Wetland Delineation ReportErhart Property
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
Preparedfor
Tim Erhart
by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
(KES Project No. 2020-041)
Jnly 7,2020
Erhart Property
Chanhassen, Can'er County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY. .............,....... I
2. OVERVIEW ....................1
3. METHODS.
4. RESULTS...
4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD lnformation
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations
4.3 Other Areas
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination
5. CERTIFICATION OF D8LINEATION.......................
FIGURES
L Site Location
2. Existing Conditions
3. National Wetlands lnventory
4. Soil Survey
5. DNR Public Waters Inventory
6. National Hydrography Dataset
APPENDICES
A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Mirnesota
B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms
C. Precipitation Data
^,
3
3
4
5
6
7
Erhart Property
Chanhassen, Carter County, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
I. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY
The 46.7 6-acre Erhart Property was inspected on May 12, 2020 for the presence and
extent of wetland.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed three wetlands, one
PFO I A/PEM I A/PEM I C, one PFO I A/PEM I A/PEM I C/PSS I C,/PEM I F/PUBG and one
PEMIA/PEMIC/PABG within the site boundaries.
The soil survey showed Hamel (Partially Hydric), Muskego and Houghton (Hydric) and
Essexville (Hydric) as the hydric soil types mapped within the site boundaries.
The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed one DNR Public Water (Unnamed l0-215 W)
within the eastern portion of the site.
The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond within the eastem portion of
the site.
Four wetlands were delineated onsite as shown in Table I below:
Table 1. Wetlands delineated on the Erhart Property
a
Wetland
ID
Wetland Type
Dominant Vegetation
Area
(Acres
Onsite)
Circular
39 Cowardin Eggers and
Reed
I Type 1 PFOA Seasonally
flooded basin
Green ash canopy, sparsely
vegetated concave surface
2
Type
6t213
PFOA/PEMIA/
PEMIC
Sbrub-carr, wet
meadow,
shallow marsh
American elm tree, boxelder tree
reed canary grass, jewelweed,
cattail, various sedges
3.39
l Type
2/3/5
PEMIA/PEMIC
/PUBG
Wet meadow,
shallow marsh,
open water
Reed canary grass, stinging
nettle, cattail, bulrush
19.29
4 Type
6t315
PFOIA/PEMIB/
PABG
Shrub-carr,
shallow marsh,
open water
Green ash, redosier dogwood,
willow, reed canary grass, cattail 0.43
0.05
I
Erhan Property Wetland Delineation Report
2. OVERVIEW
The 46.76-acre Erhart Property was inspected on May 12,2020 for the presence and extent of
wetland. The property was located in Sections 23,24,25, and 26, Township I l6 North, Range
23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site was situated east of County
Road l0l, south ofCountry Road l8 (Figure 1). The property corresponded to Carver County
PID#:251550022.
The Erhart Property was primarily woodland throughout the site with a pond on the eastem
portion. Topography ofthe site sloped from 942 ft MSL on the westem portion of the site down
to 874 ft MSL within the wetland on the southwestem portion and 878 ft MSL within the
wetland on the northern portion. Surrounding land use consisted of rural residential, woodland,
agriculture and wetlands.
Four wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and
existing conditions are shown on Figure 2.
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (l) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
concurrence under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
3. METHODS
Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Coms of
Engineers WetlandlDclinealien lvlanual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the
Resional Supnlement to the Coms of En gineers Wetland Delineation Manual : Midwest Region
(Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act.
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pin flags that were located using a Trimble Rl GNSS Receiver GPS Unit.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a lS-foot radius for the
shrub layer, and a S-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled.
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a
Munscll S oil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources
Wetland Delineation Report
Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Commiuee for Hydric
Soils, Version 8.1, 2017).
Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition ofhydric components and
the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes
include Hydric ( 100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric
components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric
(1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components).
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status ofplant
species was taken from the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Review of N'W[, Soils, Public Waters, and NHD Information
The National Wetlands Inventorv (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) showed three wetlands within the site boundaries (Figure 3).
The Soil Survev (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Hamel (Partially Hydric), Muskego and Houghton
(Hydric) and Essexville (Hydric) as the hydric soil types mapped within the site boundaries. Soil
types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in
Figure 4.
Table 2. Soil types mapped on Erhart Property
Symbol Soil Name Acres
o/o of
Area Ilvdric Hydric Category
EX Essexville sandy loam 4.8 10.20 100 Hydric
HM Hamel loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 7.1 15.30 90 Predominantly Hydric
KB2
Lester-Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6
percent slopes, eroded
2.1 4.40 0
Non-Hydric
KC
kster-Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12
percent slopes
7.6 16.20 0
Non-Hydric
KC2
Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to l0
percent slopes, moderately eroded
0 0.00 5
Predominantly Non-Hydric
KD2
Lester-Kilkenny complex, l0 to 16
percent slopes, moderately eroded
1.6 3.50 5
Predominantly Non-Hydric
KE2
Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22
percent sloDes
5.5 l 1.70 5
Predominantly Non-Hydric
KF
Lester-Kilkenny complex, 22 to 40
percent slopes
0.4 0.80
Non-Hydric
MK
Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to I
percent slopes
ll.8 25.20 100
Hydric
3
Erhart Property
0
Erhart Property Wetland Delineation R€port
The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2015) showed one DNR Public Water (Unnamed l0-215 W) approximately 30 feet south of the
site (Figure 5).
The National H-vdrograohy Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Ponds
within the eastem portion of the site boundaries (Figure 6).
4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations
Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on May 12, 2020. Four wetlands
were identified and delineated on the property (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are
included in Appendix B. The following descriptions of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects
conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at
the time of the wetland delineation. Precipitation conditions were drier than the normal range
based on available 30-day rolling total precipitation and typical based on the tkee-month
antecedent precipitation data (Appendix C).
Wetland 1 was a Type I (PFOIA) forested seasonally flooded basin with a canopy dominated
by green ash trees and a sparsely vegetated understory. The wetland was saturated approximately
l0 inches below the soil surface along the wetland fringe.
Adjacent upland consisted of woodland with a canopy dominated by basswood, bur oak and
American elm trees with an understory of comnon blue violet, common buckthom, and black
cherry shrubs. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland.
The wetland boundary corresponded with a slight topographic rise along a transition from
sparsely vegetated concave surface to upland woodland vegetation. The wetland was not shown
on the NWI map, and fell in an area mapped as Lester-Kilkenny complex (Non-Hydric) on the
soil survey. Wetland I was located in the center of the site and discharged down slope into
Wetland 3 located in southem portion of the site.
Wetland 2 was a Type 6/213 (PFOA/PEM IA/?EM I C) shrub-carr, wet meadow and shallow
marsh wetland dominated by an American elm and boxelder tree canopy with an understory of
jewelweed that transitioned into reed canary grass, giant goldenrod and unknown sedge species
with a center dominated by cattails. The wetland was inundated with approximately 1-2 feet of
water in the center and was saturated at the surface along the fringe.
Adjacent upland consisted of woodland with a canopy dominated by sugar maple, boxelder and
$een ash trees with an understory ofprickly gooseberry, Virginia waterleaf and scattered garlic
mustard. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland.
The wetland boundaryr corresponded with a slight topographic rise along a transition fiom shrub-
carr to upland woodland vegetation. The wetland was shown as a PFO1A,/PEMIA/?EMIC
wetland on the NWI map, and fell in an area mapped as Hamel consociation (Hydric) and
4
Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report
Muskego Houghton complex (Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 2 extends north of the site and
drains to the south into Wetland 3.
Wetland 3 was a Type 2/315 (PEMIAIPEM I C/PUBG) open water wetland with a fringe of
shallow/wet meadow and was dominated by cattail and bulrush with a gradual transition into
reed canary grass and scattered stinging nettle. The open water wetland was inundated within the
center and was saturated to an approximate depth of l8 inches along the wetland fringe.
Adjacent upland to the southwest consisted ofwoodland dominated by a canopy of white pine
and silver maple trees with an understory of burdock, wild red raspberry, ground ivy and Canada
goldenrod. Adjacent upland to the west consisted of woodland dominated by a canopy ofbur oak
and American elm trees with an understory of common buckthom and black cherry shrubs.
Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland.
The wetland boundary corresponded with a slight topographic rise along a transition from wet
meadow to upland woodland vegetation. The wetland was shown as a PFOIA/ PEMIA/
PEMIC/PSSIC,/PEMIF/PUBG wetland on the NWI map, and fell in an area mapped as Hamel
consociation (Hydric), Muskego and Houghton complex (Hydric) and Essexville consociation
(Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 3 extends offsite to the southeast.
Wetland 4 was aType 613/5 (PFOIA/PEMI B/PABG) shrub-carr, shallow marsh and open water
wetland dominated by Green ash trees and redosier dogwood shrubs that transitioned into reed
canary g&Ns, willow, cattails and various sedges. The wetland was inundated in the center with a
water depth of 14 inches below the soil surface along the wetland fringe.
Adjacent upland consisted of woodland with a canopy dominated by bittemut hickory with a mix
ofboxelder, sugar maple, and American elm trees with an understory of prickly ash, buckthom,
Pennsylvania sedge and wild black currant. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were
not observed on the upland.
The wetland boundary corresponded with a slight topographic rise along a transition from
shallow marsh,/shrub-carr to upland woodland vegetation. The wetland was shown as a
PEM1A/?EMIC/PABG wetland on the NWI map, but fell in an area mapped as Lester-Kilkenny
Complex @redominately Non-Hy&ic) on the soil suwey. Wetland 4 extended offsite to the north
and drained east into Wetland 2.
4.3 Other Areas
Other areas were investigated because they were: (l) observed to support a hydrophytic plant
community, (2) had visible wetland hydrology indicators, (3) were shown as wetland on the NWI
map, or (4) were depressional and mapped as hydric soil. Field investigation led to the
conclusion that these areas were not wetland as shown on Figure 2 and documented in data
sheets located in Appendix B.
Sample Point A (SP-A) was taken near a swale that drained east towards Wetland 3. This area
was dominated by reed canary grass, was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and fell in an
5
Erhart Propeny Wetland Delineation Report
area mapped as Hamel (Hydric) on the soil suwey. This area was determined to be upland based
on a lack of wetland hydrology because it did not meet one primary or two secondary hydrology
indicators.
Sample Point B (SP-B) was taken within a foot-slope that drained northeast towards Wetland 4.
This area was disturbed by recent fire and was void ofvegetation. This area was not shown as a
wetland on the NWI map, and fell in an area mapped as Hamel (Hydric) on the soil survey. This
area was determined to be upland based on a lack ofhydric soil indicators and primary or
secondary wetland hydrology indicators.
No other areas with hydrophyic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No
other areas were shown as hydric soil on the soil survey or as wetland on the NWI map.
4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (l) a wetland boundary and type
determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation
concurrence under Section 404 ofthe Federal Clean Water Act.
6
Erhart Property W€tland Delineation Report
5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION
The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were
prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was
performed.
Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an
offi cial survey product.
Delineation completed by:Adam Cameron. Wetland Ecolosist/GIS Specialist
Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321
Will Effertz. Natural Resource Technician
Report prepared by:Will Effertz. Natural Resource Technician
Report reviewed by:Date: July 7. 2020
Mark Kjolhaug,onal Wetland Scientist No. 000845
7
Wetland Delineation Report
FIGURES
I
2
J
4
5
6
Site Location
Existing Conditions
National Wetlands Inventory
Soil Survey
DNR Protected Waters Inventory
National Hydrography Dataset
Erhart Property
II
oo
a
*:,
ta
I
a
0 \t
,fa .l
t a
i
'.
I
a I
,
8
i
If I
ai-a te
t
t lF
it
f,t
lr
on
o
.ti
t
ia
io
E
0e
(D
Io
(D
-o.)
D
IT
I-nO
og
ua
o
(D
cfo-
o)a
t1,rt
Frt
EArt
$93= dE
aF=t +E
sAEE EE:?ia <3
?FE 1 E'3FPA6' E O-EE 35
=o o 5
= .i-(! !9 .i.r
5ot-{
H
cJ
E'z
Foz
tnzr1
F
EI
3o
E'
o
2
g
:?
?
I
I"q
a
I
!>!39iiig
I
@
i.,
@
!r'o
o
€o
A'f
I
N llog*g=gdg
E t3:39
^O o!1 .)u
Cd-Pge'fc\J5.,rq-d
!.Ho
6r(D=- at, 6'
a
o(!
cao-
0,a
E
OQ
(D
b.J
It!x(,
0q
o
t,
trlrl
Frl
rEo3g!33 dEe?al *a
I iE'i fri.99.!r :' trt
ei{i
=H
-IX 9A?o- oA* r+ro lov
2o
o
z
3Foz
r42
dF
2
o
oo
2
o
ri
o
0
a
NI
r)
I
)__,.7
ffi
,,4
/i'
,
g
r
frI.".J
r
J
I
a
i
E
Io
F-,i
H
E
'Tt
oo
T
@o
ITTIIEI'r, -E 'r, -E 'r, -o a aca_rmmm>=
ait I (!tu'o>i6t"'B
clo"
IDa
E'
0e
t!(,
Iz
F'
(!
FT
a
ar)
(D
I-no
oo
t!3Ert
/^rt:-l c
31iF E E
E q A; EI.?i:Ei EX.9qoii :, tr:d24.'a: +:3 3 p
?F€ A E.SFe66 r o
=6 itOEO O A
= .+gtl EaJ
a
f-
H
E
z
Foz
z
cts
It'
D,to
r:l
oo
z
rl
zo
o
o
Ie
B
1
./
")
c
tF,
ri
1lEfl
BB
alw.'a;xt
I
)
I
'
H
1
Wal
.,,4
4
s \
EI!_
7 :!
.t7A
lrimI=l-it,
EIImll=l
lol
I
- !,:,
7-
lI,/
H
R
'-ia
.*.it
,rt,'.: lln
'!
\
r
xo
xoxo
z0x
m
-o
I
o
=.o
l,
oo-o
=lq)
f-
-
o-
=.o
-E
odo
=l!)f
zo
=-
o
=.ozo
=-o
=.o Ixt!
a
o
@
c
fo-
0)a
E
oe
tD
A
Ia
o
o
o)oo
t4l,t
19-t
rd
,^rt
STiF EEsil; E:€
5 rE'E friI ii ., B' !' ttl
= =..i !! ,ada--' > tia
egE I ='s"XH EE?o- o 5
= r+i(! !o iJ
'Tt
oo
Eofi
H
S
E'z
3
6z
trlz
E
fi
3oE
oo
,
:
:z
=.;
e
?z
n
o
rxl
tol
rntrl
i;liNl
G]
@
E
P
i
r=1
[=]
lol
t
,
3
I
6
?1
rXlmtNl
,
rif.olNj
€
@..
7E
E1
L3l
rx,
Lo-r
!
7
I
mlrxl
ra
[.1
lc!
B
I
7
a;
B
z
!!9Q
6do'o-F5=o
tDo-?6d5t+
coa6ooz
ote
d
=o)d
aoc
ao
,L)
0q
(D
(,I
t
z
a
z.
!,
o
a,
(D
o
I-r.r ooo
FIrt
Erl
rEoE
31iF E ErilP Hi
3EE+ EE!?ia sS
aFE A ='Si9a6 E --iB g520- o a
= .iro !9v
rl
oS;g
=sgo
!F'
EZ
.F90
3<
?>
?F
"ToIt'
o
E2
5
cI
I
.t
t
(2
I
t
B
I lrr
-->4.t- |'1
lll.a<no>-(tifg4-,E6's-P=E.6o
^uli5o)<-9a,,Jon=l
o-40)o.zl-
E
oq
t!
o\
Izlr
D'
o
o(rc
D]
AT
D)
at)(!
z
I-r.l ooo
E'rl
t9'l
E
-\ rl
Siir EEq?1; E:€
5:E E frA.990F :l Fl-:; g:. - r,
ii€* 5s
^a=e i;a?4 0 5
= as,! EiJ
EoF-'
H
cJ
Itz
Foz
t,
7F
It
3ott,
v
7
I
It
z
g
g
o
?e
cr
l.\
\
s\
\\
\
N
\
\\
i
NI--*.
l,I
Erhart Property
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX A
Joint Application Form for Activities
Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota
Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources
in Minnesota
This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetland,
tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to
the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form
(see the paragraph on MPAR5 at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only
applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local
applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the proiect and the location and type of water resources
impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types ofjurisdiction over
different types of resources.
Regulatory Review Structure
State
There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Ast
(WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. lt is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties,
townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state-owned land). The
Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the
Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply
with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one proiect.
Required Information
Prior to submitting an application, applicants are gE9!g!yj!g9gl3gCd to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff
to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed projest. Project proponents can request a pre-
application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in
Sections l through 5 ofthisjoint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a
venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential applicants to discuss their projects with
multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contast information is provided below.
The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations.
. For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A.. For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WcA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation,
submit Parts l through 5, and Attachment B.. For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts I thru 5, and Attachments C and O.. For local road authority activities that qualify for the state's local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1
through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable),and E to both the Corps and the LGU
Minnesota lnteragency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 5
Federal
The St. Paul District of the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project
managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area.
Submission lnstructions
send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to:
U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of
responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District's website at:
htto;//www.mvo.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Resulatorv.asox and select "Minnesota" from the contact lnformation box.
Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the
appropriate field office.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless
specifically requested. TheMPCAwill request a copy of the completed joint a pplication form directly from an applicant when they
determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project.
Wetland Conservation Act LocalGovernment Unit: Send tothe appropriate LocalGovernment Unit. lf necessary, contact your
county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site
(www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGIJ.
DNR Public Waters Permitting: ln 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for
submission of Pu blic Waters permit applications (https://webappsl l.dnr.state.mn. us/mpars/oublic/authentication/losin ).
Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To
avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the
information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts ofthisjoint application form. The MPARS print/save function
will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfY Parts one and two
ofthis joint application. For certain types of activities, the M PARS application may also provide all ofthe necessary information
required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility ofthe Applicant to makesurethat
the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the
project (see Partfourofthejoint application). After confirming that the MPARS a pplication contains all ofthe required
information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the
remainder of the joint application.
Minnesota lnteragency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 5
Project Name and/or Number: Erhart Property
PART ONE: Applicant lnformation
lf applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. lf 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/LandownerName: TIMOTHYA& DAWNE M ERHART
Mailing Address: 9611 Meadowlark LN, Chanhassen, MN 55317-8695
Phone: 612-963-0733
E-mail Address: terhart@riekor.com
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): The Pemtom Land Company c/o Dan Blake
Mailing Address: 7697 Anagram Dr, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 612.282.5482
E-mailAddress: danblake@pemtom.com
Agent Name: Adam Cameron
Mailint Address: 2500 Shadywood Road #130, Orono MN 55331
Phone: 952-401-8757 Ext. fl106
E-mailAddress: Adam@kjolhaugenv.com
PART TWO: Site Location lnformation
County: Carver Cityfownship: Chanhassen
Parcel lD and/or Address: 251550022
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): 5123,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W
Lat/Long (decimal degrees):
Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, hithways.
Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear proiect, length (feet): 46,7
PART THREE: General Project/Site lnformation
lf 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.
Minnesota lnteragency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 PaBe 3 of 5
lf 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 maybe provided by attaching a listto
your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:
htto://www.mvp.usace.armv.mil/Portals/57ldocs/repulatorv/ResulatorvDocs/enqform 4345 2O12oct.pdf
Project Name and/or Number; Erhart Property
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource lmpactl summary
lf your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wedand, lake, tributary, etc) identifo each
impact in the table below. lnclude allanticipated impacts, indudinS those expected to be temporary. Aftaci an overhead vian map,
aerial photo, and/or drawlng showing all of the aquatic resourc€s ln the project area and the lo€ation(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.
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
E Check here ifyou are tequesting a ore€oolication consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the lnformation you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application rerriarv ff this box is drected.
By signature below, I that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to underta work described hereln.
Signature:Date:
I herebv authorize (olhaug Envlronmental to act on my behalf as my agent in the processir€ of thls appllcatlon and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental lnformaffon ln support of thb appllcadon.
I The term 'lmpa€f, as used ln thls tolnt epplldon form b a lenerlc t€rm used for dlsdale purpoees to ld€ntlfy
actMtles ttrt may rcqulre approral from one r more regulatory agendes, for prrpG of thb fonn lt b nd meant to
lndicate wh€ther or not thoee acffvltles may r€qulre mtdgadon/replacemGnt
Minnesota lnterdgency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 page 4 of 5
(ol,
Aquatk Resource
lD (as noted on
overhead via,v)
Aquatlc
Refour€e TWc
(waland, lake,
tributary etc)
ma of tmpa.r
(fi||, excavatg
drain, or
remove
vegetatlon!
Duradon of
lmpact
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(r)'
Size of lmpact'
E dstlry Plant
Crmmunity
Type(s) ln
lmpact Areaa
County, Maror
Watershed ,,
and Bank
Servlce Area s
of lmpact Areas
'tf lmpacts ar" temporary; erter d€ du6don ofthe impacts ln days next to th€'I,. For€Emde, a pmject wtth a tempordry access fillthat
would be r€nEved after 220 days would bc antcred T (220f.
2lmFcts hss than 0.ol acre should be reported ln square feet. lmpacts O.Or. acre or greater should bc reported as acres and rourded to thc
nearest 0.01 acre. Tribulary impacts must be r€ported In linear H of lmpact and an area of lmpact by lndiztllE ffrst the linear feet of impact
abng t le fiotxllne of tne iream ,olloucd by d|€ area impast in parer hesesl. For €,Gmpb, a proiect $at lmpa€ts $ feet of a stream tlat b 6H wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 squaE feet).
Thb is gen€nlly only applicabh if yoi arc appMng for a de minlmb eremption under MN Ruhs 842o.ot2o $bp. 8, ofierwise erfter'N/A'.al)* Wedond PIo,Dts ond nont @nmunity Tlpa o, Mtueto ond Wwnio 3d Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8120.fl05 grbp. 2.
5R€fer to Major Watershed and Bank Servlce Area maps ln Mtt Rul€s 4t20.0522 Subp- 7.
lf any of the abore identified impacts have already occlrred, ldentify whidr impacts they are and the drcumstances associated
with each:
Orerall slze of
Aquadc
Resourte !
I
L
Project Name and/or Number: Erhart Property
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. Pa ul District
(Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply):
I Wetland Type Confirmation
ffi 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 ofthe resources within the review area
(including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc-).
f] Preliminary Jurisdictional Determlnation. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (P.,O) 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 ofa P.lD will treat all
waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PlDs are advisory in nature and may not be
appealed.
! lpproved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that
jurisdictional waters ofthe 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.
ln 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 Guidelinesfor
Submitting Wetlond Delineotions in Minnesoto l2073l.
htto://www.mvo.usace.armv.mil/Mission s/Resulatorv/DelineationJ DGuidance.aspx
Minnesota lnteragency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 5
Erhart Property
Wetland Delineation Report
APPENDIX B
Wetland Delineation Data Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projectisite Erhart Property Cityicounty: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: OSll2l2O2O
State:Sampling Point:SP1.1U
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will EfferE Section, Township. Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W
Landform (hillslope, tenace, etc.):Hillslope Linear
Lat:44'49'59.0'N
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long: 93'32'25.81V Datum:Slope (%): 2 to 4
Soil Map Unit Name Lester-Kilkenny Complex
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time ofthe year? Y (lf no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances,,
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrolosy_ naturally problematic? presenl? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of lants
Hydrcphytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators ot wetland hydrology present?
Y
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
fyes, optional wetland site lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Numberof Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
Percent of Oominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(A/B)100.00%
3
3
0
140
120
o----
-706-tat
2.36
Hydrophltic Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%-t- Prevalence index is s3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicalors of hyddc soil and wedand hyd.ology must b€
present, unless disurrbed or probl€matic
Tree Suatum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
Saplino/Shrub stratun (Plotsize: l5ftRadius )
Woodvvine skatum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
Acer negundo FAC
1
2
3
4
10 FAC
'|
2
3
4
5
7
8
I
10
30 Y
Herb stratum
100 = Total Cover
10 = Total Cover
(Plot size: 5 fr Radius )
0 = Total Cover
0 = Total Cover
Ulmus ameicana
Rhamnus cathaflica
Absolute
o/o Colrer
"to
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
Staus
FACW
1
2 Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Applicanvowner: See Joint Application Form
,,lWl Classification:None
Dominance Test Worksheet
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total % Cover ot
OBL species 0 x1=
FACW species 70 x 2 =
FAC species __19_, S =
FACU species _9_ "
a =
UPL species _9_, S =
Column totals 110 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)Loc'
Redox Features
C,olor (moist) % Type
Loam0to61oYR 2i1 100
10YR 2t2 30%Clay Loam6to171oYR 2/1 70
30 't oYR 5/2 20%D Clay Loam1oYR 2i 1
10YR 4/3 50%Clay Loam
.Type C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains."Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matix
Hydric soil present? N
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)
Remarks
-I
III II
I
sotL
Hydric So rs
_Histisol (A'l )
Histic Epipedon (A2)
- Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
- Stratified Layers (A5)
-2 cm Muck (A10)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 l )
-Thick Oark Surface (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Samplinq Point: SP1-1U
lndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surfac€ (S7)(LRR K, L)
-lron-Manganese
Masses (F'12)(LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Problematic
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicalors (minimum of one is reouired: check all that aDolv) Secondarv lndicators (minimum of tu/o reouired)
Surface Water (Al ) Aquatic Fauna (813) Surface Soil Cracks (86)
- High Waler Table (A2) -True Aquatic Plants (B 14) - Orainage Pattems (B1O)
- Saturation (A3) - Hydrogen Suffide Odor (C 1 ) - Oryseason Waler Table (C2)
-Water Marks (B1) -Otdized Rhizospheres on Living Roots - Crayfish Bunows (c8)
-sediment Deposits (B2) (c3) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)
- Drifl Deposits (83) - Presence of Reduc€d lron (O4) - Stunted or Stress€d Plants (Dl )
-Algal Mal or Crust (84) -Recent lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils
-Geomorphic
Position (D2)
-lron Deposits (85) (C6) -X- FAcNeutral Test (D5)
- lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87) -Thin Muck Surface (C7)
-sparsely Vegeiated Concave Surface (88)
-Gauge or Well Data (09)
-water-stained Leaves (Bg) -Other (Eplain in Remarks)
Field Observatlons:
Surface wate. present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary fringe)
No X Depth (inches):
tto ---T- oeptr linches):
-
tto ---I- Deptl linches;:
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
-Sandy Redox (S5)
-stripped Matrix (56)
-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
- Depleted Matrix (F3)
- Redox Dark Surface (F6)
- Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
- Redox Depressions (F8)
M17 lo 28
RIV t\4
lndicators of wetland
hydrology present? N
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Proiecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: O5l12l2O2O
Applicanuowner: See Joint Application Form t\,4N Sampling Point:SP1-1W
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron I Will Effertz Section, TowEhip, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W
Landform (hillslope, terace, etc.)Depression Concave
44'49',59.0"N
Local relief (concave, convex, none)
Long: 93'32'25.8'W DatumSlope (%): 0 to 2 Lat:
None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are ,normal circumstances,'
Are vegetation _, soil _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION -- Use scientiflc names of ants.
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology present?
ls the sampled area within a wetland? Y
f yes, optionalwe and site lD: Wetland 1
Remarks: (Explain altemative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier lhan normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(AJB)'100.000/o
1
1
Prevalencs lndex Worksheet
Total 06 Cover of:
OBL species 0 x1=
FACW species 35 x 2 =
FAC species _9_x S =
FACU species _!_x 4 =
UPL species 0 x5=
Column tolals 35 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0--1o-
-6-
o
o--%-(a)
2.00
Hydrophtdic Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >5070-I- Prevalence index is <3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegelation'
(explain)
'lndicatols ol hydric soil and wetand hydrology musl be
pres€nt. unlsss disturb€d or problslnalic
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
I
2
4
5
Herb stratum
'l
2
4
5
7
I
10
Saolino/Shrub stratun
stratum
1
2
35 = Total Cove.
(Plotsize: 15 ft Radius )
0 = Total Cover
(Plot size: 5 fr Radius )
0 = Total Cover
(Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
0 = Tolal Cover
F rax i n us penn sylvani ca
Absolute
o/o Cover
Dominan
t Species
Y
lndicalor
Staus
FACW
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
State:
Soil l\rap Unit Name Lester-Kilkenny Complex ,,lWl Classification:
Y
Y
Y
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Sparsley vegetated concave surface.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed lo document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Texture
Matrix
Color (moist)Loc
Redox Features
Color(moist) % Type
Depth
(lnches)
5 C IV Loam0to61oYR 4i6
10YR 4i6 5 C M Loam6 to 13 30
1oYR 4i 1 65 RM M Loam
'Type C = Concentration, D = Depletion, Ri, = Reduced l\ratrix, irs = Masked Sand Grains '*Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = iratrix
Hydric soil present? Y
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)
Remarks:
IIIIIIIIII
II
II
SOIL
Hydric S ndicators:
Histisol (A1)
-Hislic Epipedon (A2)
-Black Histic (A3)
- Hydroqen Sulfide (A4)
- Stratifi€d Layers (AS)
- 2 cm Muck (A1 0)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al l )
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S'l)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sampling Point: SP1-1W
lndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
- Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shatlow Dark Surface OF12)
- Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be pr€seni, unless disturbed or
problematic
HYDROLOGY
Wstland Hydrology lndicalors:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apolvl Secondarv lndicators (minimum of two reouiredl
Surface Wat€r (A1) Aquatic Fauna (813) Surface Soil Cracks (86)
- High Water Table (A2) -True Aquatic Planls (814) - orainag€ Pattems (B1o)
-X-Saturation (A3) -Hldr€en Sulfide odor (c1) - Dry-season waler Table (c2)
-Water Marks (Bl)
-Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots
-Crayfish
Bunows (C8)
-sediment o6posits (82) (B) Saturation Msible on Aedal lmagery (cg)
- Drin Deposits (B3)
-Presence
of Reduced lron (C4)
- Stunted or Stress€d Plants (Dl)
- Atgat Mat or Crust (B4) - Recent lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils -X- G€omorphc Position (D2)
-lron Deposits (85) (C6) -X- FAc-NeutralTest (D5)
- lnundation Visible on Aerial tmagery (87)
-Thin Muck Surface (C7)
X- Spa6ely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
- Gauge or well Data (D9)
-Wat€rstained Leaves (Bg) -Other (Explain in R€marks)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary fringe)
No x Depth (inchos):
tto ---X- oeptr linches):
-
uo
-oepth
(inches): ----'iI-
Yes
Yes
Yes ----x-
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), ifavailable
Rema s:
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Sandy Gleyed Malrix (S4)
-Sandy Redox (S5)
-stripped Malrix (56)
- Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
- Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
t- Depleted Maldx (F3)
- Redox Dark Surface (F6)
- Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
- Redox Depressions (F8)
Remarks
1oYR 2/'l 95
1oYR 2i 't
---T___l
-T-]
lndlcators of wetland
hydrology present? Y
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: 05l'1212020
State MN Sampling Point:SP2.1U
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will EfferE fection, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:1'l6N R:23W
Hillslope Linear
Slope (%): 2 to 4 Lat:
None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are.normalcircumstances,
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Y€s
SUMiTARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
44"49'59.0'N
Local relief (concave, convex, none)
Long: 93'32'25.8,l^r Datum
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology present?
N
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optionalwetland site lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain altemative procsdures here or in a separate report.)
30{ay precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 Acer saccharum
30 ft Radius )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
Staus
FACU
2 Acer negundo '15 Y FAC
3
4
5
50 = Total Cover
Saolino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
5
Zanthorylum ameicanum 15 Y FACU
Rubus daeus 15 FACU
Ribes ameicanum 5
35 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
I
0
Alliaia petiolata 5
lmpatiens capensis 5 FACW
1
10 = Total Cover
Woodv vine stratum (Plot size: 30ftRadius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominanc€ Test Worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
rhet ere OBI . FACW or FAc 3
Total Number of Dominant
SDecies Across all StEta 6
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.00%
(A)
(B)
(rJB)
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/o Cover of:
OBL species 0 x1=
FACW species 10 x 2 =
FAC species ___?9_ x 3 =
FACU species _65_, + =
UPL species _9_ x 5 =
Column totals 95 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0
n
260
0
340 (B)
3.58
Hydrophytlc Vegetation lndicaloE:
_ Rapid tesl for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
Prevalence index is s3.0'
Morphogical adapiations* (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegeiation'
(explain)
'lndicaloG of hydric soil and \ iedand hydrology must b6
presenl unloss disturbed or pmblemalic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?N
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Applicanvowner: See Joint Application Form
Landform (hillslope, tenace, etc.):
Soil Map Unit Name Lester-Kilkenny Complex ,'lWl Classification:
FAC
N FACW
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Remarks
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type* Loc'*Texture
0to6 N 2.5/'100 Silt Loam
Clay LoamN 2.5/100
10YR 412 sa/o D M Sandy Clay Loam20 to 36 N 2.5/g5
'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS=MaskedSand Grains. '.Location: PL= Pore Lining, M = l/atrix
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)
Remarks
IIIIIIIII
I II
sotL Sampling Point: SP2-1U
lndicators for Problem Hydric Soils:
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
Soil lndicators:
Histisol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sutfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 I )
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (s1)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (36)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Maaix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surtace (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of is reouired: check all that aoolv)
Surface Water (Al )
-High Wat6r Table (A2)
- Saturation (A3)
-Water Ma s (81)
- Sediment D6posits (82)
- Ddfr Doposits (83)
- Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
- lron Deposils (85)
-lnundation Visible on Aerial lmaoery (97)
- Sparsoly V€geialed crncave Surfac€ (88)
-Water-stained Leaves (Bg)
Aquatic Fauna (B'13)
True Aquatic Planis (g'14)
Hldrogen Sumde Odor (Cl)
Oxilized Rhizospheres on Uving Roots
(c)
Presence of Reduc€d lron (O4)
Recent lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils
(c)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Gauge or well Data (Dg)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Secondarv lndicators llollltmutr ol b{oleq
Surfac€ Soil Cracks (86)
Drainago Pattems (810)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Bunows (c8)
Saturation Msible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)
Stunted or Stressed Planis (Dl )
Geomorphic Position (O2)
FAcNeutral Test (O5)
FiEiiR Eaervetonsi
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No X Depth (inches):--T- tto
-
Depth linches): ----2?----X- tto
-Deprlr
linche):
---
lndicators of wetland
hydroloqy present?N
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
6to20
Hydric soil present? N
I
-----r--l
[-r--]--
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface OF12)
Other (explain in r€marks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecvsite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhasservoarver Sampling Date: 0511212020
Applicanuowner: See Jojnt Application Form State tuN Sampling Point:SP2-1W
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will EfferE Section, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:'116N R:23W
Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none)
Long: 93'32'25.8"W Datum
Concave
Slope (%): 0 to 2
Soil Map Unit Name Hamel Consociation PFOlA
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no. explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _,soil _ . or hydrolosy_ significanty disturbed? Are "normal circumstances.
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Lat:44"49's9.0'N
Hydrophytic veqetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology present?
Y
Y
Y
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optional wetland site lD: Wetland 2
Remarks: (Explain altemative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
Absolute
o,/" Cover
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
Staus
1
3
4
5
0 = Total Cover
Saolino/Shrub stratun (Plotsize: 15 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
0 = Total Cover
He.b stratum (Plot size: 5 ft Radius )
,l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
10
Ca tda mi ne pe nsylva nica
A iaria petiohta
55 = Total Cover
Woodv vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
rhat are OBI . FACW or FAC 'l
Total Number of Dominant
Speci€s Across all Strat ,___j_
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.00%
(A)
(B)
(AJB)
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/o Cover of:
OBL species _9_ x I =
FACW species 50 x 2 =
FAC species 5 x3=
FACU species _g_ x 4 =
UPL species __L_x 5 =
Column totals 55 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0
100
15
0
0
rrs re)
2.09
Hydropht/tic Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%-t- Prevalence index is s3.O'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicalors of hydric soiland wedand htsroiogy must be
pres€nl, unla:s distulbed or p.oblematic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?Y
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Landlorm (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
\JWl Classilication:
lmneliens cencnsis
Solidago gigantea
30 Y FACW
10 -l- FACW-10-NFrcW
5NFrc
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)Loc"
Redox Features
Color(moist) 'h TyW Texture Remarks
0to16 N 2.s/100 l\,4ucky Loam
'Type:C = Concenkation, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matsix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. '*Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric soil present? Y
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks
SOIL
Hydric Soil lndicators:
_Histisol (A1)
Histjc Epipedon (A2)
-Black Histic (A3)-I- Hydrogen sulfide (A4)
Stratilied Layers (A5)-i-2 cm Muck (A1o)
-Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Da* Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
X
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sampling Point: SP2-1W
lndicators for Problematic Hydric Solls:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Da* Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
HYI)ROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apDlv)
Surface Water (A l ) Aquatic Fauna (813)
-X- High Wate. Table (A2) - True Aquatic Plants (B 14)
-X-Saturation (A3) -X-- Hydrogen Sutfide Odor (C't)
lndicators minimum of
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
-Drainage
Pattems (BlO)
-Dry-season
Water Table (C2)
- Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-saturation
Visible on Aorial lmagery (Cg)
- Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)-X- Geomorphic Position (D2)-X- FAc-Neutral Test (D5)
water Marks (Bl)
-sediment Deposits (82)
- Ddfl Deposits (83)
-Agd Mat or Crust (84)
-lron Deposits (85)
-lnundation
Visible on Aerial lmagery (87)
- Sparsely Vegetated C,oncave Surface (88)
-WateFstained Leaves (Bg)
Oxidized Rhizosphgres on Living Roots
(ca)
- Presence of Reducod lron (C4)
- R€c€nt lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils
(6)
-Thin Muck Sudace (C7)
Gaug€ or well Data (Dg)
-Other
(Balain in Rema*s)
No X Depth (inches):
ruo
-oepth(inches):
7
No
-
De;!h iincnesl:
-6--
Yes
Yes
Yes
x---x-
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary tringe)
lndicators of welland
hydrology present?
Describe recorded data (sfeam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
o/o
=
=m
|---T-+
----T----t
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecusite Erhart Property city/County: chanhassen/Carver sampling Date: osl1u202o
Applicanvowner: See Joint Application Form State:MN Sampling Point sP3-1U
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Section, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:1'l6N Ri23W
Local relief (concave, convex, none)
Long: 93'32'25.81V Datum
Linear
Slope (o/"): 2to4 44"49',59.0',N
Soil Map Unit Name Hamel Consociation None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions ofthe site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in rema*s)
Arc vegetation _, soil _ , or hyd.olosy_ signilicantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances,
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrdosy_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Lat:
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndic€tors of wetland hydrology present?
N
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optionalwetland site lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Absolute
oh Covet
JC
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
Staus
FACU
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
Acer saccharum
35 = Total Cover
Saplino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
5
Zanthoxylum ameicanum 15 FACU
15 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ft Radius )
,|
2
3
4
7
8
9
0
10 FACU
Glechoma hederacea
S.tdago ca*adersls
10 FACU
10 FACU
1
30 : Total Cover
Woodv vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet
0 (A)
(B)
(NB)
5
0.00"/"
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/. Cover of:
OBL species _9_ x t =
FACW species 0 x2=
FAC species _g_ x 3 =
FACU species -_99_ x 4 =
UPL species _g_ x 5 =
Column totals 80 (A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
0
o-a-
0
s2o lel
4.00
Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
- Prevalence index is (3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicators of bdric soil and u/stand htsology must b€
presenL unlegs distrd€d or pmblerrelic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?N
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Hillslope
,,lWl Classification:
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Rubus idaeus
Profile Description: (Oescribe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Remarks
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)Loc**
Redox Features
Color (moist) Yo TyW Texture
Loam0lo 24 1oYR 2/1 100
10YR 4t2 50/o D N4 Clay Loam24 lo 48 10YR211 s0
10YR 4/6 c Clay Loam
'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced l\ratrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks
IIIIII
III
III
II
SOIL
Hydrlc Soll lndicatorsi
Histisol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
-Btack Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sutfide (A4)
- Straffied Layers (AS)
- 2 cm Muck (A10)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 1 )
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (56)
Loamy Muc*y Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gle)€d Malix (F2)
Depleted Matnx (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surfac€ (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
lndicators for c Hydric Soils:
Coast PGirie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
-lron-Manganese
Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface ffF12)
- Other (explain in remarks)
tlndicators of hldrophytic vsgetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
HYDROLOGY
Wotland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apolv) Secondarv lndicators (minimum of two reouired)
Surfac€ Waler (A1) Aquatic Fauna (813) Surfac€ Soil Gacks (86)
- High Water Table (A2) - True Aquatic Plants (814) - Orainage Pattems (Bl O)
-Saturation (A3) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) - Orrsoason Water TaUe (C2)
-Watar Ma*s (81)
-Oxi{rized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots -C.ayfsh
Burows (C8)
-sediment Deposits (82) (C ) -saturation
Visible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)
- Drifl Deposits (83) - Presence of Reduced lron (C4)
- Stunted or Str€ss€d Plants (Dl )
-Algal Mat or Crust (84)
-Recent lron Redudion in Tilled Soils
-Geomorphic
Po6itbn (02)
-kon Deposits (B5) (C6)
-FAcN€utralTest
(O5)
- lnundation Msible on Aerial lmagery (87) - Thin Muck Surtace (C7)
- Sparsoly Vegetatod Concave Surface (B8)
- Gauge or Well Data (Dg)
-Water-stained
Leaves (Bg)
-Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Watertable present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary f ringe)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No X Depth (inches):
tto ---X- Oepttr linches):
-
N. -"'-i-;drh iinchesi:
-
lndicato.s ofwetland
hydrology present?N
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
[,4
Hydric soil present? N
-----r---
Sampling Pointr SP3-1U
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Project/Site Erhart Proper9 City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: O54A202O
Applicanuowner: See Joint Application Form State MN Sampling Point: SP3-1W
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Section, Township, Range: 3:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none)Concave
Slope (%): 0 to 3 Lat 44'49',59.0'N Long 93'32'25.8"W Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Essexville Consociation !Wl Classification None
Arc climatic/hydrologic conditjons of the site tlricalfor this time of the yeaf Y (lf no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are.normal circumstanc€s'
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology present?
ls the sampled area within a w€tland? N
f yes, optional wetland site lD: W"tt"nd f-
Absolute
o/o Cover
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
StausTree Stratum (Plot size: 30 fr Radius )
0 = Total Cover
Saplinq/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
0 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
6
7
I
I
10
Phalais arundinacea 80 Y FACW
Uiica Dioica 5
85 = Total Cover
Woodv vine stratum
,|
(Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
lhat are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
I (A)
(B)
(A/B)
1
100.00%
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/o Cover of:
OBL species 0 x1=
FACW species 85 x 2 =
FAC species __g_x 3 =
FACU species _g_ x 4 =
UPL speci€s _g_x 5 =
Column totals 85 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0
1n
o
0""-:-
U
rzo rel
2.00
Hydrophytlc Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%-F Prevalence index is <3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicators of hrdric sdl and wetand hFrology must b€
pres€nt, unless disturb€d o. problffralic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?Y
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Y
N
Y
Remarks: (Explain altemative proc€dures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical.
1
2
3
4
5
N FACW
Protile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type. Loc-Texture Remarks
c N1 Clay Loam1oYR 2i1 95 10YR 4/6 5
100 Sapric Muck20 lo 23 N 2.5/
N 2.5/100 Clay Loam
30 to 33 1oYR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 c Clay Loam
'Type: C = Concentration, D= Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Loc€tion: PL= Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Restictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks
IIIII
II
IIIII
SOIL
Hydric Soll lndicators:
Histisol (Al)
-Histic Epip€don (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrogen Sumde (A4)
-Stratifi€d byers (A5)
-2 cm Muck (A1O)
- Deplet€d Below Dark Surtace (A11)-I-Thick Dark Surfaco (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
lndicators for Probl
Sampling Point: SP3-1W
ric Soils:c
HYDROLOGY
_ sandy Gle!€d Matrix (S4)
_Sandy R€dox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (56)
- Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
- Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
- D€pleted Matrix (F3)-I- Redox Dark Surface (F6)
- Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
- Redox Depressions (F8)
Coast Praide Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, t- R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface (IF12)
-Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wehand
hydrology must be pres6nt, unless disturbed or
problematic
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of is reduired: check all that aoolvl
Surface Waler (A'l )
- High Wat€r Table (A2)
- Saturatlon (A3)
-Water Ma*s (Bt)
-sediment O€posits (82)
- Ddn oeposits (B3)
- Algal Mat or Crust (94)
- hon Deposits (85)
- lnundation Msible on Aerial lmagsry (87)
- Spsrsety vegetiated Concave Surfac€ (88)
- Water-stained L€aves (Bg)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
-True Aquatic Planls (Bl4)
-X-Hydrcg€n Sumde Odor (Ci)
-Ondized Rhizo6phs.es on Living Roots
(G)
-Presencs
of Reduced lron (c4)
- R€c€ni lron Rodudion in Tilled Soils
(6)
-Thin Muck Su ace (C7)
- Gauge or well oata (Dg)
- Olher (Explain in R6marks)
Secondarv lndicators (minimum of two reouiredl
Surfacs Soil Cracks (85)
- Ordinage Patt€ms (Bl O)
- Dry€eason water Tabts (C2)
-C.ayfsh
Burows (c8)
- Satu.ation Visible on Aerial lmag€ry (Cg)
-Stunt€d
or Stressed Plants (D1)
T Ggomorphic Position (D2)
T reC-Hetrtrat test 1oS;
No X Depth (inches):
No
-
Deptn linchesl: -----Z-
ruo
-
o"pu, iin;heai: -----16-
Fieii!-O5servaaions;
Surface water present?
Water lable present?
Saturation present?
(includes c€pillary fringe)
Yes
Yes ---T-
Yes ---X-lndicators of wetland
hydrology present?Y
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Rernall<s
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
0to20
23 to 30
M
Hydric soil present? N
=-----r---
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: OS|12DO20
State [.i N Sampling Point: SP4-1U
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will Eflertz Section, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:'116N R:23W
Landform (hillslope, terace, etc.)Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none)Linear
,14'49'59.0"N Long:93"32',25 8',W Datum
Soil Map Unit Name Hamel Consociation None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in rema*s)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrolosy_ signific€nuy disturbed? Are .normal circumstances.
Are vegetation _,sdl _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Y6s
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answem in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology preseni?
N
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optionalr ?etland sile lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain altemative procedures here or in a separale report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 fr Radius )
Absolute
o/o Cover
30
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
Staus
FAC1
2
3
4
5
Acer negundo
Carya cotdifomis 30 FACU
60 = Total Cover
Saolino/Shrub stratun (Ploi size: l5ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
5
Rhamnus cathaiica 20 Y FAC
Zanthoxylum ameicanum Y FACU
25 " Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 fi Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
't0
Atctium minus 10
Woodv vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominancs Test Worksho€t
Number of Dominant Species
lhal a.e OBI FACW or FAC 2
Total Number of Oominanl
SDecies Across all St"aE,a
Perc€nt of Dominant Species
lhat are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.00oi
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/o Cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column tolals
0
x2=
x3=
x4=
x5=
0
0 0--i6-50
45 180
-6-0G-tat 330 (B)
Prevalence lndex = B/A = 3,47
Hydrophytic Vegstation lndlcators:
_ Rapid test tor hydrophytic vegetrtion
Dominance test is >50%
Prevalence index is s3.0'
Morphogic€l adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicators of hyddc soil and wodand hydrology must b€
pres€nt. unles.s disluded or problemetic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
presenl?N
Rema.ks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Applicanuowner: See Joint Applic€tion Form
Slope (%): 2 io 4 Lat:
!Wl Classiflcation:
Y FACU
10 . Total Cover
Protile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Remarks
Depth
(lnches)o/.
Matrix
Color (moist)Loc"
Redox Features
Cofor(moisl) o/. Ty!F-Texture
Loam0to101oYR2t1100
1oYR 4i3 D Clay Loam1oYR 2i1 s0
1oYR 4/6 50A c M Clay Loam
20 to 36 1oYR 2/1 70 1oYR 4i3 2s%R[,,t Clay Loam
1oYR 4/6 5 C t\l Clay Loam
'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = R€duced Matrix, MS = Masksd Sand Grains. "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matix
Hydric soil present? N
Restictive Laysr (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
IIIII
I
IIIIII
SOIL
Hydric Soll lndlcatoE:
Histisol (Al )
-Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrog€n Sumde (A4)
-stratified La},ers (A5)
-2 cm Muck (A'lO)
- Deplel€d Below Dark Surface (A11)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripp€d Matrix (56)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sampling Point: SP4-1U
lndicators Hydric Soils:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) GRR K, L, R)
- Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
-lron-Manganese
Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Oark Surface (rF12)
- Other (explain in rema*s)
'lMicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must b€ present, unless distuded or
problematic
HYOROLOGY
W€tland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is r€ouired: check all that aoolvl Secondarv lndlcalors (minimum of two reouired)
Surface Wate. (A1) Aquatic Fauna (813) Surface Soil Cracks (86)
- High Water Table (A2) -True Aquatk Planls (81,1) - Drainage Pattems (B1O)
- Satrration (A3) - Hydtog€n Sulfide Odo. (C1) - Dry-season Water Table (C2)
-Water Mafts (B'l)
-Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots - Crayfish Burows (Cg)
- Sediment Depcits (92) (Ca) - Saturaiion Visible on Aerial lmagsry (C9)
- Ddfl Deposits (B3) - Presence of Reduced lron (C4) - StuntEd or Stressed Plants (D1)
- Ahal Mat or Crust (84) Rocent lron R6dudion in Tilled Soils - Geomorphic Position (D2)
-lron D€posits (85) (C6) - FAGNeut-al Test (D5)
- lnundation Visible on A€rial lmagery (87) -Thin Muck Surface (C7)
- Sparsely Vegetaled Conc€vo Surface (B8)
- Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Water-Stained Leaves (B9) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
FleldObservaaionsi
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(indudes capillary fringe)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No X Depth (inches):
tto ---T- Deptn linchesl:
-
tto ---X- oepttr iinchesi:
-
lndicators of wetland
hydrology present?N
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoing well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
Midwest Region
'10 to 20
----T---
I
=
US Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: OS\A202O
Applicanuowner: See Joint Application Form State:l\.,1N Sampling Point: SP4-1W
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will Efferu Section, ToMShip, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W
Depression ConcaveLocal relief (concave, convex. none)
Long: 93"32'25.8"\ / Datum44'49'59.0'N
Soil Map lJnit Name Lester-Kilkenny Complex \,lWl Classilication PEt\r l A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in rema*s)
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrolosy_ significandy disturbed? Are 'normal circumstances,
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrolosy_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientitic names of plants
Hydrophytic vegetation pr€sent?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology pr€sent?
Y
Y ls the sampled area within a wetland? Y
f yes, optional wetland site lD: Wetland 4
Rema.ks: (Explain altemative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical.
Absolute
o/o covet
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
StausTree Stratum (Plot size: 30 n Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
Saolino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15 ft Radius )
,|
2
3
4
5
0 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 n Radius )
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
I
0
Phalais arundinacea 80 FACW
Unica Dioica 5 N FACW
1
85 "Totalcover
Woodv vine sfatum (Plot size: 30ftRadius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Oominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 (A)
(B)
(A/B)
1
't00.00%
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total % Cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column totals
0
x2=
x3=
x5=
0
170--n-
-6--6-T
2.N
85
0
0
0
8s (A)(B)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetatlon lndlcators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test is >50%-I- Prevalence index is s3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicators of hyddc soil and w€dand hldroloOy must b€
pr€s€nl. unless disturb€d or prcbl6malic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Landtorm (hillslope, tenace, etc.):
Slope (%): 1 to 2 Lat:
0 = Total Cover
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm lhe absence of indicato6.)
Remarks
Depth
(lnches)o/.
Matrix
Color (moist)
Redox Features
Color(moist) % TlDe' Loc"Texture
Clay Loam0to18'1oYR 2/1 100
100 Clay Loam18 to 36 1oYR 3/1
36 to 40 '1oYR 4/1 95 1oYR 4/6 5 c M Clay Loam
'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Location: PL= Pore Lining, l\, = l\ratrix
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)
Rernarj<s:
III
I
II
II
II
sotL
Hydric Soil lndicators:
Histisol (Al )
- Histic Epipedon (A2)
- Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrogen Sultide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
-2 cm Muck (A1O)
- Depleted Below Dark Surtace (A1l)-I-Thick Dark Surface (A12)
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
-5 cm lrucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripp€d Matrix (56)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl )
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sampling Point: SP4-1W
lndicators tor Problematic Hydric Soils:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface (IF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicarors of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Problematic
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that aoolv\
Surfacs Water (Al )
- High water Table (A2)
Saturalion (A3)
-Water Marks (B1)
-sediment Deposits (82)
-Drift Deposits (83)
-Algal Mat or crust (84)
-lron Deposits (85)
-lnundation
Visible on Aerial lmagery (87)
- Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (88)
-wator-stained Leaves (89)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
True Aquatic Plants (814)
Hydrogen Sumde Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheros on Living Roots
(ca)
Presence of Reduced lron (C4)
Recent lron R€duction in Tilled Soils
(c6)
Thin Muck Surfac€ (C7)
Gauge or Well Data (Dg)
Other (Explain in Rema*s)
lndicators minimum of
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
- Drainage Pattems (B1O)
- Dry-season Water Table (C2)
- Crayfsh Bunows (C8)
Saturation Vlsible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)
-stunted or Stressed Plants (D'1)-;- Geomorphic Position (D2)
--X- FAc-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present2
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes
Yes ---T-
Yes ---7-
No X Depth (inches):
tto
-Depth
linches): -----Til-
t'lo
-
oepttr iinctresi: 7i-
lndicators ofwetland
hydrology present?
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Hydric soil present? Y
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Projecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: OS|12DO20
Applicanuowner: See Joint Application Form SP-A
lnvestigator(s): Adam Cameron & Will EfferE Section, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:116N Ri23W
Landform (hillslope, terace, etc.):Swale Local relief (conc€ve, convex, none)
Long: 93'32'25.84V Datum
Concave
Soil i,4ap Unit Name Hamel Consociation None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typicalfor this time of the year? Y (lf no. explain in remarks)
Are vegetation _, soil _ , or hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are'normal circumstances'
Are vegetation _, soil _ , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answe.s in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientiflc names of plants
44'49',59.0"N
Y
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optionalwetland site lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain altemative procedures here or in a s6parat6 report.)
30{ay precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical.
Absolute
o/o Cover
Dominan
t Species
lndicato.
StausTree Stratum (Plot size: 30ftRadius )
1
2
3
4
5
Saplino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15 fr Radius )
,l
2
3
4
5
0 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 fl Radius )
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
Phalais arundinacea 90 Y FACW
90 = Total Cover
Woodv vine stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheel
Number of Oominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all St'ata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 (A)
(B)
(A/B)
1
100.00%
Prevalence lndex WorlGheet
Total o/o Cover of:
OBL species _g_x I =
FACW species 90 x 2 =
FAC species 0 x3=
FACU species _g_ x 4 =
UPL species _g_x 5 =
Column totals 90 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0
1S0
0
o-- 0--
rso 1e1
2.N
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicatoE of hldric soil and wedand hydrology must be
present unless disturbed or pmbl€matic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
State:IVN Sampling Point:
Slope (%): 1 to 2 Lat:
,,lWl Classilication:
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndicators of wetland hydrology present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicators:
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetalion
X Dominance test is >50%-I- Prevalence index is <3.0*
0 = Total Cover
Profi le Description: (Desc ribe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
Depth
(lnches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Loc**
100 Loam0to41oYR 2i1
1oYR 2/1 55 10YR 4/3 45 M Loam4to8
D M Clay Loam8lo 22 1oYR 2/1 97 1oYR 4/3 3
25 D M Clay Loam22lo 36 1oYR 2/1 75 10YR 4/3
10YR 4/3 30 D Clay Loam36 lo 48 1oYR 2/1 70
'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric soil present? N
Restrictive Layer (if obsewed):
Type:
Oepth (inches)
Remarks
I II
SOIL
Hydrlc Soil lndicators;
Histisol (A1)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)
-Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
-stralified Layers (A5)
-2 cm Muck (A10)
-Dedeted Below Dark Surface (A'11)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S'1)
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matnx (56)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sampling Point SP-A
lndicators lor Problematic Hydric
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primarv lndicators (minimum ofone is reouired: check allthat apolv') Secondarv lndicators (minimum of two reouired)
Surface Water (Al ) Aquatic Fauna (913) Surface Soil Cracks (86)
- High Water Table (A2) - True Aquatic Plants (B'14) - Drainage Pattems (Bl O)
- Saturation (A3) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1 ) - Drrseason Water Table (C2)
-Wat€r Marks (81)
-Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Rools - Crayfsh Bunows (C8)
-sediment Deposits (82) (Ca) - Saturation Msible on Aedat lmagery (C9)
- Drift Deposits (83)
-Presence
of Reduc€d lron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D'1)
- Algal Mat or Crust (Bt) Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils - Geomorphic Position (D2)
- lron Deposits (B5) (C6) -X- FAC-Neut!-al Test (D5)
- lnundation Msrble on Aerial lmag€ry (87)
-Thin Muck Surface (C7)
-sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Gauge or Well Data (Dg)
-Water-stainod
Leaves (89) - Oth€r (Elplain in Remarks)
FieiilO6servaaions:
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No x Depth (inches):
tto ---X- Oepttr linches;:
-
N" -i-D"h iinchesj:
-
lndicatoE of wetland
hydrology present?
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
o
RM
t\,4
l
-T-------___lI
tl
I
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
- lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Dark Surface CfF12)
-Other (explain in remarks)
N
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midurest Region
Proiecusite Erhart Property City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: 0511212020
ApplicanVOwner: See Joint Application Form State:t\,4N Sampling Pointi SP-B
lnvestigato(s): Adam Cameron & Will Eflertz Section, Township, Range: 5:23,24,25,26 T:'1'l6N R:23W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Swale Concave
Slope (%): 1 to 2 Lat:44'49',59.0"N
Soil Map Unit Name Hamel Consociation ,lWl Classification None
Are climaticihydrologic conditions of the site typicalforthis time of the year? Y (lf no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation -____!_, soit _ . or hydrolosy_ significandy disturbed? Are "normal circumstances.
Are vegetation _,soil _ , or hydrolosy_ naturally problematic? p.esent? Yes
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (lf needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soil present?
lndic€tors of wetland hydrology present?
N
N
N
ls the sampled area within a wetland?
f yes, optionalwetland site lD:
N
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
30-day precipitation rolling total drierthan normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical.
Absolute
Yo Cover
Dominan
t Species
lndicator
StausTree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
3
4
0 = Total Cover
Saolino/Shrub stratun (Plot size: 15ftRadius )
0 = Total Cover
Herb stratum (Plot size: 5 ft Radius )
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
0
0 = Total Cover
Woodv vine slratum (Plot size: 30 ft Radius )
1
2
0 . Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all St'ata:
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0 (A)
(B)
(A/B)
0
0.00%
Prevalence lndex Worksheet
Total o/o Cover ol
OBL species _9_ x t =
FACW species 0 x2=
FAC species _g_ x 3 =
FACU species 0 x4=
UPL species 0 x5=
Column totals 0 (A)
Prevalence lndex = B/A =
0
o
o
o
o---d-(B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicators;
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
Dominance test is >50%
- Prevalence index is s3.0'
Morphogical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_ separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
(explain)
'lndicatorc of hldric soil and wetand hydmlogy must b€
present unless disturb€d or prcblomelic
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present?N
Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Sample point was void of vegetation, was observed to be burnt and scraped
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long: 93'32'25.8'l/Y Datum:
1
2
3
4
5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
Depth
(lnches)ok
Matrix
Color (mdst)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Loc"
0lo 24 '1oYR 2/1 100
93 1oYR 4/1 50/o D Clay Loam24toM1oYR 2/1
1oYR 4/6 c tV Clay Loam
'Type: C = Concentmtion, D = Oepletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric soil present? N
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)
Remarks
IIIIIIIITIIIIII
II
II
I
SOIL Sampling Point:SP-B
lndicators for Problematic Hyd c Soils:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
-Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L)
-lron-Manganese
Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
-Very Shallow Da* Surface [fF12)
-Other (explain in remarks)
'lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand
hydrology must be present, unless disturlred or
problematic
ydric Soil lndicators:
Histisol (A1)
- Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
- Stratmed Layers (AS)
-2 cm Muck (A1O)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surfacs (A12)
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
-5 cm Mucky Peal or Peat (S3)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Sfipped Matrix (56)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gle)€d Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Da* Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicatoB:
Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that aoolv) Secondarv lndicators lminimum of two reouired)
Surface Water (Al ) Aquatc Fauna (813) Surtuce Soil Cracks (86)
- High Water Table (A2) -] rue Aquatic Plants (B'14) - Drainago Pattems (B1O)
-&turation (A3) - Hldrogen Sumde Odor (C1) - Dry-season Water Table (C2)
- Water Marks (B'l ) - Oxidized Rhi2ospheres on Living Roots - Crayfsh Bunows (C8)
- Sediment Deposits (82) (6) - Saturaton Visible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)
-Drn Depos s(43) - Presence of Reduced lron (C4) - Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
-Algal Mat or Crust (84) - Recenl lron Rodudion in Tilled Soils
-Geomorphic
Po6i$on (D2)
-lron Deposits (85) (c6) - FAc-Nedrdl Test (D5)
- lnundation Vrsible on Aerial lmagery (87) -Thin Muck Surface (C7)
-sparsely Vegetated Concave surfac€ (88)
-Gauge or well Data (Dg)
-Water-stained
Leaves (Bg) -Other (EQlain in Remarks)
FiAiil6b-servaiions;
Surface water present?
Water table present?
Saturation present?
(includes capillary f ringe)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerjal photos, previous inspections), if available
RematG:
Drainage tile observed
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
I
No X Depth (inches):
No - X Oepttr linches):
-
No ---T- Oepttr linchesl:
-
lndicators of wetland
hydrology present? N
Erhart Property
Wetland Delineation Report
Precipitation Data
APPENDIX C
612412020
State Ctimatotogy Office - DNR Division of Ecotogical and Water Resources
[\il innesota State Climatology Office
home I cunent conditions ljournal lpastdata lsummaries lagriculture lothersites I about us I
Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database
Precipitation data for target wetland location:
county: Carver township number: 116N
township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W
nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23
Aerial photograph or site visit date:
Tuesday, May 12,2020
Score using 1981-2010 normal period
Other Resources:
. retrieve daily precipitation data. view radar-based precipitation estimates. view weekly precipitation maps. Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR)
values are in inches
A'R'following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from
radar-based estimates.
first prior
month:
April
2020
second prior
month:
March 2020
third prior
month:
February
2020
estimated precipitation total for this location:1.68R 2.51R 0.61R
1.9'l 1 .17 0.40
there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:2.89 2_05 0.97
type of month: dry normal wet dry wet normal
2*3=6 1*2=2
multi-month score:
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (weo
climateapps.dnrstale.mn,us/gridded data/precip^,vetlandlworksheet.asp?passxutm33=456391&passYutmS3=496941&passcounty=Carver&passcou... 1/1
Precipitation Documenlation Worksheet Using Gridded Database
there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:
monthly score 3*1=3
11 (Normal)
+ (.,go
Alt
-CL!l
g
:,
ao
t
I
I
i
I
II
?aed.r(N6'
oNo
(n
o
t1;'
6.ifa.)
0J -a3i,.Efr
t.,)<9ZL
a:of
Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches)
(,sNoN
N)o
N
N
O)
No
o
3o
9Q
TNoo
9.
I
o.e. _.'<s'('{esQ. i5
!
oo.o>
=Jl\CINaoo
d
5
No,
N)O
(,
No
t
a
9.tt
0r
Gto
o
3g)
I
I
Erhart property, Chanhassen MN: Precipitation Summary
Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group
Month'ly totals: 2020 (latitude: 44.84104longitude: 93.55178)
rarset: 116N23W S23
mon year
lan 2020
cc
1,0 110L
10 1
10 110L
w1w1w1w1
b2r2r2y2
tttN rrw ss nnnn oooooooo pre
l,6N 23w 23 BYRG .80
(.i nches)
Fe
Ma
Ap
Ma
020
020
020
020
5 NWS CHAN-NWS
5 NWS CHAN-NWS5 NWS CHAN-NWS
5 NWS CHAN_NWS
February/March/Apri 1 /uay Dai'ly Records
L6N 23
16N 23
16N 23
16N 23
.59
2.88
t .84
5.L2
Date Preci p.
Feb 1
Feb 2Feb 3Feb 4Feb 5Feb 6Feb 7Feb 8Feb 9
Feb 10
Feb 11
Feb 12
Feb 13
Feb L4
Feb 15
Feb 16
Feb 17
Feb 18
Feb 19
Feb 20
Feb 21
Feb 22
Feb 23
Feb 24
Feb 25
Feb 26
Feb 27
Feb 28
Feb 29
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
0
0
0
0
0
T
05
0
40
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
L4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
T
T
Date trec i p.
Mar
[!ar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
1,3
L4
L5
16
17
L8
l-9
20
27
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l-
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
0
0
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
08
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
Ma
MA
MA
ita
t"la
MA
MA
MA
i,ta
Ma
r
rrr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rrr
rrr
?
rrrrr
r
r
r
r
r
0
07
0
0
0
01
N.ta
14a
It4a
T
T
.48
0
T
.05
.09
0
.19
0
.03
1.57
.31
0
0
MA
MA
MA
MA
DateApr 1Apr 2Apr 3Apr 4Apr 5Apr 6Apr 7Apr 8Apr 9
Apr 10
Apr LL
Apr 12
Apr L3
Apr 14
Apr 15
Apr 16
Apr L7
Apr L8
Apr 19
Apr 20
Apr 2L
Apr 22
Apr 23
Apr 24
Apr 25
Apr 26
Ap? 27
Apr 28
Apr 29
Apr 30
Precip.2020 02020 .032020 .022020 02020 T2020 02020 .012020 02020 .012020 02020 02020 .492020 .o22O2O T2020 r2020 02020 02020 02020 02020 .012020 r2020 T2020 02020 .012020 02020 .042020 .082020 r.. r.22020 02020 0
Date
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
Preci p.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
L2
2020
2020
2020
2020
2 020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
T
0
2
0(si te v'i s'it)
'!981 -201 0 Summary Statistics
Jan Feb llar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec WARM WAT
0.47 0.40 1 .17 1 9 1 2.56 3.27 2.94 3.11 2.48 1 .22 1 .O2 0.63 17 .17 29.12 27.76
'l .02 0.97 2.05 2.89 4.35 5.27 4.23 5.25 3.40 1 .36 33.30
0.85 0.73 1 .69 2.61 3.55 4.24 4.07 4.44 3.46 2.43 1 .74 1.10 19.76 30.92 30.74
30%
70%1 .86 22.15 34.31
mean