area #9. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION In accordance with the WCA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the applicant has made an effort to avoid and minimize wetland impacts for the proposed development, while maintaining the wetland’s functions and values. Wetland replacement is proposed in situations where the proposed development will compromise the existing functions and values of the wetlands if avoided or partially impacted. In these cases the applicant will provide wetland mitigation that exhibits greater or equal wetland functions and values than those of the impacted wetlands. In order for the Local Government Unit (City of Shakopee) to consider or approve this wetland permit application; the applicant must demonstrate that the activity impacting a wetland has complied with all of the following principles in descending order: 1) avoidance of direct or indirect impacts to the wetland 2) minimizes the impact to the wetland by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity 3) rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland 4) reduces or eliminates the impact to the wetland over time by preservation and maintenance operations 5) replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or, if wetland restoration opportunities are not reasonably available, creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value Flexibility in the application of these sequencing principles (referred to as sequencing flexibility) may be applied to a project, as determined by the LGU if the following applies: 1) the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to a point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2) preservation of a wetland would result in severe degradation of the wetland’s ability to function and provide values, for example, because of surrounding land uses the wetland’s ability to function and provide public values cannot reasonably be maintained through other land use controls or mechanisms; 3) the only feasible or prudent upland that is available for wetland replacement or development has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetland 4) the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. According to Minnesota Rules 8420.0520, Subpart 7a, sequencing flexibility cannot be implemented unless alternatives have been considered and unless the proposed replacement wetland is certain to provide equal or greater functions and public values based on a functional assessment reviewed by the TEP using a methodology approved by BWSR. Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 4 Eden Trace Corporation The applicant is asking that sequencing flexibility be applied to the proposed project. Additional details regarding the justification for sequencing flexibility are provided in the Sequencing Flexibility section of this application. Proposed Site Design The proposed site design has been designed to meet the needs of planned and potential tenants. The proposed site design involves the construction of three office/warehouse buildings. The northernmost building (Building A) is a design build project for Retail Tech, Inc., a local company needing a larger facility due to their growing operations. The construction of this building is scheduled to begin as soon as permits are in place. The middle building (Building B) is designed and sized to move some of the Applicant’s current tenants to a new facility, as they outgrow the buildings they currently occupy. The southernmost building (Building C) was originally planned as 190,00 SF building for use as a multi-tenant building, however the size of this building was reduced to 170,000 SF to minimize impacts to wetlands. The Applicant is currently working with a group to do a design build project for Building C in the spring of 2020. Proposed Wetland Impacts A total of 199,376 SF (4.58 acres) of wetland impacts is proposed due to the construction of the one of the industrial buildings and the grading of the site. 104,938 SF (2.41 acres) of the proposed impact is to natural wetlands while the remaining 94,438 SF (2.16 acres) acres of wetland impact occurs to wetlands that have been excavated without the intention of creating a wetland and therefore are considered “incidental”. The wetland impacts break down as follows:  Wetland Impact A – This impact is caused by the construction of a 109,250 SF building (Proposed Building B), the road, and the north parking lot. The remainder of the wetland will be impacted due grading of the site that will be necessary as part of the construction process. This impacts 92,812 SF (2.13 acres) of Wetland 1, which appears to be an incidental wetland that was created within an agricultural field during the excavation of the site.  Wetland Impact B – This impact involves 1,626 SF of impact to Wetland 5 and is caused by the construction of Proposed Building B and the associated parking lot. Based on the aerial photo review, Wetland 5 appears to be an “incidental” wetland that was created during the deconstruction of the greenhouse and nursery on the Subject Property.  Wetland Impact C – This site of impact is caused by the construction of a 178,600 SF building and the associated parking lot. Wetland Impact C occurs to the natural wetland, Wetland 4. Wetland 4 was delineated as a Type 2, 3 (PEM1A/ PEM1C), Fresh (wet) Meadow/Shallow Marsh.  Wetland Impact D – Wetland D is due to the grading of the Subject Property in preparation for the proposed building pads. This impact is occurs to Wetland 4. Wetland impacts C and D impact 104,938 SF (2.41 acres) of Wetland 4. Mitigation for the proposed impacts will be provided in the form of 3.2647 acres of SWC from BWSR and COE approved wetland bank #1468, 0.8512 acres from BWSR and COE approved wetland bank #1650, and 0.7041 acres from BWSR and COE approved wetland bank # 1605. The proposed wetland bank credits will provide wetland functions and values of greater quality than those exhibited by Wetland 4. Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 5 Eden Trace Corporation Wetland Impact Avoidance No Build Alternative A no-build alternative would require the applicant to maintain this approximately 49.75-acre site, guided for office industrial by the City of Chanhassan’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The no-build alternative would defeat the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the Applicant to develop the site in a manner that is consistent with the City of Chanhassan’s Comprehensive Plan and neighboring land uses. The city’s Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for city decision-makers to better manage growth and services throughout the city. Not allowing the Subject Property to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would defeat the effort that the city has made toward creating a viable plan for the city to develop in a reasonable fashion. The Subject Property was chosen for the proposed industrial development because of its location within existing industrial properties, guided land use by the City of Chanhassen. The Applicant believes that the no-build alternative should be considered as a good faith effort. Wetland Impact Minimization Alternative Site Design #1 Alternative Site Design #1 is one of the plans considered by the Applicant. Alternative Site Design #1 maintains the three large, narrow buildings in the proposed design, but a fourth building is added south of the proposed buildings to attract new companies to Chanhassen. An additional parking lot is located along the south building. Alternative Design #1 impacts 249,260 SF of wetland. In order to try and minimize the impact to the southwestern portion of the site the fourth building was removed from the design. Wetland Impact Rectification The wetland impacts for the proposed development are not temporary and therefore cannot be rectified at the completion of the project. Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 6 Eden Trace Corporation Wetland Impact Reduction and Elimination Over Time Best Management Practices (BMP), which conforms to City/County/State erosion and sediment control specifications, will be employed during construction activities. Silt fencing will be placed along the upland side of all wetland boundaries as a measure to eliminate the potential of sediment entering the wetlands. Disturbed areas will be revegetated within 14 days of final grading. Sequencing Flexibility The WCA (Chapter 8420.0520, Subpart 7a) allows sequencing flexibility to be implemented on a project should the replacement wetlands provide wetland functions and public values of equal or greater quality than those impacted or preserved as part of the proposed project. Sequencing flexibility cannot be implemented unless alternatives have been considered and unless the proposed replacement wetland is certain to provide equal or greater functions and public values as determined based on a functional assessment reviewed by the technical evaluation panel using a methodology approved by the board. Flexibility in application of the sequencing steps may be applied if: 1) the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2) preservation of a wetland would result in severe degradation of the wetland’s ability to function and provide public values, for example, because of surrounding land uses and the wetland’s ability to function and provide public values cannot reasonably be maintained through other land use controls or mechanisms; 3) the only feasible or prudent upland site available for wetland replacement or development has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetland; 4) the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. Sambatek believes that the proposed wetland impact qualifies for sequencing flexibility, based on Item 2 above. The portion of Wetland 4 that will be impacted by the proposed project appears to be supported by surface water runoff from the old nursery site to the north as well as a slight slope to the south. Once the site has been graded the storm water will be redirected to storm water ponds as directed by a storm water management plan that will be put together as part of the planning process. The runoff that currently supports Wetland 4 will be redirected to storm water ponds, and maintaining Wetland 4 without the current watershed would likely result in an indirect impact to the wetland. Based on the planned construction, Sambatek believes that the functions and values of Wetland 4 will be compromised once construction is completed. In order to ensure that wetland functions and values of greater quality are provided, the applicant is proposing the purchase of 3.2647 acres of wetland bank credits from BWSR and COE approved Wetland Bank #1468 and 1.5553 acres of BWSR and COE approved credit from Wetland Bank #1650. Based on the reason provided above, the applicant believes that the project qualifies for sequencing flexibility and wishes to apply it to this project. Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 7 Eden Trace Corporation NON-REGULATED WETLANDS Incidental Wetlands “Incidental wetlands” are wetland areas that the applicant can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the local government unit, were created in non-wetland areas solely by actions, the purpose of which was not to create the wetland. Incidental wetlands include drainage ditches, impoundments, or excavations constructed in non-wetland areas solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, containment of waste material, storm water retention or detention, drainage, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality improvements and not as part of a wetland replacement process that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics. Based on the review of historical aerial photography, the Applicant believes that Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 5 are incidental wetlands and is not regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act as per Chapter 8420.0105 (Scope) Subp. 2 (Applicability) and Section D. Wetland 1 only appears in the aerial photography after top soil mining occurred in the area in 2015. Wetland 3 appears to have been constructed as a stormwater pond 2008. Wetland signatures were not observed within the boundaries of Wetland 2 until the construction of Wetland 3 in 2008. The area within Wetland 5 is graded in 1985 and then several structures are built in the area in 1984. Wetland signatures are not observed within Wetland 5 until the structures are removed from the Subject Property. Aerial Photograph Review 1937 – The site is predominantly used for agricultural production. The farmstead is located along the north central property boundary and appears to consist of a house, a barn and several other structures. Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 5 are not observed in this historical aerial photograph. Wetl and 4 is visible in the southwest corner of the property and appears to be partially farmed. 1945 – The site is still used for agricultural production. Now wetland signatures are observed in the areas of Wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 5. Wetland 4 is still visible in the southwest portion of the site. 1957 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1945. 1963 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1957. 1970 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1963. 1979 – Several greenhouses have been constructed in the northwest corner of the property. The original structures appear to have been removed and replaced by structures for the plant nursery. The remaining portions of the property appear to be used for agricultural production. Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 5 are not observed in the 1979 aerial photograph. Wetland 4 appears in the southwest corner of the property and along the south property boundary. 1981 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1979. 1982 – Another area near the nursery greenhouses appears to have been graded in preparation for another building. No signatures are observed in the areas of Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 5. 1983 – The graded area observed in the 1982 aerial photography has been expanded to the south and encompasses a portion of the Wetland 5 boundary. No wetland signatures are observed in the area of Wetland 1, 2, or 3. Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 8 Eden Trace Corporation 1984 – A structure has been built on the graded area observed in 1983. No other significant changes are observed on the Subject Property since 1983. 1985 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1984. 1986 – The boundaries of Wetland 5 are completely within a graded area with structures present and no wetland indicators. No wetland indicators are observed within the boundaries of Wetland 1, 2, and 3. 1987 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1986. 1989 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1987. 1990 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1989. 1991 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1990. 1993 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1991. 1994 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1993. 1995 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 1994. 2001 – A structure is located in the boundaries of Wetland 5. Wetland 1, 2, and 3 are not farmed, however no wetland signatures are observed in these areas. 2002 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2001. 2003 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2002. 2008 – A stormwater pond appears to have been constructed within the area of Wetlands 2 and 3. No other significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2003. 2009 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2008. 2010 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2009. 2013 – No significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2010. 2015 – All the structures associated with the plant nursery have been removed. The area of within the boundary of Wetland 1 appears to be graded. The structures within the boundaries of Wetland 5 have been removed and there appears to be water accumulating in this area. 2017 – The graded area within the boundary of Wetland 1 has grown over and appears to accumulate water. No other significant changes have occurred on the Subject Property since 2015. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN The Applicant proposes to provide wetland mitigation in the form of 3.2647 acres of BWSR and COE approved wetland credits purchased from Wetland Banks #1468, which is located in Le Sueur County, the Minnesota River – Shakopee (#33) major watershed and Bank Service Area 9. An additional 0.8512 acres of wetland credit will be purchased from BWSR and COE approved Wetland Bank #1650, which is Wetland Permit Application for Holasek Farms, Chanhassen, Minnesota 17 October 2018 9 Eden Trace Corporation located within Lyon County, the Minnesota River – Granite Falls (#25) major watershed and Bank Service Area #9. The remaining 0.7041 acres of credit will be purchased from BWSR and COE approved Wetland Bank #1605, which is located in in Stevens County, the Pomme de Terre (#23) major watershed, and Bank Service Area #9. The Applicant has a Purchase Agreement with the wetland banks for the purchase of 4.82 acres of Single Wetland Credits (SWC). A summary of the proposed wetland impact and amount of wetland credits purchased from the wetland banks is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Impact and Mitigation Summary Impact/Mitigation COE Jurisdictional? Incidental Wetland Impact Area Mitigation Area (acres) (square feet) (acres) (square feet) Wetland Impact A N Y 2.51 109,250 Wetland Impact B N Y 0.04 1,626 Wetland Impact C& D Y N 2.41 104,938 Wetland Credits from Wetland Bank #1468 Y 3.2647 142,210 Wetland Credits from Wetland Bank #1650 Y 0.8512 37,078 Wetland Credits from Wetland Bank # 1605 Y 0.7041 30,671 TOTAL 2.41 104,938 4.82 209,959  Total Natural Wetland Impact = 2.41acres (104,938 SF)  Required Mitigation Ratio = 2:1  Required Mitigation = 2.41 acres x 2=4.82 acres (209,959SF) Mitigation Monitoring The owners of Wetland Banks #1468, #1650, #1605 are responsible for monitoring and maintenance of its wetland banks. The Applicant has no liability with the development and maintenance of Wetland Banks #1468, #1650, #1605. Figures Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2017 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2015 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2013 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2010 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2009 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2008 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2003 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2002 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 2001 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1995 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1994 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1991 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1990 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1989 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1987 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1986 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1985 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1984 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1983 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1982 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1981 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1979 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1970 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1963 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1957 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1945 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Sources: MetroGIS, NRCS, LMIC Historical Aerial Photo - 1937 Holasek Farms Chanhassen, Minnesota This map was created using Sambatek s GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ofinformation and data from various sources. Thismap is not a surveyed or legally recorded mapand is intended to be used as a reference.Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuraciescontained herein. 0 400200 Scale In Feet 5 Appendices Appendix A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Project Name and/or Number: Holasek Farms PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf , the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Eden Trace Corporation – Mark Undestad Mailing Address: 8156 Mallory Court, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952-361-0722 E-mail Address: mark@edentrace.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Jessica Abernathy – Sambatek Mailing Address: 12800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 763-476-6010 E-mail Address: jabernathy@sambatek.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Carver City/Township: Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 250210100 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Section 21, T116N, R23W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44.7981557, -93.174134 Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 50 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Please see the attached narrative. Project Name and/or Number: Holasek Farms Attachment B Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: As per Chapter 8420.0105 (Scope) Subp. 2 (Applicability) and Section D. Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide: Please see the attached narrative. Project Name and/or Number: Holasek Farms Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevan t features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Please see the attached narrative. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and d iscuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: Please see the attached narrative. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): Please see the attached narrative. Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Please see the attached narrative. Project Name and/or Number: Holasek Farms Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensato ry mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Account # County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # Credit Type (if applicable) Number of Credits 1468 Le Sueur 33 9 SWC 3.2647 1650 Lyon 25 9 SWC 1.5553 Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project-Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. WCA Action Eligible for Credit1 Corps Mitigation Compensation Technique2 Acres Credit % Requested Credits Anticipated3 County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # 1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. 2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (in lets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.): Appendix B Site Plan (Grading Plan) LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GAL P I N B L V D . (C. S . A . H . N O . 1 1 7 )PROPOSED BUILDING A161,500S.F.FFE=945.0PROPOSED BUILDING B109,250 S.F.FFE=941.5PROPOSED BUILDING C178,600 S.F.FFE=940.51,626 SF92,812 SF104,938 SFSCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Oct 04, 2018 - 3:18pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C3-SITE.dwgC3.01SITE PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATIONCLIENT ADDRESSHOLASEKFARMSCHANHASSEN,MNLOCATION ADDRESSPSMJMWGDAPRELIMINARYMM/DD/YYYY21274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/20181.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.2.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATERDRAINS AWAY FROM CURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB.COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.4.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.5.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFEXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCELOCATIONS.7.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON SIGN DETAILS8.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHTPOLE.9.REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS.10.ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPEOF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THEMAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE 2.08%(1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADAROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFYTHE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUSTHE DESIGN GRADIENT AND COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.11."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY.LEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSAWCUT LINENUMBER OF PARKINGSTALLS PER ROWSIGNPIPE BOLLARDSTANDARD DUTYASPHALT PAVINGHEAVY DUTYASPHALT PAVINGCONCRETE PAVINGPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDKEY NOTEDEVELOPMENT SUMMARYDEVELOPMENT NOTESKEY NOTESWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEA.BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSB.B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERC.B-618 6CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERD.CONCRETE APRONE.FLAT CURB SECTIONF.SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALLG.ACCESSIBLE RAMPH.TRANSFORMERXXXXTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.CONCRETE SIDEWALKAREAGROSS SITE AREAPROPOSED LOTSLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3OUTLOT ARIGHT OF WAYSETBACKSFRONT YARDREAR YARDSIDE YARDMINIMUM LOT SIZEMINIMUM FRONTAGEMINIMUM LOT DEPTHMAXIMUM LOT COVERAGEZONINGEXISTING ZONINGPROPOSED ZONINGCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONBUILDING REQUIREMENTSMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTREQUIRED PARKING - OFFICEOFFICE BUILDINGS (ADMINISTRATIVE, BUSINESS ORPROFESSIONAL)--FLOOR AREA; BUILDINGS FROM 50,000 TO99,999 SQUARE FEET, FOUR STALLS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEETGROSS FLOOR AREA; AND BUILDINGS OVER 100,000 SQUAREFEET, THREE STALLS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOORAREA.REQUIRED PARKING - IOPSTORAGE, WHOLESALE, OR WAREHOUSEESTABLISHMENTS--ONE SPACE FOR EACH 1,000 SQUARE FEETOF GROSS FLOOR AREA UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND ONEADDITIONAL SPACE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 2,000 SQUARE FEET,PLUS ONE SPACE FOR EACH COMPANY VEHICLE OPERATINGFROM THE PREMISES. IF IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY THEAPPLICANT THAT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THEWAREHOUSE OR STORAGE AREA WILL REQUIRE LESS THANTHE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES, AND IF THE APPLICANTSHALL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE CITY ASSURING THAT IFTHERE IS TO BE ANY INCREASE IN EMPLOYEES, THE APPLICANTAGREES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKINGAREA, THE CITY MAYAPPROVE A LESSER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.AGIOP - INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARKOFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 50 FT4/100010 + 12000 SF + # DRIVERSUNLESS APPROVED62 STALLS REQUIRED194 STALLS REQUIRED256 TOTAL REQUIRED 256 STALLS SHOWN44 STALLS REQUIRED132 STALLS REQUIRED176 TOTAL REQUIRED187 STALLS SHOWN68 STALLS REQUIRED215 STALLS REQUIRED283 TOTAL REQUIRED283 STALLS SHOWNPROPOSED PARKINGBUILDING A113,050 SF WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL (70%)48,450 SF OFFICE (30%)BUILDING B76,475 SF WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL (70%)32,775 SF OFFICE (30%)BUILDING C125,020 SF WAREHOUSE/INDUSTRIAL (70%)53,580 SF OFFICE (30%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE8.60 AC (69%)6.67 AC (67%)9.78 AC (70%)2,366,442 SF54.33 AC12.49 AC9.97 AC13.93 AC12.73 AC5.21 AC30 FT 10 FT 10 FT1 AC150 FT200 FT70% Appendix C Alternative Site Design #1 Appendix D Wetland Bank Credits Purchase Agreements Page 1 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14, 2017 PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR WETLAND BANKING CREDITS THIS AGREEMENT is made this 17 day of October, 2018 between Greg Schwarz (Seller) and Eden Trace Corporation (Buyer). 1. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy from Seller, the wetland banking credits (Credits) listed below: 2. Seller represents and warrants as follows: a) The Credits are deposited in an account in the Minnesota Wetland Bank administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) pursuant to Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0700-.0760. b) Seller owns the Credits and has the right to sell the Credits to Buyer. 3. Buyer will pay Seller a total of $182,823.20 for the Credits, as follows: a) $0 as earnest money, to be paid when this Agreement is signed; and Credits to be Sold Credit Subgroup Wetland Type/Plant Community Type Cost per Credit Credit Amounts A. Type 3/ Shallow Marsh $56,000/acre 1.353 B. Type 2/ Fresh (wet) meadow $56,000/acre 0.957 D. Type 4/ Deep Marsh $56,000/acre 0.9547 Per Credit Withdrawal Fee by BSA Enter the Withdrawal Fee for the BSA of the account: Total Cost: $182,823.20 Total Credits: 3.2647 ac BSA 1 $520 BSA 6 $1,083 (Withdrawal Fee x total credits) BSA 2 $371 BSA 7 $1,992 $2,628 Withdrawal Fee: $8,579.63 BSA 3 $725 BSA 8 $2,577 Easement Stewardship Fee: (Easement Stewardship fee x total credits) BSA 4 $1,412 BSA 9 $2,628 $302 per credit Stewardship Fee: $985.94 BSA 5 $685 BSA 10 $3,099 Total Fees: $9,565.57 BWSR fee policy: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wetlandbanking/fee_and_sales_data/Wetland_Banking_Fee_Policy_Effective_June1_2017.pdf Page 2 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14, 2017 b) The balance of $182,823.20 to be paid on the Closing Date listed below. 4. [ ] Buyer, [ ] Seller agrees to pay a withdrawal fee of $8,579.63 to the State of Minnesota based on the per credit fee of $2,628 for Bank Service Area 9 and a stewardship fee of $985.94 based on the per credit fee of $302.00. At the Closing Date, [] Buyer, [ ] Seller will execute a check made out for this amount, payable to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 5. The closing of the purchase and sale shall occur on January 4, 2019 (Closing Date) at a time and place to be determined. The Closing Date and location may be changed by written consent of both parties. Upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, Seller will sign a fully executed Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits provided by BWSR, provide a copy of the Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits to the Buyer and forward the same to the BWSR along with the check for the withdrawal fee and stewardship fee. 6. Buyer has applied or will apply to the City of Chanhassen (Local Government Unit (LGU) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for approval of a replacement plan utilizing the Credits as the means of replacing impacted wetlands. If the LGU or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not approved the Buyer’s application for a replacement plan utilizing the Credits by the Closing Date, and no postponement of the Closing Date has been agreed to by Buyer and Seller in writing, then either Buyer or Seller may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to the other. In this case, Seller shall return Buyer’s earnest money, and neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any further obligations under this Agreement. If the LGU has approved the replacement plan and the Seller is ready to proceed with the sale on the Closing Date, but Buyer fails to proceed, then the Seller may retain the earnest money as liquidated damages. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ (Signature of Seller) (Date) (Signature of Buyer) (Date) Page 1 of 2 Wetland Credit Agency, LLC w 12940 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 w 612-360-4700 v2.1_8-1-14 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF WETLAND BANKING CREDITS This Agreement for Purchase of Wetland Banking Credits (“Agreement”) is made this 18th day of September, 2018 between Wetland Credit Agency, Inc. (“Broker”) and Eden Trace Corporation (“Buyer”). (Broker and Buyer are collectively referred to as “Parties”). WETLAND CREDIT ACCOUNT(S) Acct. No. County Major Watershed BSA Account Owner 1650 Lyon 25 – Minnesota (Gr. Falls) 9 P. Sonstegard (“Seller”) 1605 Stevens 23 – Pomme de Terre 9 L. Schmidgall (“Seller”) 1. Buyer agrees to buy the wetland banking credits (“Credits”) listed below: CREDITS TO BE SOLD Credit Sub- Group¹ Acres Wetland Circ. 39 Type² Plant Community Type3 Cost per Acre Account Number Total A. 0.8512 3 shallow marsh $41,382.00 1650 $35,224.36 A. 0.7041 4 deep marsh $43,560.00 1605 $30,670.60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Totals 1.5553 $65,894.96 Check here if additional credit sub-groups are part of this account and are listed on an attachment to this document. ¹A separate credit sub-group shall be established for each wetland or wetland area that has different wetland characteristics. ²Circular 39 types: 1, 1L, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, B, U. 3Wetland plant community type: shallow open water, deep marsh, shallow marsh, sedge meadow, fresh meadow, wet to wet-mesic prairie, calcareous fen, open bog or coniferous bog, shrub-carr/alder thicket, hardwood swamp or coniferous swamp, floodplain forest, seasonally flooded basin. See Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin (Eggers and Reed, 1997) as modified by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers.. 2. Statement Regarding Credits: a) The Credits are deposited in an account in the Minnesota Wetland Bank administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (“BWSR”) pursuant to Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0700-.0760. b) Sellers own the Credits and have the right to sell the Credits to Buyer. 3. Buyer will pay a total of $65,894.96 for the Credits, as follows: a) $65,894.96 to be paid on the Closing Date defined and listed below. Page 2 of 2 Wetland Credit Agency, LLC w 12940 Overlook Road, Dayton, MN 55327 w 612-360-4700 v2.1_8-1-14 4. In addition to the fees for the Credits in paragraph 3, Buyer agrees to pay the Withdrawal Fee and Easement Stewardship Fee totaling $4,557.66 to Broker as required by BWSR. At closing, Broker will execute a check made out for this amount payable to BWSR. 5. The closing of the purchase and sale shall occur on or before January 18th, 2019 (“Closing Date”). The Closing Date may only be extended or changed by written consent of both Parties. Upon payment of the purchase price, Broker attests that Sellers have agreed to sign a fully executed Application for Withdrawal of Credits in the form specified by BWSR. 6. Buyer shall apply to the appropriate Local Government Unit (“LGU”) and any other required regulatory or governmental agency for approval of a replacement plan utilizing the Credits as the means of replacing impacted wetlands. If the LGU or other regulatory or government agency has not approved the Buyer’s application for a replacement plan utilizing the Credits by the Closing Date, and no extension of the Closing Date has been agreed to by the Parties in writing, then either Buyer or Broker may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to the other at the address identified below. In the event of cancellation by either Party, neither Buyer nor Broker shall have any further obligations to each other and waive any and all claims that they may have against the other under this Agreement and Agreement will be null and void. 7. Buyer agrees that Broker is acting in good faith on behalf of third party Sellers, and that if Sellers fail to perform under this Agreement, Broker shall have no liability to Buyer and shall not be held responsible for any claims or damages. Buyer waives any and all claims that Buyer has or may have against Broker resulting from this Agreement. Broker shall however refund any monies paid to it by Buyer. 8. Buyer further agrees and understands that Broker has made no representations or warranties to Buyer other than as contained herein and agrees and understands that it is Buyer’s sole obligation to determine if the proposed replacement plan will be approved, and to seek approval of the proposed replacement plan by all required appropriate governmental regulatory agencies and Buyer waives any and all claims it may have against Broker if the proposed replacement plan is not approved by the required governmental entities or agencies. 9. Buyer further agrees that Agreement is not valid until a signed copy is provided to Broker. If Buyer has not forwarded a signed copy to Broker within 7 days after date signed by Broker, Agreement is null and void and neither Buyer nor Broker shall have any further obligations under this Agreement. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ (Signature of Broker) (Date) (Signature of Buyer) (Date) By: Eric Trelstad, Wetland Credit Agency, LLC By: ___________________________________ Its: Owner Its: ___________________________________ Address: 12940 Overlook Road Address: _______________________________ Dayton, MN 55327 _______________________________ 612-360-4700 10/18/2018 Appendix E Interim Use Permit for Top Soil Mining Appendix F Wetland Delineation Report Corporate: 11541 95th Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55369 800-366-3406 ∙ Main: 763-315-4501 ∙ Fax: 763-315-4507 Minneapolis, MN ∙ Rochester, MN ∙ Omaha, NE ∙ Minot, ND www.pineng.com 24 Hr. Emergency Response: 1-866-658-8883 August 25, 2017 Mr. Arlee Carlson Sunde Land Surveying 9001 East Bloomington Freeway, Suite 118 Bloomington, MN, 55420 RE: Wetland Services Holasek Farms 8610 Galpin Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 Dear Mr. Carlson: Pinnacle Engineering Inc. (Pinnacle) has performed a Wetland Determination and Delineation of the Holasek Farms property located at 8610 Galpin Blvd. in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, which is within portions of Section 21, Township 116N, Range 23W. The site consists of agricultural fields, former building pads, wooded areas, and wetlands. The delineation was conducted in substantial conformance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997, and utilizes the Midwest Region Supplement. The attached report documents the methods and findings of the delineation. During the field assessment, it was determined that five areas within the project area met all three of the mandatory criteria of a wetland. The boundaries were flagged for survey by Sunde Land Surveying. The delineation will be reviewed by a representative of the City of Chanhassen, who serves as the local governmental unit administering Minnesota’s Wetland Conservation Act, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who administers the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any particular aspect of the project, please contact me at (763) 277-8410. We look forward to being of continued service to you. Sincerely, PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. Scott Thelen Senior Project Scientist, Certified Wetland Scientist# 1249 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR: Holsek Farms 8610 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PREPARED FOR: Sunde Land Surveying 9001 East Bloomington Freeway, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 SUBMITTED TO: City of Chanhassen 160 Lake Street North Chanhassen, MN 55309 PREPARED BY: Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. 11541 95th Avenue North Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 August 25, 2017 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FOR: HOLASEK FARMS 8610 GALPIN BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PREPARED FOR: SUNDE LAND SURVEYING 9001 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY, SUITE 118 BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 PREPARED BY: PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. 11541 95th AVENUE MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 PINNACLE PROJECT NUMBER: EM20170022 August 25, 2017 Reviewed By: Prepared By: Scott Thelen Matt Bartus Senior Scientist Senior Scientist MN Certified Wetland Delineator # 1249 PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................... 1 2.1 Site Location and Use ........................................................................................ 1 2.2 Surveys and Maps ............................................................................................. 1 2.2.1 Topographic Maps ....................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Soil Survey .................................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 NWI Maps .................................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Public Waters Inventory ............................................................................... 2 2.3 Aerial Photo Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION .............................................................................. 3 3.1 Methodology....................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Wetland Description ........................................................................................... 4 4.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 5 5.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 6 6.0 STANDARD OF CARE ......................................................................................... 6 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 6 PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. WETLAND DELINEATION ii FIGURES FIGURE 1: Site Location Map FIGURE 2: Site Layout Map FIGURE 3: Soil Survey Map FIGURE 4: National Wetland Inventory Map FIGURE 5: Public Waters Inventory Map FIGURE 6: Wetland Communities Sketch FIGURE 7: Hydrological Assessment Areas APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Data Forms APPENDIX B: Wetland Boundary Application APPENDIX C: Wetland Photographs APPENDIX D: Historical Photographs Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 1 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. (Pinnacle) performed a Wetland Determination and Delineation of the Holasek Farms property located at 8610 Galpin Blvd. in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota which is within portions of Section 21, T116N, R23W (Lat: 44.8416815⁰; Long: -93.584086⁰, WGS 1984). The site consists of agricultural fields, former building pads, wooded areas, and wetlands. The delineation was conducted in substantial conformance with the 1987 U.S. The Site is a portion of the entire Holasek Farms property. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997, and utilizes the Midwest Region Supplement. The attached report documents the methods and findings of the delineation. 1.2 Scope Pinnacle conducted the on-site Level 2 Wetland Determination and Delineation in accordance with the criteria established in the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated in 1997, utilizing the Midwest Region Supplement. The work included the following items: • Review of County Soil Surveys, USGS topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps, Public Water Inventory (PWI) maps, and aerial photographs. • A site reconnaissance to determine if and where jurisdictional wetlands exist. • Delineation of the identified wetlands within the area of interest boundaries. • Preparation and submittal of this report summarizing the findings of our work. 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Site Location and Use The project area is located at Holasek Farms property located at 8610 Galpin Blvd. in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota which is within portions of Section 21, T116N, R23W (Lat: 44.8416815⁰; Long: -93.584086⁰, WGS 1984). The site consists of agricultural fields, former building pads, wooded areas, and wetlands. The Property Identification Number (PID) for the project area is 25020100. Figure 1 shows the site in its current configuration. 2.2 Surveys and Maps Pinnacle conducted a review of the Carver County Soil Survey, topographic maps, Protected Waters Inventory (PWI), and National Wetland Inventory (NWI ) maps for the vicinity of the Site. The following sections summarize the information available at the time of this review. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 2 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 2.2.1 Topographic Maps The topographic map depicted the parcel developed area with the wooded area in the southern portion of the Site. The Site is situated within a sloping and rolling topographic setting, with the former building pads sloping steeply into the wetland areas. In the areas of the agricultural fields the land gently slopes into the wetland areas. The Site elevation ranges from approximately 962 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northern portions of the parcel to approximately 920 feet MSL in the southwest portion of the property. The wetland basins are located mostly below elevations of 940 MSL. Based on the contour intervals on the topographic map and our Site observations, surficial drainage appears to be to the south draining to the regional stormwater system. 2.2.2 Soil Survey The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey map, which is included as Figure 3, was reviewed for information pertaining to the Site soils. The Soil Survey indicated the Site soil units are: Cordova clay loam (map unit ID – CO), Cordova- Webster complex (map unit ID – CW ), Essexville sandy loam (map unit ID – EX), Glencoe clay loam (map unit ID – GL), Hamel loam (map unit ID – HM), Lester-Kilkenny loam (map unit ID – KB, KB2, KC, KC2, KD, KD2, KE, KE2), Muskego and Houghton soils (map unit ID – MK), Klossner and Muskego soils (map unit ID – MP), Lester-Kilkenny clay loams (map unit ID – NC, ND, NE), Klossner muck loam (map unit ID – PM), Lester-Storden complex (map unit ID – SD2), Terril loam (map unit ID – TB), and Water (map unit ID – W). Of the identified soils, Cordova, Cordova-Webster, Glencoe, Hamel, Muskego and Houghton, Klossner and Muskego, and Klossner are considered hydric soils. Soil samples collected during the wetland delineation were characterized and recorded on the Wetland Determination Data Form – Midwest Regional Supplement Data Forms, which are included as Appendix A. 2.2.3 Wetland Inventory Maps The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the Site area depicted three wetlands within or adjacent to the Site boundaries. The wetlands area identified as Palustrine, emergent, persistent temporarily flooded (PEM1A), Palustrine, aquatic bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated (PABGx).and Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated (PUBGx). NWI maps generally show the approximate location of wetlands as of the time of publication. The NWI map, as reviewed by Pinnacle, were compiled based on aerial photo interpretation and field surveys and is included as Figure 4. 2.2.4 Public Waters Inventory The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory (PWI) produces a map of the protected wetlands and waters of the State. The PWI map, which is included as Figure 5, indicates one public waters are located within the Site boundaries. The wetland is identified as part of the Hazeltine lake system (DNR Object ID 3516). Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 3 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 2.3 Aerial Photo Evaluation Pinnacle acquired aerial photographs from the Google Earth, Earth Explorer, and the MnGeo Aerial Photography database. Pinnacle also reviewed Bing Imagery, HistoricalAerials.com, and ESRI’s database for additional photo years, but none were available. Aerial photographs from all years, 1991 to the present, were not available; however, Pinnacle reviewed aerial photographs from the years 1984, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 to evaluate if wetland indicators were present. Each image was reviewed to determine the frequency of wetland signatures visible on the image. Each year was reviewed carefully and observations were noted in accordance with standard terminology. Observations compared dry periods with those from wet and normal periods to provide context. The number of years of imagery with normal or dry antecedent precipitation conditions that exhibited wetland signatures were tallied. Areas with 30% or more hits in normal and dry years were determined to be potential wetlands and are referred to as suspect areas in Figure 7. The recording form for the aerial photography review is included in Appendix D. The results were utilized to aid in the determination of the wetland areas. In general, the aerial photographs depicted the Site as agricultural fields and farmsteads near its current configuration. All wetlands showed signatures between 45%-100% of the analyzed years. 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION 3.1 Methodology The wetland determination was made utilizing the techniques of the Routine Onsite Method, as described in the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997 and utilizing the Midwest Region Supplement. Determination of hydric soils, site hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation were made according to the procedures and guidelines described in the manual. Sampling locations were selected to be representative of wetland/upland transition areas. Scott Thelen of Pinnacle conducted an assessment of the wetlands in the project area on August 11, 2017. The assessment included probing the soils to observe the color and moisture, as well as other available hydric soil indicators, such as mottling, gleying, and oxidized root channels. The characteristics noted for each sampling location are documented in the data forms, which are included in Appendix A. Survey markers were placed along the delineated edge of the wetlands for survey by Sunde Land Surveying. A figure of the wetland areas is included as Figure 2. 2017 seasonal rainfall amounts were approximately 2.14 inches above the normal amount of rainfall for this area. Rain precipitation in the amount of 1.42 inches occurred Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 4 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 the fourteen days prior to the wetland delineation field visit. Pinnacle delineated all or portions of five wetland basins within the Site during the field assessment. 3.2 Wetland Descriptions Table 3.2.1 below summarizes the findings of the field investigation. Data forms for the field investigation may be found in Appendix A and photographs in Appendix C. Wetland ID Delineated Wetland Type Wetland Size (acres) NWI Wetland Type Dominant Wetland Vegetation Hydric Soil (Yes/No) Hydric Soil Indicator Hydrology 1 Type 3, PEM1C, Shallow Marsh 2.97 Cattail, Barnyard grass Yes Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Surface soil cracks (B6) (A3), FAC- Neutral Test (D5) 2 Type 3, PEM1C, Shallow Marsh 0.31 Reed Canary Yes Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Saturation (A3) 3 Type 4, PUBG, Deep Marsh 0.72 PUBGx Reed Canary Yes Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Saturation (A3) 4 Type 2, 3, PEMA, PEM1C, Fresh Meadow, Shallow Marsh 8.97 PABGx, PEM1C Box elder, Yellow Nutsedge, Jewel weed Yes Redox dark surface (F6), Depleted Matrix (F3), Redox Dark Surface (F6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6), Drainage pattern (B10), FAC- Neutral Test (D5) 5 Type 3, PEM1C, Shallow Marsh 0.15 Reed Canary Grass, Cattail Yes Depleted Matrix (F3) Saturation (A3), FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Type PUBG The NWI Cowardin wetland classification system identifies the PUBG label for wetlands that consists of a palustrine basin, with an unconsolidated bottom, that that may be intermittently exposed and are usually located within a depressional area. Soil indicators (or surveys as mentioned above) revealed the wetland areas have hydric soils. The wetland area appears to be isolated from nearby wetlands in the aerial photographs, but may drain to the south, see Figure 5. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 5 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 Wetland Type PEM1C The NWI Cowardin wetland classification system identifies the PEM1C label for a wetland that consists of a palustrine basin, with persistent emergent vegetation, that is seasonally flooded, and is intermittently exposed that is usually found within a depressional area. Soil surveys indicate the wetland area has hydric soils. The wetland area appears to be connected through a surficial water connection to nearby southern wetlands in the aerial photographs, and may drain to the south, see Figure 5. Suspect Areas SA Two areas were identified as suspect areas due to wetland indicators identified during the aerial photograph review. The areas were investigated to verify the wetland status of the area. The review of the vegetation and soils indicated that the areas did not meet the criteria of a wetland. The size and amount of corn was diminished in the areas when compared to the adjacent corn field. However, the sparse pioneer vegetation between the corn stalks consisted of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, FACU) and pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus, FACU) in the suspect areas. The sparse pioneer vegetation in the wetland areas that were planted in corn featured yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, FACW). The soils in the suspect areas also did not appear to meet the hydric soil criteria. For these reasons the suspect areas were not identified as wetlands. 4.0 DISCUSSION (Pinnacle) performed a Wetland Determination and Delineation of the Holasek Farms property located at 8610 Galpin Blvd. in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota which is within portions of Section 21, T116N, R23W (Lat: 44.8416815⁰; Long: -93.584086⁰, WGS 1984). The site consists of agricultural fields, former building pads, wooded areas, and wetlands. The delineation was conducted in substantial conformance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997, and utilizes the Midwest Region Supplement. The Property Identification Number (PID) for the project area is 25020100. The USGS topographic map review indicated the project area varies greatly in elevation and hydrology collects in the depressional areas within the site or drains to the wetland area to the southwest. Non-Hydric soils across the Site appear to drain into the observed wetland areas within the depressional areas. A large culvert was noted draining into Wetlands 2, 3 and 4 on the northeastern and southeastern edge of the Site. The soil survey map indicated the presence of hydric soils adjacent and within the wetland areas. The NWI map identified three wetlands on the Site. The PWI map identified one protected water within the project area associated with Hazeltine Lake. 2017 seasonal rainfall amounts were approximately 2.14 inches above the normal amount of rainfall for this area. Rain precipitation in the amount of 1.42 inches occurred the fourteen days prior to the wetland delineation field visit. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 6 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 Suspect areas were investigated and may have had stunted corn due to the nearly 2- inches greater than normal rain fall in May. However, these areas did not meet the criteria of a wetland after the field data was collected. five delineated wetland areas displayed wetland characteristics and met all wetland criteria during the on-site investigation; therefore, Pinnacle placed flags along the wetland boundaries within the Site boundary. The wetland areas appear to be part of the regional drainage and appear to have stormwater directed from an off-site source to the wetland basins, where the water infiltrates into the soil or is transported to wetlands and lakes to the south of the Site. The local governmental unit and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will determine the jurisdictional wetland status of the identified wetland area. 5.0 CONCLUSION Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. (Pinnacle) performed a Wetland Determination and Delineation of the Holasek Farms property located at 8610 Galpin Blvd. in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The delineation was conducted in substantial conformance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, updated February 25, 1997, and utilizes the Midwest Regional Supplement. During the field assessment, it was determined that five areas within the Site met all three of the mandatory criteria of a wetland, and the boundaries were flagged and surveyed by Sunde Land Surveying. The delineation will be reviewed by the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, who serve as the local governmental unit administering Minnesota’s Wetland Conservation Act and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who administers the Clean Water Act. 6.0 STANDARD OF CARE Environmental services performed by Pinnacle for the project have been conducted in a manner consistent with the degree of care and technical skill appropriately exercised by environmental professionals currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time constraints. Recommendations or opinions contained in this report represent our professional judgment and are generally based upon available information and currently accepted practices for environmental professionals. Other than this, no other warranty is implied nor is it expressed. 7.0 REFERENCES Eggers, Steve D. and Reed, Donald M., Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, 1997, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 11541 95th Avenue North Holasek Farms Property Maple Grove, MN 55369 August 25, 2017 763-315-4501 Page 7 Pinnacle Project Number: EM20170022 Lyon, John Grimson, Practical Handbook for Wetland Identification and Delineation, 1993, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Data Gateway <http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/> (August 16, 2017). CarverCounty Interactive Maps, Beacon Interactive Map, <https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?App=SherburneCountyMN > (August 16, 2017). U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/WebMapServices.html > (August 16, 2017). U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987, updated on February 25, 1997, Washington, D. C. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, October 2010, Washington, D. C. Minnesota Geospatial Commons, PWI basins data (https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters), NWI data (https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014), generated by Scott Thelen using <https://gisdata.mn.gov/>, August 16, 2017. FIGURE 1 Site Location Map WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 2 Site Layout WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 3 Soil Survey WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 4 National Wetland Inventory WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 5 Public Waters Inventory WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 6 Wetland Communities Map WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION FIGURE 7 Hydrological Assessment Areas WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:15 ) =Total Cover Yes 20 Persicaria amphibia Ambrosia artemisiifolia 15 80 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 10 Prevalence Index worksheet: 4 4 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum 30 Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: 15 ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W1-1W Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size: OBL Echinochloa crus-galli 15Juncus effusus OBL 10 ) FACU FACW FACW Cyperus esculentus 20 Yes Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 150 0 80 No Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 1.88Prevalence Index = B/A = 30 Multiply by: 80 (Plot size: 30 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present?Yes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W1-1WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Draintile entering wetland area. Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-10 Mucky Loam/Clay 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 10-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Mucky Loam/Clay US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% No 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 4.86Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 300 340 60 70UPL FACU Zea mays 60 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size: Chenopodium album ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W1-1U Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 70 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 10 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 1 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 10 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 13-20 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-13 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W1-1USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Drain tiles leading into wetland area Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover80 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 1 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W2-1W Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size:) FACWPhalaris arundinacea 80 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 160 0 80 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 2.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 160 (Plot size: 0 80 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Geomorphic Position (D2) 10 No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W2-1WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Culvert leading into wetland area Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-15 Mucky Loam/Clay 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 15-20 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 2.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 160 (Plot size: 0 80 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 160 0 80FACW FACW Phalaris arundinacea 50 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size: Urtica dioica ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W2-1U Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 80 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 2 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 30 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 12-20 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-12 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W2-1USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Culvert leading into wetland area Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 2.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 160 (Plot size: 0 80 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 160 0 80FACWPhalaris arundinacea 80 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size:) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W3-1W Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. Area appears to be a constructed storm water pond. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 80 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 1 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 12-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-12 Mucky Loam/Clay 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W3-1WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Lagre Culvert leading into wetland area and out of wetland area. Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) 10 No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 20 70 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 2 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W3-1U Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. Area appears to be a constructed storm water pond. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21 T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego and Houghton soils Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size: Urtica dioica ) FACW FACW Phalaris arundinacea 50 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 140 0 70 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 2.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 140 (Plot size: 0 70 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W3-1USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Lagre Culvert leading into wetland area and out of wetland area. Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-12 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 12-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Acer negundo Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 90 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 2.50Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 60 (Plot size: 30 0 30 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 150 0 60FACW FACW Laportea canadensis 15 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size: Impatiens capensis ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 30 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-1W Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Cordova-Webster complex NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species Yes (Plot size: 30 Tree Stratum 30 Absolute % Cover FAC Total % Cover of: ) 30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 3 3 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 15 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 8-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 10YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-8 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W4-1WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Large culverts leading into wetland area . Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover Yes 15 45 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 50 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 5 40.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species Yes (Plot size: 30 Tree Stratum 30 Absolute % Cover FAC Total % Cover of: 15 ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-1U Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Cordova-Webster complex Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 30 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size: FACU Urtica dioica 10Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU Lonicera tatarica ) FACU FACW Yes Glechoma hederacea 20 20 Herb Stratum 5 20 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 320 0 95 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 90 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 200 3.37Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 30 (Plot size: 30 0 15 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Acer negundo Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 95 5 C M Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W4-1USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Large culverts leading into wetland area . Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 10YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-12 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 12-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 10 20 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 2 50.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-2W Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Lester-Kilkenny loam Vegetation Assumed due to planted corn. Corn was in stressed condition Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size: Zea mays ) FACW UPL Cyperus esculentus 10 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 50 70 10 20 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 3.50Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 20 (Plot size: 0 10 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W4-2WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 7.5YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-8 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 8-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 10YR 3/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 5.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 150 150 30 30UPLZea mays 30 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size:) Vegetation Assumed due to planted corn. Corn was in stressed condition Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-2U Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Lester-Kilkenny loam NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 1 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 10YR 3/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 13-18 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 7.5YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-13 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W4-2USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 3.20Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 30 (Plot size: 0 15 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 50 80 10 25FACW UPL Cyperus esculentus 15 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size: Zea mays ) Vegetation Assumed due to planted corn. Corn was in stressed condition Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-3W Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego-Houghton NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 25 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 2 50.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 10 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M 80 20 C M ? X X X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 10-16 10YR 4/1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 6-10 Color (moist) 7.5YR 4/6 Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 7.5YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations Prominent redox concentrations 0-6 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W4-3WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 1 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W4-3U Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego-Houghton Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size:) UPLZea mays 30 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 150 150 30 30 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 5.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W4-3USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-18 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 18-24 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.X 7.X 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover 10 60 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 1 100.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W5-1W Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. Area appears to have been excavated. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Hamel loam Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size: Typha latifolia ) FACW OBL Phalaris arundinacea 50 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 110 0 60 terrace 2 - Dominance Test is >50% No 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 1.83Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 Multiply by: 100 (Plot size: 10 50 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 80 20 C M ? X X ? Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Geomorphic Position (D2) 5 No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: W5-1WSOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 24 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 10YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-2 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 2-15 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 5/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? terrace 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Yes 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 140 4.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 140 0 35FACU FACU Trifolium pratense 15 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size: Lotus corniculatus 10Cycloloma atriplicifolium FACU ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms W5-1U Wetland is located at edge of an agricultural field. Distinct vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. Area appears to have been excavated. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Hamel loam NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 35 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 35 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 3 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover Yes 10 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 80 20 C M X X ? Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 5/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 4-15 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 10YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-4 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: W5-1USOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 5.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 150 150 30 30UPLZea mays 30 Herb Stratum 5(Plot size:) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms SA-1 Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Muskego-Houghton NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) 30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 1 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Loamy/Clayey Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 14-24 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 0-14 Loamy/Clayey 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: SA-1SOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X Yes X Yes X Yes X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) 5. (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3.x 1 = 4.x 2 = 5.x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = 1.Column Totals:(A)(B) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X =Total Cover (Plot size:) =Total Cover30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: No 0 Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 1 0.0% Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Total % Cover of: ) NWI classification: Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.) naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? City/County:Chanhassen/ Carver Sampling Date:8/11/2017 Holasek Farms SA-2 Wetland is located in an agricultural field. Gradual vegetation and topography change between wetland and upland areas. -93.584086 WGS84 concave ST State: MN Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Sec21, T116N, R23W Local relief (concave, convex, none): 0-6 Long:44.846815 Datum: Remarks: Lester-Kilkenny loam Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover Yes 0 Indicator Status Dominant Species? (Plot size:) UPLZea mays 30 Herb Stratum 5 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 150 150 30 30 Hillside 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 0 =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 5.00Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Multiply by: 0 (Plot size: 0 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Holasek Farms - 8610 Galpin Blvd Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: No No No VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 90 10 C M Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SA-2SOIL Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) (includes capillary fringe) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) This data form is revised from Midwest Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: HYDROLOGY Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) unless disturbed or problematic. wetland hydrology must be present, 7.5YR 4/6 Prominent redox concentrations 0-13 Loamy/Clayey 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture Remarks 13-20 Color (moist) Histosol (A1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Dark Surface (S7) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 10YR 3/1 Loamy/Clayey APPENDIX B WETLAND BOUNDARY APPLICATIONS WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Project Name and/or Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Holasek Farms, LP, Carol THuening Mailing Address: 1312 Shadywood Lane, Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: E-mail Address: Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., Scott Thelen Mailing Address: 11541 95th Ave. NE Phone: 763-277-8410 E-mail Address: sthelen@pineng.com Agent Name: Scott Thelen Mailing Address: 11541 95th Ave. NE Phone: 763-277-8410 E-mail Address: sthelen@pineng.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Carver City/Township: Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 250210100 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S21, T116N, R23W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): Lat: 44.7981557 ⁰ North, Long: -93.174134⁰ Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Attached Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 50-acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Alta Survey Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: August 25 2017 I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU 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 Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx APPENDIX C Wetland Photographs WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION Wetland 1 looking northwest from transect. Southwest view of Wetland 2 from transect. View of Wetland 3 from south bank. View of Wetland 4 ditch from transect 1 looking south. View of Wetland 4 looking southwest. View of Wetland 2 near transect 2 looking northwest. View of Wetland 4 near transect 3 looking northeast. View of Wetland 5 from transect looking west. View of SA-1. View of SA-2. APPENDIX D Aerial Photographs WETLAND DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION 1984 1991 1997 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017